Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:06, 22 October 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Misplaced Pages obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

More information

Hello Jclemens, Could you please add more information to this image's description http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Electrosurgery.jpg In what hospital was it taken? What is the name of the surgeon? I'd also will appreciate the links to your works that were published in academic journals and magazines. Cheers.--108.60.139.170 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have permission to share any of that information. That's mostly because I never asked, but this is 3.5 years ago now, and that is the reason I never provided it when I uploaded the photo. Neither the surgeon nor the location (nor the patient, presumably) have a Misplaced Pages article, and since the photo was taken focusing on the technique, there was no good reason to.

As far as my various published works, none of them are relevant to Misplaced Pages, and I've seen no reason to list them on-wiki. If you have a particular or specific interest, you can make an account, and email me using the "E-mail this user" functionality once it's confirmed, and I'll respond appropriately in email. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops!

Heads up: Oops! You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper way here T. trichiura Infect me 14:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a Wikipedian

"It's time to face the fact that Malleus is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Misplaced Pages community". In your opinion, but not in the opinion of many others. If you're suggesting it's appropriate to state personal opinion as fact, you should have no problem with many "incivil" comments - they're his opinion, after all. If you're not suggesting that, I would ask that you take this opportunity to amend your comment. I don't generally believe in templating the regulars, so consider this a civility warning; I'm sure you'd agree that holding others to the civility policy while ignoring it yourself is completely inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I don't believe the pillars are subject to wholesale amendment by the community. One doesn't have to like them to be a Wikipedian, one merely has to follow them--all of them--to be a Wikipedian. The fact that you, or even a majority of active editors, might disagree doesn't matter one bit: the WMF funds our existence on the basis of the pillars; we are all subject to them. Malleus has had plenty of instruction in what civil behavior is or is not, and he has chosen to not act in accordance with that feedback. He's chosen his path, as is his right. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought of giving you a warning too. I agree with the general opinion of the supporting arbs, but the way you expressed it was way harsher than it needed to be. Sure, you clarified your definition of Wikipedian, but there's still no reasonable context in which that is acceptable (unless you equated Wikipedian = a person who plagiarizes and said he was not a Wikipedian). --Rschen7754 02:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Harsher than it needed to be? I disagree. It was my best effort to hit just the right level of provocative statement needed to reframe the discussion in terms of what it means to be a Wikipedian. For what it's worth, the next time someone leaks the ArbCom mailing lists, it will be evident that I've been thinking along these lines for weeks. Jclemens (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I asked you weeks ago to put your thoughts on civility into the current RFC so that the community could see where you were coming from. You've failed to do that, despite my multiple requests that you (and other arbitrators who hold strong opinions) do so. The fact that you've refused to put your concepts forward to gauge the extent of community concurrence with them suggests to me that you're well aware that your interpretation of the relevant policies is out of step with that of the community. So...how about putting forward the proposal you posted to Arbcom-L? Run it up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes. Risker (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

May I recall to your memory my Arbcom-L posting of 10 October, where I said in part "I think the fundamental problem with the RfC--any RfC--on civility is that the community cannot solve it, because participation is not restricted TO the community--that is, those who agree with all five pillars." Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are refusing to share the fullness of your opinions on how to address civility problems with the community because you don't believe that people who disagree with you are part of the community? Seriously, Jclemens...just post here what you posted on the list. Let's see how the community responds. Your refusal to do so pretty much invalidates any actions you take based on your personal civility values. The community has a right to know the basis on which an arbitrator is voting. Risker (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be a rather one-sided disclosure, don't you think? Are you giving me permission to disclose what you've had to say on the matter as well? Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one saying someone is not part of the community, Jclemens, you are. I posted my views onwiki during the Civility enforcement arbitration case request; you'll recall that I proposed that what I perceived to be similar degrees of incivility should be sanctioned in the same way. There was no significant support for my proposal, either from the community or from other arbitrators. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I endorsed what you proposed in the civility case, but questioned whether it was the most effective manner to proceed. See my replies of 23:25, 30 September 2012 and 01:29, 1 October 2012 here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I specified "significant" support, which I would categorize as at least 40% of the participating committee members. Risker (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, then, as long as we're clear that I wasn't opposing your ideas. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider what you said to be civil? That seems to be an important question here. --Rschen7754 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

1) If I considered it uncivil, would I have said it? 2) On what basis would it be considered uncivil? While the first question should clearly be read as rhetorical, I am actually interested in your response to the second. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." (WP:CIV). I find it interesting to note that quite a few arbs have distanced themselves from your statement. And should ArbCom be in the business of making "provocative" statements? --Rschen7754 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement isn't directed to Malleus and doesn't expect a reply from him. And at least four or five arbs clearly disagree with me, and I knew that when I posted it. But stating unpopular truths in the interest of furthering and focusing discourse is different than incivility. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But he read it, right? And your fellow arbs had to apologize for you, even the ones voting to support (SirFozzie). I believe that Malleus is a person of integrity. The primary problem he has is that he can't keep his opinions to himself sometimes. I believe that's a serious problem, of course, and I'm definitely on the side of enforcing civility here. But that's exactly what you did here - denigrated another editor of this site. You're welcome to hold the opinion that he's no longer a Wikipedian, but stating it publicly is another issue entirely. Arbitrators should be held to a higher standard. --Rschen7754 03:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if he read it or not. He recently commented elsewhere that "I don't have even the slightest interest in anything you have to say" Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted the revision... still a bit off, but better. --Rschen7754 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea why it might be considered uncivil to say that someone who has devoted hours to this site, who has thousands of good and perfectly policy-compliant edits to articlespace, who has contributed loads to the encyclopedia (y'know, that thing we're all supposed to be building?), is not a member of our community? To dismiss someone's participation by "refram" the discussion according to your own limited definition of what it means to be a Wikipedian? To make a hurtful and deliberately provocative comment just to further a point? To blatantly and cruelly dismiss the whole of a human being because you disagree with a part? Either the answer to your first question is "yes", or your competence is seriously in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was an act of shunning which is the deepest rejection possible. It's beyond incivility. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Going to point out that in the Ottava Rima case, ArbCom did at least treat him with dignity by recognizing his contributions, even as he was sent away. --Rschen7754 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think comments like this are far more insulting than a thousand "twat" comments and was somewhat shocked to see such a comment being made by an Arb. Essentially, you were saying to Malleus that all of the time and effort he has put into this site is somehow negated because of a single human flaw. If someone said a thing like that to me it would be hard to resist cursing them out. It would be like pushing to fire someone from a soup kitchen where they have worked for years because they kept smoking pot during break and then telling them they were never really about helping the poor and homeless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What if the soup kitchen prohibited pot smoking during breaks by their employees?--MONGO 04:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would that justify telling them they contributed nothing to helping the poor? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

To be accurate, it would not justify telling someone they were not sincere about helping the poor. No one doubts Malleus has contributed considerably to Misplaced Pages, but the comment that "he was never a member of the community" is akin to saying he never really cared about Misplaced Pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a very shitty thing to say and you know it. I don't care whether it was civil or not and that's not really the point. You knew it was a shitty thing to say when you posted it and it's not even true. The comment also needlessly adds fuel to the fire and will undoubtedly come back to (deservedly) bite you in the ass. WWNYBD? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Next Internet meme. --Rschen7754 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A very forceful way to put it...thought provoking even. I might have been more inclined to fully agree with the concept of it had you phrased it as at some point awhile ago...Malleus decided to no longer be a Wikipedian. However, I feel you are correct in that the pillars are paramount and it reminds me how important it is that we all do our best to uphold those pillars...and that they bind us all.--MONGO 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a very good point. I think I'll amend my statement to incorporate it, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I have to say, I think it's deeply ironic that you would listen to advice of MONGO, an editor who had a dispute with Malleus on the 9/11 page because of issues of neutrality, when in my view, NPOV is our strongest pillar. It's very easy to re-focus a dialogue (he's incivil and needs to be banned) thus hushing a voice that speaks out for balanced content. In the end we have to think about the product we deliver to our readers and in my view that gets overlooked by POV pushing agenda driven editors all too often. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was promoting conspiracy theories, a violation of NPOV and the undue weight clause...it isn't POV pushing to use reliable reputable references to support the known evidence...IT IS POV pushing to promote fringe theories in non-fringe articles. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained, but it seems straightforward enough to me. Balanced content...at what expense? At the expense of the known facts...? We have articles that go into the conspiracy theories ad nauseum...they exist for a reason. Malleus brought forth "evidence" that the U.S. didn't send fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes...I found a dozen reliable sources that indicated that was incorrect and I added it to the article...I presented the evidence to Malleus and he laughed it off, instead wishing to cite a fringe story that was rife with misinformation and inaccuracies. Exactly who is the POV pusher? The one defending the known evidence or the one pushing fringe theories?--MONGO 23:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The one pushing a POV (you) and then lying about it (you) to get another Wikipedian into trouble. You are beneath despicable, MONGO. --John (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Has it been a year? I thought you said you'd stay away from me for a year. My comment above is fact...I have diffs to prove it. I am neither a liar nor beneath despicable, yet you have unblocked Malleus and defended his actions almost universally. At what point is the indefensible finally indefensible?--MONGO 17:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I missed the above post in the ensuing melee, Truthkeeper. Fact is, I accept advice that makes sense regardless of where it originates. While everyone else was telling me I was completely off base, MONGO posited an improvement that I could not help but admit was right: I don't have an infinite history with Malleus, and can't speak to how things started, even if I've never seen anything other than his current, problematic side. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Your response here to me is what I find deeply disturbing. You say that you support the five pillars, yet in this thread and on the one below you've been given examples of copyvio; above I mentioned an example of NPOV and I think this comment illustrates as well as the one above, that on pages such as September 11 attacks NPOV is hard to achieve. That you can't speak to how things started is the attitude of a suit who doesn't bother to look around the factory floor who responds with "I don't know about this." This is a problem and one that needs to be rectified, because without knowing what's happening on the factory floor, you've elevated yourself, distanced yourself, lost sight of the real problems, and therefore can't be trusted to make decisions about those very factory workers. This is a large and extremely important project and if it's to "managed" by a small group of elected managers, then please spend some time in the trenches to get a different viewpoint of what's really happening on this project. Incivility is rampant, and not the bad word type of incivility; tag-teaming and socking are routinely used for POV pushing; and we have thousands of identified pages filled with copyvio issues without the manpower to fix them. A Malleus is a problem only if he's made to be one and only looking at him is extremely myopic and counterproductive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, your actions are an absolute disgrace to ArbCom for daring to say something like this about a content contributor. You should be banned for six months, not Malleus. You disgust me. Resign from the committee now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't offended by your original, unredacted comment. I think the topic brings out a lot of strong feelings, and even if I thought you were over the line, I respect and acknowledge that occasional errors are part of our being human. Still, having said that, I appreciate your efforts to refocus the statement on the divergent ideas, rather than individual personalities, involved. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you reconcille your ideal "on the divergent ideas, rather than individual personalities", with making statements like, uh, this person is not, ever was "a wikipedian". That goes to the core. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(person) (is || is not) (status), where status is an abstract concept with a non-trivial definition, is fundamentally a statement of an idea, even though a person is the subject of the sentence. Or, if you like, the proposition could be phrased as a proof: "Wikipedians follow all five pillars; Malleus does not follow pillar 4; therefore, Malleus is not a Wikipedian". Contrast that to calling another editor a "Dishonest fuck"; even if we granted for the sake of argument that the first statement could be deduced (accuracy or inaccuracy can; dishonesty implies motive to deceive, and I have yet to see that proven), the latter is gratuitous insult. Jclemens (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind paying me the basic curtsey of answearing the question in fucking English. Its not too much to ask, considering 10 hours ago you were basically calling a friend of mine a non person as far as this project goes, and you were pontificated from on high, judging from the guilded tone you wrote in. We are not all abstract though experament, midgames bloody whatyever game yourself and risker were playing that you lost, some of us are content only trench living non nonsence no bullshit real life here and now people. Guru. Ceoil (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously folks, the greatest sin on wikipedia is not what Malleus or indeed Jclemens says about anybody but the time wasted discussing it on talk pages and pretend law courts. Time is precious as they say and here we are with a website with amazing content potential and you choose to spend your hours on here discussing civility and how one should act. If you simply ignored it and got on editing you;d cut 90% of the wikidrama automatically because its the reaction that sparks things off and makes a bad situation ten times worse. I might respect some of the editors on things like arb, but my personal opinion is that any forum or talk page which is dedicated to discussing the conduct of editors rather than the encyclopedia is as worse a crime as any on wikipedia. I understand that for certain "repeat offenders" then voting them out might be necessary, but we are not here to be perfect, temperless, "civil" human beings, we are supposed to be here to produce content as Nikki did at least say. If you all simply shut the heck up and got on with focusing on content, Jclemens wouldn't need to be warned, and Malleus wouldn't be forced out of wikipedia and things would continue. My observation is that yes, at times Malleus can irk any one of us off with something he says, he did so with me only last week, but if his more "colourful" words are simply ignored and drama is not thrown his way then I think he'd be a lot more productive and happier on here. When he is purely focusing on content he is as good an editor as anybody on here, almost a joy to work with from what I've seen when he is not distracted with pointless bollocks. Yes, he could avoid certain situations, but you make it what it is, there;s no smoke without fire, think about it. If you put such energy and will to comment on such things into article instead we'd be massively better off. We rely on our most dedicated editors as it is but even that is greatly reduced by those who spend their time debating things like this. Sorry, but it had to be said. If I had my way, aside from allowing idle friendly chit chat, I'd ban any discussions on wikipedia not related to improving content and wipe out the bureacratic system, I believe its more trouble than its worth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld, weith all due respect, I dont know or care about you, and get re this folk lets all whatever, get bent. I asked clemens a qestion, he answered with a reply thast was so crypuic as to be a fuck off, so Im asking again, what you have to say I couldnt care less. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Note a wider and more sever disconnect; Blofield, I dont respect you because of you passing shit like this at DYK, where it was at the time sourced to blogs, clearly copyvio, and the nominator clearly young and clearly interested in doing the minimum to get it through at all costs, and you passed it. Thats an example form just this week that I had to hand, thats why I dont respect you, want you to answear for a voting arb so he doesnt have to bother, and typicl of the shit, actual content people put up with each and every fucking day, and then the likes of clemens, from on high mind you, says we dont deal with poor sourced, copyvio medal gathering fucktards like you with nice enough words? Gimme a break already. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"copyvio medal gathering fucktards like you". Are you for real?? Coming from the guy who has stars displayed all across his user page mantlepiece? You're calling me a trophy collector? Haha, you're commenting on Malleus's incivility? That's far worse than anything I've ever heard Malleus say and is worthy of an instant block but I bet nobody even warns you let alone blocks you because you're a content contributor, which is highly ironic in the first place as people appear to believe Malleus is only tolerated for that. In fact it rather reminds me in tone of an indefinitely banned fellow Irishman named Mick, of similar temperament. In regards to the 5 pillars, utter tosh, anybody who has ever constructively contributed content to wikipedia is a wikipedian, wikipedia is not a religion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Difference between you and me is substance. Or did my link, from this week, escape you. Know what you are getting into befopre you tagle, and drop the irish shit. How amazing this all is, but how perfect too. YUou are baiting me on a personal level, hoping I loose my cool. Good man. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

18th Dye, first page listed on your user page yeah that's brilliance! I did nothing to bait you personally or even directly comment at you on a personal level or anybody on arb, you made it personal by your disgusting lowly response. I said in a friendly way its an unfortunate waste of time discussing things which are not important. And frankly your language and attitude is far worse than anything I've ever seen from Malleus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for so blantly displaying your shallowness. Couldnt have said it better myself. And no, Malleus has nothing on me, Im a new level of horribel, how astute of you. Jclemens has good friends indeed. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You've proved me right though that sitting around and discussing "civility" fuels incivility. Thankyou for proving my point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you did there, very nice. Surely, clemens you have better attack dogs than a person who just this week passed an article with blog sources and copyvio. 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Blofield, you got if you have anything better than "I know you are" then say it, cause Im sick of you now. What you do and me pointing it out is more important than keeping any retarded notion of civility. We are opposites, deal with it. Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil and Dr. Blofeld, this isn't helping in any possible way. Please stop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok Brad, but Ceoil and Dr. Blofeld's admitally bad behavour does not get clemens off the hook. My question stands. And who the hell does he think he is to dismiss me like that. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Not a Wikipedian" did you mean it as a compliment? I am asking because as John said oldid=518904576 " If this statement represents our community, I no longer identify with that community. A sad thing to say after nearly 7 years but there you have it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.37.48 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

How can you say that things like copyvio are sacrosanct and I've spent the past two days being subjected to endless personal attacks for trying to keep copyvio from the main page and have been accused of all kinds of conspiracies. This after a year of putting up with bullying by a user whose behavior was apparently okay. Can you please point me a., to the request for arbitration in regards to the TFA case and b., to the original findings on the Malleus / civility case? I'd like the time to read them carefully before being accused of hollowness again. Am trying very hard to get up to speed. It's Friday night, ate pizza late, and you guys ain't slowing down for anything. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with your copyvio battles; point me at them and I'll block editors appropriately. Copyvio and civility are in the same boat: how Misplaced Pages is is not as it should be, and we're all aware of that... but for some reason, otherwise decent editors have been hand-wringing over what is or is not incivil. As for the links, I don't keep them on hand myself, but I go to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index and search there as needed. Let me know if you can't find what you want in those search boxes and I'll try my hand. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Everyone knows every little word uttered by Malleus, but when an editor spends an entire year being bullied, and spends a good chunk of the last few days being maligned and nothing is done about it, the double standard is just astounding. I'm tired and logging out. You might start by having a look at Iridescent's page, my page, WP:TFAR among others. But it's quite honestly all over the place. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've provided the link to the TFAR case. --Rschen7754 02:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

More on Malleus

I'd like to add my express unhappiness with your over-the-top comment that Malleus is not and never has been a Wikipedian. That's a ridiculous comment that illustrates the fact that this is an out of control heretic burning better than any other words ever could. Far more shameful and offensive than any huffy puffing that Malleus has ever delivered. You should consider standing down from ArbCom, frankly. I have no confidence in your judgment and sense of proportion, for one. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

! --Rschen7754 03:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked. Alexandria (chew out) 04:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I just came here considering to do the same thing. I won't, because you made your incivil comment some time before I noticed it, someone else did it first and there is no sense repeating it, and I don't like civility blocks in the first place.

But you just perfectly illustrated a point made repeatedly by Malleus and others: there's a big difference between "being civil" and "not using naughty words". I myself wouldn't call anyone a "dishonest twat" and I haven't looked into the specific context in which Malleus said it, but I can't see it being worse than saying that someone "has never been a Wikipedian" who has helped innumerable editors improve Misplaced Pages and who has contributed massively to content-building. Someone becomes a member of the Misplaced Pages community by contributing to Misplaced Pages, not by ascribing to your preferred set of principles; otherwise we might as well rename it the Misplaced Pages cult. Ucucha (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is any of the above actually of value to Misplaced Pages?

I have tried to figure out exactly why some people seem so horrendously aggrieved by Jclemens' asides - and can not see an ounce of value thereto. It appears Jclemens takes the "Five Pillars" more seriously than some others appear to do - but berating him for that stance seems curiously unimportant.

Frankly, if the "Five Pillars" are "optional" then likely the entire project should be made aware of their obsolescence. Otherwise, we should be forbearing of Jclemens' belief that they are still fundamental.

He may well be wrong in his application of the concept for any particular editor - but it is equally wrong to berate him for it. We, in fact, need more who will be willing to assert the bases of Misplaced Pages, rather than people who will assert that some people need not follow them. Once we make such "special cases" in Misplaced Pages, we might as well simply cross out the "pillars" entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I like this Collect, " but it is equally wrong to berate him for it." Arbs have opinions and convictions. Who ever said we had to agree with or even like their individual opinions or their convictions. Balance comes out of the fact that there are many arbs involved in the judgement process, many opinions, many convictions.(olive (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

Collect, please read and try to understand the article on dehumanization in order to come to grips with why people are upset with Jclemens. It's not enough to have a passion for justice, impersonal as its application may appear. One must also have a heart and a humane touch. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If one considers whether Malleus' editing behaviour shows "a heart and a humane touch", then one might understand why those people who have been informed by Malleus that they are a net negative (in much harsher terms than anything JClemens has said, and with much less reason), aren't "upset with Jclemens". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am here to tell you to stick to your ground. Keep your vote, to show the user that he cannot be uncivil. I admire you. Your comment may not have been correct, but you had a right to make it as the user has been making comments like that monthly. Peace! Pete Rodgersons (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just noting Pete has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 19:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It comes down to what is incivil(what individuals consider is acceptable behaviour). In the view of some the comment 'not a wikipedian' was itself incivil. Therefore the idea about caring for the five pillars while at the same time breaking one is moot. I don't think the situation is unsolvable however as it's helping us come to an understanding of what being uncivil is. And for clarity it's not what is currently written in the policy and hence the current confusion. Regards, Sun Creator 05:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh

I'm just hearing about this now, apparently. While I do think it could have been worded better, I do completely agree with the meaning of your statement about Malleus. And it could probably apply to quite a few more people, besides.

Is there an ANI/AN/whatever on your statement yet that I can comment in? Silverseren 04:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. There's something going on at WT:RFAR, and I suspect someone may start an RfC/U at some point, but I'd pretty much expected the upcoming election to be a defining referendum on my position. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how society complains about how, on the internet, you see the true sides of people where they are nasty and rude and horrible to others. And yet, when we try to hold Misplaced Pages editors to a higher standard than that. Really, to a standard of normalcy that is exhibited in society at large, you get people complaining about that instead. I guess they would just prefer being allowed to be as nasty to other people as they want to, civility be damned. Silverseren 04:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Somehow, there's a substantial faction of Misplaced Pages users to whom my saying matter-of-factly that Malleus isn't a community member because he doesn't abide by our social contract is somehow more offensive than Malleus' own conduct. I'm trying to remember the last time a sitting arbitrator was blocked for speaking his mind while doing his job, and nothing's coming to mind--although I'm sure some Wiki-historians can clue me in if there was. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-historian weighing in: The community does tend to be much more bluster than action when it comes to blocking sitting arbs. I'm not aware of anybody except me ever actually doing it. (My block definitely wasn't for speaking his mind—for the opposite, if anything.) Bishonen | talk 15:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

It's not only more offensive, it's dangerous. That argument has been responsible for every war and every atrocity in human history. You've exceeded the remit of arbcom when you chose to speak freely about things that you shouldn't, thereby doing the community a huge favor and unmasking your real thought process on this matter. You argue that you have the right to dehumanize a person, and you've done this in a most inhumane way using mechanistic logic and procedures to get from A to B. You see nothing wrong with this, which is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is actually that no-one sees a problem with Malleus doing it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Speaking his mind while doing his job" - so now personal attacks are okay while voting as an arb? --Rschen7754 08:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"A sitting arbitrator blocked for speaking his mind"-kind of a kick in the stones, huh? Good thing you didn't say "sycophant". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

JClemens, so you are running again for ArbCom? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so. It seems somehow un-sporting for him to not give me a chance to vociferously vote oppose and encourage anyone watching this saga to do the same. We don't elect arbitrators to declare who is or is not a "real" editor, nor enforce their view of what a "real" editor is - and we don't give anyone, not even the Foundation, the right to define a Wikipedian in a nice little box. Ironholds (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are, of course, two obvious problems with the idiotic statement Jclemens made. First it's an undisguised attempt (whether intentional or not) to cast Malleus as "not one of us". This makes passing sanctions easier because it engenders and us vs. them mentality. That is the kind of incivility (which does not involve a curse word) which we overlook here in the community - low level nasty jibes at each other. A 24 hour block was entirely justified and fair, I am sure a proper apology and retraction by Jclemens would have seen him unblocked. Secondly Jclemens exhibits a personal opinion; Arbcom does this way too much anyway, his was just a gregarious example of the issue. Expressing an opinion about parties to a dispute outright invalidates any chance of committee members' views being worth listening to as anything more than the view of another editor. Arbcom should dispassionately hear evidence, weigh up the balances and decide on the best solutions to keep Wikipedian ticking over. Jclemens appears merely have been using his support vote to attack Malleus based on his own view. --Errant 15:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We need a "What Tom Said" template. Ironholds (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was really hoping for some sanity to emerge here

From our own article on Community, "In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness". The 5 Pillars are the common conditions that affect the identity/degree of cohesiveness in the community that is Misplaced Pages. As explained by Jclemens above (and quite well according to logic - those who call it dismissive might not have read it very clearly).

By definition, those that do not meet nor follow the common conditions are typically not considered part of the community. For example, I am not considered to be a part of the local Muslim community because I am not of that faith group. Similarly, the local artistic community in my town considers membership as those who "create, promote, and earn at least a portion of their income from the visual arts". I only meet two out of three, and therefore am not considered a full member of the community.

I understand the point that Jclemens was trying to make: how can someone be considered to be part of the Misplaced Pages community if they refuse to accept or follow at least one of the conditions of recognition inside that community. This is a philosophical statement, and most certainly cannot be construed as a personal attack towards anyone. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins; I've seen you occasionally use a foul mouth, blow off steam or bite newbies (and disagreed with the attitude you exhibited). Given your relative edit count to Malleus does that mean there is a point at which one too many "fuck" makes you not part of the community? Or indeed, me? --Errant 14:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

At what point on Misplaced Pages has saying the work "fuck" been considered uncivil or violate WP:5P? The community has held otherwise unless it's used as a personal attack. I'm not certain exactly where it's been shown that I bite newbies, as none come to mind. Nice red-herring though :-) By the way, I'm NOT commenting specifically on a user's individual case!!!!!! Everyone knows I have my own comments on Civility as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't very nice of me to say that, was it? (p.s. I am confident I could go through any editors history and find somewhere they bit a newbie, even mine, it's too easy to do). The key issue is: Jclemens was not just making a philosophical point, he was making the point and then applying it to another editor. It was obviously nonsense; incivility is far from well delineated in the community, and groups regularly disagree over what constitutes "civil". I always remember the example of someone moving unfinished articles out of another editors user space & nominating them for GA, to which the editor asked "what the fuck are you doing" and was blocked. Who was the least civil? The trouble with statements such as Jclemens' is that it deals in absolute viewpoints where the swearing/rudeness is too much (don't get me wrong, in the last few months Malleus has seemed to be poking the bear for just such a showdown, which is annoying) and therefore they are no longer of the body. Are you sure you want to agree with such a viewpoint? One of the other pillars is "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia", so following the logic is there are point at which too little article work makes an editor not part of the social contract? --Errant 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're making my point for me: at what point is someone going to have the balls to finally once and for all define civility/lack of civility and close the philosophical circle that keeps coming around and chomping us on the ass? Someone who was elected to that role actually drew a line in the sand ... was it the right line? Who knows? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No. The line here was not over what is/isn't civil. The line is at what point enough people dislike an editor that a ban will stick. As pointed out by many people, in the last few days other editors have thrown around nastiness and incivility (calling each other fucktards and so on) without hardly a batting of eyelids. That is the problem, we are pounding on an individual not the problem - because if we ban Malleus that means no one will have to worry about civility again until the next long term editor pisses off enough people to cause regular disruption. --Errant 15:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I don't dislike anyone (including MF). After all, I know none of these people in R/L. I may disagree with tactics and dislike behaviour, but On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a very good explanation for it and it was in line with my understanding of the meaning. And I wholly agree. The issue is, as Errant is an example, a lot of other editors aren't even going to read your logic, but instead attack you for daring to agree with Jclemens. Whether this is because they want to steadfastly support Malleus regardless of the circumstances (which is common) or for some other arbitrary reason, no amount of logic is even going to dent their mindset. The first comparison that pops into my mind is Russia's ignorant, unwavering support of Syria, regardless of the horrible things Syria's government does. Silverseren 17:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

but instead attack you; haven't you just done the same thing? Bwilkins put together some logic; I should hope that if you read carefully you will see how I have shown the problems with his analysis. I also tried to show how unpleasant Jclemens comment can feel! --Errant 21:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

An appeal to your best side

Disclosure; to the best of my knowledge and memory, I have not interacted with Malleus on any aspect of the project. I am not acting on his behalf, defending his actions nor criticizing them. I've been criticized before for supposedly supporting people subject to ArbCom review. I want to make it perfectly clear that my comments here should not be in any way construed as commentary, positive or negative, with respect to Malleus nor indeed with his actions at all.

Jclemens, with respect, I think two things need to happen with regards to your future actions with respect to Malleus.

1. Your presence at the civility enforcement request as an arbitrator has become a focus of the dispute. Given that a great deal of rancor has developed with respect to your actions there, most especially noting that even some arbitrators have viewed your actions with distaste, it would be in the best interests of the project if you recuse from the request.
2. I appreciate that your withdrew the comments about Malleus never having been a Wikipedian. However, regardless of Malleus' actions or opinions of your comments, the right thing to do would be to apologize to Malleus, preferably on his talk page, directly addressed to him. The clarifications you have made on the requests page and elsewhere fall significantly short of this. Apologizing to Malleus does not make him right or wrong. It is simply the right thing for you to do. I invite you to do so.

Respectfully submitted, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How about Malleus apologize to the dozens of administrators and many dozens of editors he has insulted, threatened and bullied? Some view the inaction of defending our five pillars with distaste...why aren't the arbitrators that refuse to sanction in any manner a known repeat offender being asked to recuse?--MONGO 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• MONGO, thank you for your comments. However, this is not about Malleus. Whether Malleus is right or wrong, committed grave mistakes, or what have you is not relevant here. The simple thing is that Jclemens, in the minds even of some of his fellow arbitrators, made a mistake. While he has retracted the statement, an apology would do a great deal to correct the issue. I hope he can see through to doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think even the revision is inappropriate. Saying Malleus "at some point ceased to be a Wikipedian" is a minor adjustment that doesn't even come close to blunting the offensive nature of the comment. However, I do agree that Jclemens should strike out his vote and recuse. The vote is far too tainted to remain in place, especially since it could easily be the deciding vote with the way things currently stand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need to recuse merely because emotions are running high. (Arbcom acts as a committee, not as individuals - and we shouldwant those individuals to openly communicate.) The mistake here wasn't whether Jclemens (or any other individual arb) expressed an interpretation of the situation (it's what we ask each of them to do, whether we agree or not), it's how he communicated it.

And so, I think I would endorse your (HS's) second point. That a mea culpa apology on malleus' talk page, while not mandatory (we should never mandate one Wikipedian to apologise to another), I think would be an appropriate step. Jclemens has already shown (by refactoring) that they understand that the phrasing was unfortunate (to say the least), so I wouldn't think that they would be adverse to such an apology. - jc37 17:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think, if only for the sake of appearances, that Jclemens should recuse from the case. Should it come down to 7/6 in favor of a ban, I do not want to see Malleus stop contributing for six months because of a vote that essentially rejects the amount of quality work he has contributed to this site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely looking at the principle. We can't have situations where emotions running high should be a cause to force any arbs to recuse. It defeats the purpose of having them as members of a committee to take on these tasks.

And regardless of whether you or I agree with his reasons or not, Jclemens is welcome to cast his "vote" for whatever reasons he may choose.

As for the motion itself, I'm not a fan for other reasons (as I noted on the page). - jc37 18:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly we don't want Arbs being forced to recuse every time an editor strikes a nerve, but there are limits to that tolerance. Admins, Arbs especially, should act in a manner consistent with the responsibility accorded to their position. If Jclemens is, for one reason another, too caught up in the emotion of the situation to recognize the seriousness of his comments then he really shouldn't be adjudicating the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And that is something that we leave to the arbs themselves to determine.

Regardless, I think NYB has a good point - the elections are around a month or so away. a.) questions of "no confidence can easily be handled there, and b.) does anyone think that this ban (if passed) can't be subsequently reviewed by the committee after the election?

One of the interesting things about Misplaced Pages is: Nothing is truly permanent. (Well, outside of physically affecting the servers, of course.) - jc37 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not yet convinced that Jclemens should cease to be an Arb. Should he recuse himself from the case in the near future then I would consider that acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A thought

I don't have any expectation of any responses to this, but it's just a thought I had.

While bwilkins' philosophical points above are good points, the issue, which I hope by now most might recognise, is that others' saw your (jclemens) comments as commenting on the person.

I haven't looked today, but my recollection about collegiate civility concerning discussing content on Misplaced Pages is typically: comment on the content, not on the person.

So when talking about behaviour (and here is my question): should it not be: comment on the behaviour of the person, not on the person themselves?

In addition, I think you recognised that "never" was an unfortunate choice of words. but then combining it with a verb of being (was) in reference to a group label (Wikipedian), turned it into an "all or nothing" statement. So by implication of your words, nothing MF did qualified him to be considered a Wikipedian. And that's something that I don't believe you meant, as I have a hard time thinking anyone would suggest that intentionally.

You have subsequently struck your comments, repurposing them to apply to MF's behavioual choices. But it looks like the damage has been done, and emotions are now running high.

One interesting point to make is that (unlike blocks, even indefinite ones), when banning an editor, we are saying that that individual is no longer welcome in the Wikipedian community. But even then (except perhaps in the case of an SPA for clear vandalism, such as WoW), we don't say that that person was never a Wikipedian. Merely suggesting that they no longer are.

Anyway, this all is just a thought. The more we focus on the behavioural choices of the person, and not on the person per se, the better, I think.

YMMV, of course. - jc37 17:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it not commenting on the behavior when one says that, because an editor has been routinely breaking one of the fundamental rules of Misplaced Pages, that they haven't been a Wikipedian since they began breaking that rule? That's commenting on their behavior of breaking the rule, not on the person themselves. Essentially, if you continuously do not follow the rules, purposefully don't follow them even, then you can't be considered to be a Wikipedian or a part of the Misplaced Pages community. Silverseren 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's commenting on behaviour up the the point where he said another editor was not a Wikipedian. Then it is just another uncivil comment and poke in the ribs. I could get on board with a point about the five pillars, our social contract, and that when behaviour reaches a certain point then the only remaining way to remove the bad behaviour is to remove the editor. But the key philosophical issue is: when making the personal dig Jclemens broke the exact same social contract he was poking Malleus with (of course: I suppose one could bring in logic to argue that Jclemens doesn't consider Malleus of the body, therefore he is not bound by the social contract when commenting. But see my other comments on this page.). Dispassionately, I'm not really too fussed about what happens to either of these editors - but I do think our admins should be held to a significantly higher standard of behaviour, and our arbs higher still. In this case Jclemens' behaviour brings the office of arbitrator into disrepute. It's disappointing to the see the vitriol here levelled at Jclemens - but I think his behaviour was significantly lacking and requires some community response. The precedent of marking someone "not a Wikipedian" is, philosophically a very narrow path to tread. --Errant 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the philosophical point laid out above.

Note that your comments are in the present tense: "...can't be considered to be a Wikipedian...". This gives the implication of "can't currently, from this point forward".

What Jcelemens was seeming to suggest was both: from this point forward, and from this point backward. And also added the sense that all edits disqualified MF, not just the problematic ones.

That may not be what he meant to say, but clearly, it's how it apparently came across due to his choice of wording. - jc37 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say from the point that MF began breaking the rules, which would indeed be in the past. However, I understand what you mean, but I also note that Jclemens' meaning was quite clear and it was only faltered by mis-wording. I think it's ridiculous that it's become this full-blown thing, though it's not surprising at the same time, as it seems to be being further aggravated by MF's defenders. Furthermore, I see no reason for Jclemens to recuse because of his statement, as it was an appropriate and, in my opinion, insightful point to make. Silverseren 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"... Jclemens' meaning was quite clear and it was only faltered by mis-wording." - Therein lies the problem. In a typewritten environ, wording has the heaviest affect on meaning. As a person with *cough* a tendency *cough* to be "verbose" myself, I can say that I have been misunderstood, even when the wording was I thought exceedingly clear. Individual words can be perjorative in a sentence, changing the whole seeming meaning of the sentence, even if we did not intend that, or even realise that they could be interpreted in such a way. - jc37 18:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't support that kind of cult-like thinking. The community means anyone who actively contributes to the project with the sole exception of people who have been indefinitely banned from the community, in my opinion, and even those people can become members of the community again. Malleus is a member of the community and has been since he began editing here, period.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Malleus is a member of the community and has been since he began editing here, period." - I agree. But that's a question of interpreting policy. And (though you may disagree) it's a fine (delicate) point. (For example, simply making the statement alone wouldn't be a blocking offence.) If Jclemens has an interpretation you disagree with, you have ways to deal with that. One is to try to civilly discuss them with him. And (in this case) if due to his interpretation you do not trust him to be an arb, vote to decline him the priviledge in the future. - jc37 18:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally (and it truly is incidental at this point I think), I personally think a person becomes a Wikipedian from their first contribution to the project. period, full stop. (Note: I didn't say first edit.) I think they cease being a Wikipedian when they cease contributing to the project, for whatever reason.

And personally, I really dislike placing a Wikipedian's contributions on a balance and weighing positives and negatives, though it may sometimes need to be done. - jc37 19:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

At the point they leave, they become an ex-Wikipedian. We don't do unpersons here. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that term BK. Though it too is rather subjective. (I was thinking about this more.) Does inactivity make one an "ex-Wikipedian"/"no longer a Wikipedian"? Does banning? I dunno. - jc37 20:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That aside, I vehemently disagree with the idea that a person stops being a person merely because anyone else may suggest so. And further I don't care what website a person contributes to, or how much or little they do, or even the subjective value of those contributions - that all has ZERO to do with whether they are to be considered a person.

Being a Wikipedian has nothing to do with whether a person is a person. If Misplaced Pages policies ever suggested that, I would be gone and never look back. Let's get Godwin's law out of the way, and say that talking about nonpersons sounds like equating with the nazis, or pre-civil war slavery etc. And I think it's incredibly insulting to say the least, to suggest that whether one of us can edit some website is comparable to past plight of "nonpersons". - jc37 20:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of basic human decency. Malleus obviously cares about the work that goes into this place or else he wouldn't be here and I don't think anyone seriously questions that. Personally, I say his occasional incivility is because he cares about that work. Telling Malleus that he is not a member of the community is akin to telling him that he doesn't care about something on which he has spent a great deal of valuable time. Time is life. Putting time into something is essentially putting a bit of your life into something. Many a horrible thing has been said about me in life, but the one thing that tends to hurt the most is when someone suggests that I don't care.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagee. However, that doesn't make it any less your and my interpretation of policy. - jc37 20:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Jclemens should immediately resign from all positions of trust and accept the fact that his comment is easily the worst insult many of us have read since probably the first infobox war. What he did is a bit like aborting a fetus and then telling it: "You have never been a member of the human race." -- That's exactly how it comes across. It's actually mindboggling that Jclemens is not already permabanned. --87.78.5.129 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

We have now reached the hair's breadth from accusations of Hitler. Can we close this farce now? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nod, the language being used would seem to be rather inappropriate. ("flowery language", though typically the accurate term, seems vastly inadequate atm.) At the end of the day, this is merely a website. Let's please step back and have a little perspective here. - jc37 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses

I am not in a position where I will be able to correspond extensively on this matter over the next ~30 hours or so, but I thought I owed it to everyone to try and put together a few general responses.

• Yes, I should not have used the "are you now or have you ever been?" sort of construction, and I've modified it per MONGO's suggestion. While I've seen Malleus' behavior over time neglect basic civility, it was incorrect for me to assume that it's always been that way.
• No, the statement was not a personal attack. The reactions alleging that I've been attempting to "unperson" Malleus are hyperbolic and simply not true. Malleus does not conform to the fourth pillar. One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social conract. While my earlier thoughts had been running along the lines of one must endorse all the pillars, that puts an emphasis on belief rather than conduct.

One can be banned after making many valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. The various persons who are banned: Jack Merridew/Bre'r Rabbit/Gold Hat/etc. is not an unperson. Betacommand is not an unperson. Will Beback is not an unperson. I would argue that my statement could be equally applied to any of them or other banned users for a similar reason: each of them failed to uphold the fourth pillar, although in a variety of ways and intensities, and was banned for that. Malleus has the distinction of being the most prolific content creator being up for a ban in my memory. The content he has created has is not in question, and he has had an admirable pattern of contribution to the encyclopedia... but that's not sufficient. Much like Betacommand, Malleus has been shown repeatedly that his style of interaction is insufficient, and he has chosen to continue it. No one has proposed that Malleus' contributions be erased, that his name be stricken from anywhere or anything. Bans don't do that, and the proposed ban would not have been any different than any other ban. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fifth pillar: "The principles and spirit of Misplaced Pages's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making an exception to a rule." Nowhere is there a policy that says "One must conform to all five pillars to be a Wikipedian; that is the social contract." You're confusing your own personal opinion about justice with justice itself. I don't know what is more disturbing here, your rhetoric of McCarthyism and unapologetic Orwellian attempt to dehumanize and unperson a respected contributor, or the fact that you have a legion of stormtroopers waiting to follow in your footsteps down a path you've paved to hell. There's a disturbance in the force here all right, and it ain't Malleus. Your non-apology apology isn't good enough. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a time when the fifth pillar would ever, ever make the fourth pillar nonviable? Because that is an interpretation that is so far beyond the pale that it makes you have no right to criticize Jclemens for anything. Silverseren 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm So in other words, you still think that Malleus is not a Wikipedian, and now you throw in Betacommand, Will Beback and Jack Merridew. --Rschen7754 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Does being indefinitely blocked mean you are not a member of Misplaced Pages anymore? The answer to that, I would think, is clearly yes. You are blocked. You are no longer a part of the community. Silverseren 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"You are blocked. You are no longer a part of the community." You don't actually believe that horseshit do you? The main difference between a site-ban and an indef-block is that blocked users are still a part of the community. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Merely a suggestion, but "member" is probably not the accurate term. None of us are "members" of Misplaced Pages. We're contributors to the Misplaced Pages project. - jc37 23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is plainly a differing perspective. Clearly, Jclemens was not saying Malleus wasn't a contributor, he was saying that Malleus hasn't been a proper member for a while. Because a proper member is one that follows the rules. It's all very straightforward. Silverseren 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Member of what? - jc37 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Member of the Wikipedian community. Because, to be a member, you have to follow the rules that we've put into place. I mean, to violate the fourth pillar repeatedly over the course of years and, often, vigorously enough to lead to actual sanctions. I mean, it speaks for itself. Every group, every company, every...well, everything, has rules of involvement. If you break those rules, then you can't really be considered a member of that group. The others in the group certainly wouldn't consider you one. Silverseren 00:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, and there you have it: community : )

And that's the issue that's currently exploding here. While this is a project, and we all are merely contributors to it. At the same time, there is a wont to describe those contributors en masse as a community. And that dualism is being stretched in either direction atm. On one hand, you have those who say "how dare you say malleus is not a contributor", and on the other, those who say that his choice of actions invalidates him as a community member. Another way to put it? People are talking past each other. - jc37 00:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the perfect way to explain it, actually. Silverseren 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Jclemens, I think it's quite clear you don't understand why people are incensed. I am tremendously disappointed, but I think we should probably all go our separate ways now - if you truly don't understand the reasoning behind the irate reactions (and your answers give that impression) this'll create more drama. So...*shoos everyone else out*. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, so last comment for tonight :) To be clear about the "unperson" thing: I myself was not intending to suggest you deliberately were making Malleus "not of the body". However, that was the result of your comment. I was trying to highlight (see above my discussion with Bwilkins) the trouble with such an approach). I also raised questions about the entire case - is it really about fixing civility when we have many editors running around being rude to each other every day (i.e. is Malleus an example to hoist, and if so does Arbcom have a plan to make that example stick??). But those are all asides to the key issue, which you haven't addressed, which is that in a !vote on banning Malleus you poked at him with the "not a Wikipedian" stick, an uncivil comment in a paragraph you criticised him for civility issues. Can you at least see why, as an arb and therefore held to the very highest of standards, that was a major mistake? --Errant 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by people before, the fourth pillar should be a zero tolerance rule. If it was as such, Malleus would have been properly indef-banned a long, long time ago. Or he would have shaped up. One or the other. And that's also true for a number of other editors. Silverseren 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two reasons why "zero tolerance" will never be used to enforce the fourth pillar: 1) civility cannot be enforced evenly or objectively, and 2) "zero tolerance" approaches have no proven effectiveness and are disruptive to communities. It is best to take an evidence-based approach to dealing with problematic behavior, and the evidence quite clearly demonstrates that the community will not enforce civility. At the end of the day, it is up to all of us to stand up for each and every other person, and to speak up when we see a problem. If we are constantly protecting other people, then there will always be someone there to protect us. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren; zero tolerance requires firmly established limits on what is civil, and widespread enforcement. People are being rude and obnoxious to each other all the time here on Misplaced Pages - Malleus just happens to be someone who came to the notice of the community of the collective. I'd have more respect for your position if you were pursuing the wider editing community over uncivil behaviour with the same tenacity. The argument that this is about civility is annoying, because it is untrue. --Errant 08:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi, JC. You may be interested in this section, which I have just posted on WP:AN. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

Recusal

In case you don't see my comment at the current Arb discussion , I am asking you to recuse yourself from the Clarification Request and all Motions regarding Malleus, as you have demonstrated an inability to be objective in the case. While I appreciate you striking your offensive remarks about a fellow editor, the bias obviously exists. I have no objection to you moving your comments to the above sections, as Brad had done originally. I've also made note of this at the larger discusion taking place. It isn't personal, it is about equity and process and I sincerely hope you understand that this the proper thing to do, not just for fairness to Malleus, but as to ensure the community that no Arbitrator will continue to vote in a banning process after demonstrating a clear lack of objectivity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)