Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 26 October 2012

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement

Original announcement

It would be good if we figure out in advance what to do if someone tries to engage MF on an Rfa page. (I probably should have pointed that out during the case, but I was distracted by stuff.) It's also not blindingly obvious to me whether, if a candidate's answer prompts an obvious follow-up question, asking such a question would be considered "threaded discussions." My suggestions would be:

• any comments direction to MF on an RFA may be unceremoniously removed by any editor. (Reverted, none of this silly hat stuff.) Such removal should be accompanied by a polite note on the users' talk page.
• as the remedy allows questions (plural) follow up questions should be allowed, and not considered threaded discussions. Nobody Ent 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• ArbCom caves to chronic incivility once again. Its amazing what one can get away with when he has a fan club. Here's hoping the committee will get it right the next time... ThemFromSpace 03:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd hardly say they caved. They expanded the scope of his topic ban to more broadly cover areas where he is known to be incivil. That seems like a reasonable response. Some may have wanted them to go farther, but you can't say they did nothing. If Malleus has triggers that cause him to be incivil, an appropriate response is to remove him from those triggers. They did that in this case. --Jayron32 03:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's amazing what "editors" who cannot handle contractions or subject-consistency can get away with at what used to be an encyclopedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • This seems to be an example of the ArbCom strategy of tightening the screws on a problematic editor who also has a history of good contributions and a fan club in the hope that they take the hint and improve their conduct (eg, much like what was tried for Betacommand). I note that the arbitrators' comments in regards to Malleus contained some pretty blunt warnings, especially in comparison to the comments made in the Civility Enforcement case and subsequent requests for enforcement/amendment. Hopefully the strategy works this time. If it doesn't, I hope that ArbCom bite the bullet and implement a ban. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, in this case, ArbCom behaved disgracefully. You had AGK and JClemens violating civility and NPA by writing bullshit against Malleus. All of the Committee misused process by turning a request for clarification into another attack on Malleus. And again, the committee lacked the honesty to address civility in the community, apart from Malleus. It still has not apologized for its dishonesty and wasting the community's time in entitling the case, brought by Hersfold's block-buddy Alexandria, "civility enforcement". Arbitrators running for re-election will get their asses kicked, as they well deserve. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Am I alone in finding Themfromspace's comment highly uncivil? Maybe he should be blocked and/or placed under an editing restriction. --John (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that you probably are alone. Admins also shouldn't be making pointy comments like that (if you really thought that Themfromspace's comments are "highly uncivil", you had the discretion to implement a block without any further discussion . Raising this as a possibility, in a way which I presume is an attempt draw attention to the lack of a concrete definition of 'incivility', is really inappropriate as it could be implied as a threat and doesn't contribute to cooling down discussion of this topic). Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I definitely find that uncivil. Your statement could also be construed as a threat in the current climate and doesn't contribute to cooling down discussion of this topic either. I didn't threaten to block; that was your red herring and in my opinion would be highly inappropriate. You may have missed the word "maybe" in my previous statement; not all instances of rhetoric are "pointy". --John (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So basically he can comment on the subject of the RFA but can't comment on other people's comments? Or does it mean something else? And does this prohibit him from participation in discussions about RFA reform? Either I need more sleep or this resolution needs more clarity. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• He can vote, and he can raise questions, but he's otherwise prohibited from participating. That includes responding to replies to his votes due to the tendency for such threads to turn into the sort of thing that he was previously topic-banned from. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Official decisions like this should refer to the user by their actual username instead of shorthand forms. While there's probably no danger of confusion in context, User:Malleus is nevertheless a different user. Jafeluv (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Given it is an obvious correction, I've changed it to the full username in the record, though not on user talk pages. Courcelles 06:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rejected by the community. This decision by ArbCom is hereby vacated, null, and void. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• It should be obvious that ArbCom decisions are not vacatable by the community, nor are community decisions normally announced using an IP address. ArbCom can be asked to reconsider, but can not be vacated. Apteva (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• I would say "Grow a pair and say it while signed in", but that might be... uncivil... Sven Manguard Wha? 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  May not be "vacatable" by "the community", but this one certainly is by me. I find it completely unacceptable that a simple request for clarification on a poorly worded earlier decision should result in what is effectively a gagging order more appropriate to a cult or a religion, especially given Jclemens' intemperate remarks which he apparently still feels were appropriate. I also find it completely unacceptable that in a discussion nominally about civility that so much vitriol is still being spewed over these arbitration pages without anyone seeming to recognise the deep hypocrisy that exemplifies. The "community" has much to be ashamed of. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Malleus, as someone who has supported you in this mess, please just shut up and accept it. If you continue to fight it, you're going to get banned, a bunch of editors are going to quit, and none of the injustices you rail against are going to change. Wait for the elections to complete, give it six months, and then plead your case in a levelheaded manner. If you can't do that, I don't see why I should bother to continue to support you, as it'll tell me that your only priority is being confrontational, and that all of your crusading is just an excuse to continue to be confrontational. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  I have no intention of shutting up, accepting it, or probably even in fighting the cult leaders over it. What's done can't be undone, either now or in six months down the road. You may of course interpret my refusal to cower like a beaten dog in any way you wish, it really makes no difference. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)