Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:35, 23 October 2012 editSphilbrick (talk | contribs)Administrators178,662 edits Confidence in the arbcom, and confidence in one particular arbitrator: Thanks for the clarification.← Previous edit Revision as of 15:37, 23 October 2012 edit undoStfg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,656 edits Those who share this view: supportNext edit →
Line 119: Line 119:
#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). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 10:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC) #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). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 10:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
# High time this was made clear. ] (]) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC) # High time this was made clear. ] (]) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
# 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. --] (]) 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


====Those who hold the opposite view==== ====Those who hold the opposite view====

Revision as of 15:37, 23 October 2012

Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist.

Please click here to file an arbitration case Please click here for a guide to arbitration
Shortcuts
Arbitration talk page archives
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009)
Various archives (2004–2011)
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–)
WT:RFAR subpages

Archive of prior proceedings

Watchlist

I think there needs to be more editors watchlisting this page and more discussion from all involved. This is a little disturbing to see so few comments or replies. One would think there would be very active discussions here. I have watchlisted this page an intend to keep a closer watch.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, discussion of specific requests occurs on the request itself. If you come here to discuss requests on a meta-level, you're probably looking at a procedural issue. In that case, the clerks noticeboard is your best bet. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
No, Lord, that isn't the point. This isn't about specific requests. Its about the arbitration itself. Surely there are concerns and questions that editors have. Cheers to you as well!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
  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)
  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)
  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. olderwiser 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)
  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)

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)

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)

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)
  2. 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)

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)
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)

Net Four Motion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Motion: Rule for acceptance of case requests (1)

Proposed:

1) That the following is adopted in replacement of the current "Opening of proceedings" procedure:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

  1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
  2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
  3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

Support
  1. Proposed. This vote should not carry until several days (for community comment) have passed. AGK 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Not at all my preferred solution, (I'd much rather scrap all mention of net four) but I've made far too much noise about the silliness of net four to vote against at least lessening its impact and downright stupid results. Courcelles 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. This is an incremental improvement on the status quo. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  5. As Jclemens says, an incremental improvement, but I think one worth having. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  6. This will work. Hersfold non-admin 18:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    Second choice in light of my proposed alternative below. Hersfold non-admin 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  7. First choice. 22:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Newyorkbrad (talk)
  8. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  9. Works for me. Kirill  17:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support as incremental change - would like to see it reviewed in say a year. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. SilkTork 22:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. Since I feel that changing procedures this close to the changeover of arbs is useful (I'd really prefer to get the new arbs involved in any such discussions), I'm going to vote to abstain, although I support in spirit. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments by arbitrators
  • It would be useful to use {{ACMajority}} on case requests. Perhaps with increased functionality to accommodate arb votes, along with the vote key. Perhaps something like:
For the purposes of this request, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority. (3/0/0/1). Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
I'm in agreement with the addition of an absolute majority; where I am pausing is on the time-scale. As we are rethinking this, should we also consider the short time-scale? We already have a clause allowing for fast-tracking a case if needed, so I'm wondering if we need a 24 hour close for net four. That cases these days are rather more complex than when the net four was written, it sometimes can take more than 24 hours to consider all the implications. It can sometimes happen that those familiar with a situation have already got an opinion, and may be overlooking some aspects that a person new to the situation uncovers. There are also times when the Committee are truly divided on an issue (we are all individuals, and contrary to some views I've seen expressed, we do not have a hive mind), with - say - four in favour of peanut butter, four firmly against, and the rest open-minded; as such, it is possible for the peanut butter conspiracy to quickly and cheerfully support in favour while the anti-peanut butter conspiracy are currently inactive or distracted; so, to prevent a case being accepted, an independent has to insert a hold, or a member of the peanut butter conspiracy, seeing what is happening, has to withhold their vote.
I see the value of net four, as it means an obvious case can be opened/closed without all the Committee having to investigate, but in most other areas of Misplaced Pages where matters are being decided, we generally allow a longer time for consideration. Seven days for an AfD, 30 days for RfC (though RfC can be closed earlier if consensus is clear), etc. The downside with keeping a request open for longer than 24 hours after the net four has been reached, is that sometimes clearly inappropriate requests are left hanging around, and while they are there, other Committee members may waste their time reading through the case simply to reach the same conclusion that the case is inappropriate. I don't see a problem with a net four agreement to open a case being held for longer, as Committee members would need to familiarise themselves with the case anyway. It's just the inappropriate requests that may be a problem. But what may be inappropriate to one (or four) may be appropriate to another (or four).
How about, making it five days instead of one, and when net four has been reached, the request is marked Net Four Accept or Decline, and boxed to mark that the clock is ticking. If the decision is an absolute majority, then 24 hours would be fine. SilkTork 09:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The timing is a separate issue than the threshold, and I fear the discussion may get lost in here. However, to respond to the timing, I'm opposed to anything else that elongates the process of arbitration, and note that a typical request already takes far longer than the articulated minimums before it is accepted or rejected. If anything was really going to be opened as fast as the minimums, it would require the vast majority of the committee to agree quickly... something I've not seen except in the most clear-cut of cases. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Under the motions rules, this motion will remain open until we reach an absolute majority. If the above motion were a case however, it could now be accepted. Motions appear to be more straightforward than cases - there is certainly less to consider, yet we require an absolute majority for motions and only Net Four for cases. As Penwhale indicates below, the time delay is not really relevant if we have an absolute majority. I'm now wondering if it's not the time factor that I'm so concerned about, so much as the Net Four itself, which speedily allows a case to be accepted or rejected by only four Committee members. I'm wondering if removing Net Four and replacing with absolute majority is what is needed. SilkTork 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Removing net four all the way is fine with me, but I think we would need some kind of safety valve, say, "if the request has been active for a week, a case will be opened if there are more accept votes than declines". I absolutely hate the "pocket decline" people can exercise merely by not voting. Courcelles 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Aside from inactivity, I haven't seen many cases where that sort of default decline would occur. More often, a case goes net four before I noticed :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes. A proceeding will also be opened if, ten days after the request was filed, criterion 1 has been fulfilled; if the request fails criterion 1 at that time, it will be declined.

Yes. It might be worth looking at when and how we decline a request. I'm thinking of this as a two way street, but looking again at the procedures, it's just a one way street for acceptance, and there's no guidance for declining. My concerns about time-scales and appropriate quorum numbers relate perhaps more to declining a request than accepting it, though I am still concerned about why we would need to hastily accept a case on a small turnout of arbiters. I don't mind that only four Committee members decide on an issue - I just think that it's appropriate we allow a little more time than 24 hours for others to weigh in (if they wish to). This is the only part of Committee proceedings where we allow such a speedy result on so little participation, apart from a Level 1 emergency desysop of an admin causing serious harm. Given that when a case has been accepted it will require involvement of the whole Committee for a month or more, plus draw in the time and energy of some parts of the community, pausing a moment before committing ourselves seems appropriate. SilkTork 16:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Community comments concerning motion 1

  • For those of the community wondering why we don't scrap the "net four votes" rule altogether, I have found an interesting, old discussion you may wish to read.

    The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the net four rule remains in place, but without it yielding the quirky results we see when more than a few arbitrators vote in a case request (namely, that a majority of the committee vote to accept the request but it is nevertheless declined). With this year's arbitrators attending case requests more promptly, and with case requests being held for longer than ever (due to their increasing complexity), I think it's important to fix this procedural anomaly now. AGK 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • "Net four" remains an albatross; but this at least mitigates the absurdity. Good move, guys. — Coren  22:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this related to any of the recent declined case requests, by chance? --Rschen7754 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain the reason for "the lesser of" in the motion? I'm not understanding how "lesser" applies to two "true/false" possibilities. Shouldn't it instead be "either ... or"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Has anyone among ArbCom considered the idea of quorum? As is, with the net 4 bit, you could theoretically have only 4 arbitrators voting to accept a case, and it be accepted. There are all sorts of problems with this net 4 business, and this is just one of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There's probably a role for that. I favor a more explicit change than this, that uses simple majority of voting arbs (vs. non-inactive, non-recused arbs), in which case the time delay would prevent abuses, because you need a majority of arbitrators (vs. a majority of voting arbs) to fast-track an opening. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it common for Arbitrations to switch votes (accept to decline, or the other way around?) Nobody Ent 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Not particularly, but it does happen. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • It does happen on occasion, but if a case request satisfies the requirements, then fails to satisfy the requirements, then satisfies them again (due to vote changes and the arrival of more voting arbitrators), the time period before the case is opened is reset. In other word, the definition of the committee's consensus is contextualised, so that new opinions are taken into account. AGK 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • For the stupid amongst us, could one of you please explain *in* the policy what "four net votes" means? At the moment it links to itself, which is wonderfully self-referentional but utterly useless. Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    That is, in the above statements :). Ironholds (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    Support is +1, oppose is -1, and you need 4 points. --Rschen7754 05:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    Four more "accepts" than "declines." Nobody Ent 11:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    What Rschen and Nobody Ent said. Ironholds, the link was obviously a mistake (which I have just corrected). AGK 15:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems sensible. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is certainly a good move; personally, I like the idea of a quorum, too. Pesky (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is certainly an improvement. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Or? Absolute? Is it mathematically possible to have a majority without it being an absolute majority? Or net four and not be a majority? In mathematics the word absolute value means that absolute value of minus four is four. In politics if you have 14 committee members, a majority of absolutely everyone would be eight (total/two plus 0.5 or 1). Since you already say not counting recusals and non-actives, does this mean that if out of 14 members there are 13 who recuse the case would be taken and only have one person to decide the case? Is it ever possible to have net four but fail absolute majority? 104 plus, 100 minus, but that not be a majority, assuming 204 arbcom members? Am I missing something? Apteva (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • With a committee of 15, it's entirely plausible to have 6 supports, 3 opposes, 1 inactive arb, 1 recused, and 4 who simply commented, without expressing any decline/accept preference. 6 is a plurality, but yet not a majority of those voting, nor a "net 4"--which only considers supports minus opposes. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Either of? For what purpose is of there? I will choose either Bob or Mary. I will choose either of Bob or Mary. I will support the Dodgers if either of i) I like them a lot or ii) I like them. I will support the Dodgers if either i) they are still playing or ii) they are not still playing but I am going to pretend they are. Apteva (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Using terms simple and absolute majority implies there are different types of majorities (they're aren't) and are only going to lead to confusion. Please be clear -- you can discuss a majority of active arbitrators or a majority of voting arbitrators or a majority of responding arbitrators.Nobody Ent 01:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Technically, if you look at the voting systems, simple majority = Yay > nay, where as absolute majority means Yay > (Nay + Abstain + Absent + etc...). The usage of the term in the motion, however, contradicts itself... - Penwhale | 14:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Not really a contradiction, as the motion, as written, counts "active, not recused, but not bothering to vote on this case request" as effectively an oppose, rather than reducing the votes needed to accept, as an abstention or recusal would. Courcelles 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Clerks were specifically invited to comment here as it deals with procedures related to their functions, so here I am... I believe SilkTork's suggestion regarding an extended period of time may be worthwhile, as these days most cases involve multiple comments and editors. However, if an absolute majority decides to hear the case, then the time period probably does not need to be extended: So, somewhere along the lines of "5 days since Net 4 is reached, or 24 hours since absolute majority was reached"? - Penwhale | 10:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal

I didn't know about the discussion above, but in thinking about this, and in reading this "interesting, old discussion", I think 4 was arbitrary to the past.

Would it break things too much to change it to something more dynamic like one third (rounded up) of total arb seats, or 4 arbs, which ever quantity is greater? (total seats, regardless of activity) So if we currently have 15 seats, then 5 arbs. If we have 18, 6. if we have 9, then 4. - jc37 19:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's try the new procedure out for a few months and see how it works out. If there are still issues at that point the Committee can revisit the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
When I was a child, my mother managed to get an edison record player with a stack of records.
One of the records had intermixed in the songs a vaudeville performance where person A said that his prospective date had agreed to a date "on the second tuesday of next week", and asked his pal, person B, whether she was playing "hard to get". His pal answered: "My friend, I think she's playing impossible to get.". (I thought that was hilarious as a kid : )
So while I appreciate your response as a head's up, please pardon me if it sounds like it's a pencil-in for The Twelfth of Never.
But shrugs, who knows. If you're looking for me holding my breath, I'll be over here: The blue one. - jc37 01:14, 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:

In development.

Those who support the proposal:
Those who oppose the proposal:
Comments:

Confidence in the arbcom, and confidence in one particular arbitrator

Moved from Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Confidence_in_the_arbcom.2C_and_confidence_in_one_particular_arbitrator Nobody Ent 01:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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 - © 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 - © 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)
  • 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 - © 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 - © 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 - © 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 - © 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 - © 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 - © 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 - © Join WER 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, Dennis, you sound like you have a greater "emotional investment" than Jclemens does. He sounds coolly rational, has, after due contemplation, struck his comment, and has at no point raved for his view or against anyone else's views or actions. OTOH, you keep going on about it, (not raving, not dramatically going off in a huff with every plan of returning after Making a Point, just being "quite firm on this".) Yopienso (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
(e/c)1) Everytime, we hear someone say they are retiring -- it is just time to shrug our shoulders, perhaps leave a nice good-bye (and a request to come back sometime) and moveon. Everytime we hear someone threaten to "retire," we should just respond "ok" "good luck to you". Why users think its effective to claim they will retire, when, when, when . . . is unknown. 2) When an arbitrator makes a decision in an arbitration matter, it's too late for them to recuse, they have already made the decision. It makes no sense to ask for a recusal because one disagrees with the decision. (When one thinks the decision wrongly reasoned, --yes, criticize it -- but it is a strange and irrational system that demands recusals and resignations after each decision and rationale that is disagreed with). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Usually the correct response is for a friend to contact them directly, tell them they are taking it way too seriously, and advise a wikibreak to gather some new content ideas. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
That's good too, also when contacted, one may counsel them to not do that kind of display. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
My emotional investment is in Misplaced Pages. I've spoken out against Malleus as much as I've supported him. He isn't the issue. The issue is to insure the system is fair and there isn't a perception of involvement by the very people who making the final and binding decisions, even if accidental. If I have a strong emotional bond to the idea that admin and arbs should never give the appearance of bias in an action to which they are making decisions, that is neither new for me nor something to apologize for. I've been quite outspoken about similar admin issues in the past, it doesn't require searching very hard to find them. That I would speak out about it now should come to no surprise to anyone. The principle is larger than Jclemens or Malleus. Substitute their names with any others, and my argument would be the same. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it reasonable to suggest that there may be arbitrators that are sympathetic regarding Malleus and may be opposing anything other than the smallest alteration to the exisitng remedy. In what way would they not too be expected to withdraw/recuse? There is anarchy here because there has been delay...Malleus should have been banned for 6 months last time. Some editors are going to be back here in this dramafest before you know it.--MONGO 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
MF and the general Civility issue have been in front of the ArbCom often enough that every ArbCom member has seen plenty of evidence of editors' actions, editors' reactions and their impact. If a sitting ArbCom member has not seen enough data to have a clear opinion upon the situation, then we probably don't need them on the ArbCom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding down here because that's a huge wall of text and I don't want to get in the middle. Betacommand is a perfect example of the type of person I brought up: he was rude and abrasive and constantly violated the rules. Yet his defenders continually insisted that his contributions should outweigh any bad behaviour on his part, leading to a years-long circus of nonsense. Jtrainor (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't do it

Listen to Kirill -- don't pass a motion with the hackneyed !vote in it. How about support/oppose instead? Nobody Ent 22:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the current wording is !good and should !pass? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
From this whole brouhaha, I believe opinions at RfA should hereafter be referred to as #%*@!votes. alanyst 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
! Nobody Ent 10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think #%*@!votes is definitely a step in the right direction. Anywaaay, I've rephrased the motion slightly. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)