Revision as of 07:24, 2 August 2014

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Civility

Initiated by Tom (LT) (talk) at 23:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• LT910001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• AN/I:

Statement by LT910001

A user (Hell in a Bucket) posted a very inflammatory comment on Jimbo Wales' talk page (), which was then removed and re-added a number of times by Neotarf (), Lightbreather () and Tarc (). It's clear a number of users think that this does not warrant any form of disciplinary action (), "No. Get a sense of humour. " (), "That's a stretch and you know it" (edit), " is this shit really still being dragged out?" (edit summary) (Ryulong , ). This matter has not been dealt with by administrators.

Civility is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages (WP:CIVIL) and the WP:NPA policy quite clearly states "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." (WP:WIAPA).

Civility seems to be a neglected pillar and I believe the failure to enforce it is sanctioning rampant cursing, name-calling and other anti-social behaviors. One reason is because what constitutes 'uncivil' behaviour and disciplinary remedies have not been clearly outlined. I would request that ArbCom looks into this matter, and offers clear advice as to what constitutes civility and what remedies can be enforced by administrators. Misplaced Pages has its own set of rules, but I’d point out in actual workplaces some of these comments would probably already have prompted intervention or disciplinary action of some sort.

I have commented previously on AN/I and Jimbo Wales' talk page, but not interacted with this user to the best of my knowledge.

@Rich Farmbrough: This user will not be withdrawing this case request. It's clear in this case there is significant community disagreement on what constitutes "civility" and a "personal attack" and whether it should be enforced. This issue involves several venues, to date has not been effectively mediated, and there are a lack of enforcing administrators for a core WP policy. To me this issue is quite suitable for ArbCom clarification. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

I'm not involved. Remove me from this request. I will have no part of this dramafest just because a handful of people have been angry at Eric Corbett for dropping the "C-word" in a discussion and the aftermath.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

The noted incident falls far below the need for arbitration. It's possible that there are person or people who could rightly have earned a short block for some of what occurred, but if no one's willing or no consensus could be achieved, so be it. If this is an attempt to open the door to a full scale omnibus civility action, it's not a good starting point IMO. --Cube lurker (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Further thought. Some have made it clear that they are looking for arbcom to make decisions on 'civility' as a whole. I'm not convinced that this is the correct venue. (I believe in community consensus for good and bad). However if arbcom were inclined to make policy declarations in this area, it would need to begin with a well thought out, widely encompassing, well framed starting point. Not based off a snapshot incident as diffed in the opening statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

While well meant, this request should be speedily refused. The matter is still open at AN/I, there is no reason to think that the community is unable to deal with it. I urge LT to withdraw, if they see this comment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Statement by MLauba

At some point, eventually, those agreeing that there are important civility issues that need addressing will have to choose their end goal: change, or retribution. The former will never be crafted at noticeboards or ArbCom. For the latter, this is the right place. MLauba 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt

The editor in question did not appear to use the racist/sexist epithets to refer to other editors in that edit, and if he had it could be handled by administrators normally. The larger issue, of course, is that the community doesn't have a coherent vision about civility. The present WP:CIVILITY policy is what Hell in a Bucket would probably call a "manifesto", piled high with tips about avoiding incivility, do's and don'ts, all dribbling down to a paragraph that says that you basically won't get blocked for being uncivil but you might. Anything in it that has any real policy usefulness is a reference to other policies. The community has been discussing various proposals for dealing with this situation, and though it is unlikely this will lead to change, filing a test case here seems like forum shopping. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

As a repentant Wiki-curmudgeon (or trying to be, at any rate), I'd say it may be time to take this on as an omnibus civility case. I'd like to see Mr. Hell in a Bucket reprint his comment from Jimbo's talk page in its entirety in his statement here, and then defend each phrase of choice to the Committee. Let's see how defensible this position is, and what value those words had within that discussion.

You have a group of people telling you that the Misplaced Pages fosters a hostile editing environment, that comments like Mr. Bucket's are offensive, or that Corbett/Malleus' is offensive. This sort of off-putting speech and the protection thereof has been conveyed repeatedly in a variety of venues off-wiki and on over the last few years. Are these people (the offended) in the minority? Yes, they may well be. Is it not a duty of all fair governing bodies to protect the minority form the tyranny of the majority? Whether it is Arbcom or the WMF itself, some higher authority will have to step in to start removing detrimental people from the project that the community fails to. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Konveyor Belt

Useless and inappropriate drama mongering. A case on civility is warranted, but not this one. A general case would have a far reaching decision but this case seems to be about the conduct of one user only. Don't expect a definitive decision on civility if this case is accepted. KonveyorBelt 02:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel

The norms of a community change over time and with the addition of new members, and at Misplaced Pages we've decided that our policies and standards evolve with those changes. But we've also decided that there are some rules and values that are fundamental to the nature of this encyclopedia, and those should not change. When you become an editor, or worse, an administrator entrusted by the community, you cannot reject the fundamental values of this community or you have become an editor or administrator under false pretenses. When you make the voluntary decision to join this community, you must accept those fundamental rules and values that are already in place. Otherwise, the Five Pillars are meaningless. Can the community decide that it no longer values neutrality and reject enforcement of NPOV? Can the community decide that Misplaced Pages is no longer an encyclopedia and is now a website for Pokemon fan fiction?

It is time for the Committee to affirm that civility is one of our Five Pillars, that it is just as inviolate as the others, that the community should take it just as seriously as the others, and that it just as enforceable and should be just as vigorously enforced as the others. Or it should declare that the community has decided that it now only has Four Pillars, and that the community should act accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Neotarf

The use of blatantly racist or sexist insults has a chilling effect on participation by those groups, and as a result on the quality of the encyclopedia. This creates an editing environment that is intimidating, hostile, and abusive, not just to anyone who is not white, male, and heterosexual, but to everyone.

The diffs: I made a request on the user's talk page to remove the offensive slurs. The offensive language was not removed so I started a discussion at ANI. Finally one user recommended to remove it out of common decency. I removed it here. But common decency isn't that common, so it was restored again, and a bizarre "welcome to Misplaced Pages" template slapped on my talk page, even though the user said he knew there was a "strong opinion on templating the regulars" but it "doesn't bother me too much". He also accuses me of mental disorders and made it clear that some of his insults were directed at me personally. There was also a gratuitous mention of genitals and violence against women.

All of this happened simply because I raised concerns. After 3 days (so far) my concerns have still not been addressed. If this is not resolved, I suspect it will become more and more difficult for anyone to raise concerns, or for that matter, continue to edit, without feeling intimidated.

The Misplaced Pages needs to establishing an effective process for dealing with these types of concerns, provide safe-space training to their admins and other users, and couth classes for youngsters or other sensitive users who have problems adjusting to a diverse editing environment.

Note about availability: I will probably be unavailable for an extended length of time, however the diffs should speak for themselves.

Statement by Monty845

The community has tried repeatedly to come up with a solution for the civility problem, and repeatedly failed to find consensus. At least in my view, the proposals have always gotten bogged down in a debate between those who care a great deal about seeing improved civility enforcement, and those worried that the specific proposals will either be used as a bludgeon by other editors in editing disputes, generating more conflict than the existing incivility does, result in rampant baiting, or will disproportionately effect our most prolific editors, as plans that impose mandatory sanctions might. While I of course hope that there is some new idea that will come along and satisfy everyone, or at least a large enough portion of editors to establish consensus, this has been a major ongoing issue for several years, and such a solution has not manifested itself.

In the mean time, the issue of civility enforcement has spawned myriad disputes, and led to many valuable editors from all sides retiring or otherwise leaving over it. While I generally applaud the reluctance of the committee to legislate change, this has been going on so long, and spawned so many discussions, RFCs, studies, polls, surveys, and other attempts to move forward, that I think it is safe to say the community has had every chance to fix it, failed, and it is time for the committee to take a crack at it. Whether its crafting a solution of its own, or figuring out some other way for the community to move forward, it seems like the best shot for finally getting some resolution to the civility question.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on who, if anyone, should have their individual conduct reviewed. No matter the outcome for the individuals, as long as the civility dispute remains unresolved, there will always be new editors causing discord in the grey area between civility and NPA. As such, I strongly urge the committee to take on at least the larger question of how civility policy should be enforced. Monty₈₄₅ 03:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by BrownhairedGirl

I endorse most of Tarc's statement, except his request that Arbcom take this case. wmf:Terms of Use requires that editors support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Comments by Hell in a Bucket breach those terms; many others could be listed.

So many admins oppose enforcement that when incivility sanctions are imposed, they are routinely overturned at ANI. Concerns about difficulties of defining incivility mask the opposition of many admins to sanctions for even blatant offences such as deliberate use of obscenities without contextual relevance, and calling an editor brainless. Admin rejection of civility standards is exemplified by John who wrote "Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork" and rejected repeated requests to clarify or withdraw that remark.

The consequence was summarised by Jimbo: our toleration for behavior that would not be accepted in any paid work space that leads to massive costs in terms of the quality of the project and the harmony of the work environment. Similar sentiments were repeatedly expressed by Sue Gardner when she was ExecutiveDirector of WMF, and by many outside commentators.

In the last few days it has become clear to me that community processes have repeatedly resolved not to sanction incivility. OTOH the Foundation which owns this website (tho not its contents) makes civility a ToU.

The relevant part of WP:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities is #1: to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. If Arbcom wants to take a case on its current remit, it should respect the current consensus that civility is one of the five pillars only as aspiration, not as enforceable policy. (Opponents of civility enforcement will provide evidence of that consensus amongst those whose who have not left or been deterred from joining.)

If Arbcom wishes to act outside of its current remit, it should seek Foundation approval to change the scope and responsibilities policy, to allow the Foundations' Terms of Use and/or policies to override the community's consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JMP EAX

our toleration for behavior that would not be accepted in any paid work space, really. I'm not involved in this particular incident, but as a disclosure of potential bias I admit to occasionally being less than courteous in Misplaced Pages and in real life. I think that Jimbo has a too idealized view of what happens in most other paid work spaces. I suggest to everyone wanting to know more about this to read The No Asshole Rule (the book not the wiki article about it, which is a rather poor summary thereof); the book discusses a few salient points, albeit supported mostly with non-systematic/anecdotal evidence. Among them are example of workplaces that Jimbo should know they exist, for they are rather common and well-known in the finance world. I guess we can give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt that he didn't work long enough in his initial profession to run into those... The aforementioned book also discusses the contamination effect that asshole-like behavior can have. And yeah, one can be an asshole while not violating any formal speech codes involving four-letter words and such. Finally, the book does propose—and not in a tongue-in-cheek fashion—that there perhaps should be a "one asshole rule" rather than no asshole rule; I won't spoil the all the details, but the idea is that some experiments have shown that having a tolerated negative example/specimen actually improves the behavior of everyone else. I'm not really going to suggest who the chosen asshole should be on Misplaced Pages... And one more point I think is relevant here: the book also tries to draw a distinction between "temporary asshole" behavior and "certified asshole"—the latter defined as a persistent pattern of such behavior. JMP EAX (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

Certainly an ever-present topic but unresolvably broad by any type of arbitration. Behavior is governed by policy, community standards and pillars. In the end though, specific behavior is a type of content dispute that will continue as long as Misplaced Pages continues. Unless this is a request for a specific sanction for a specific comment, there is really nothing for Arbcom to resolve. "Resolved: Be nice" would be the result of a broad civility case but interpretation of such broad values will still be decided on ANI, RfC and talk pages. There will still be disputes and nothing is presented here for abitration. "Misplaced Pages editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors;..." passed 10-0 as a behavioral standard in virtually every case, yet here we are. I think we've seen civility used as a stick by both those enforcing a overly-strict civility standard as well as those that use incivility to dominate discussions. Everyone has seen the valiant but unwelcome refactor machine that irritates the other editors as well as the shock-jock editor that drops bombs to drive away discussion participants. Both are abuses but there is no broad interpretation that can change it. Taking a case like this, with no real possibility of a binding resolution will only stir the drama pot. Arbcom, as it exists, can make determinations of whether a certain, particular behavior has crossed the line and sanction editors or topic/interaction restrictions. Paradoxically, Arbcom cannot draw the line and no will ever agree exactly where the line is regardless of a broad finding. It's the difference between judging and legislating. To paraphrase from Macbeth if this case is taken, it will have its hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I've moved a reply to Rich Farmbrough from LT910001 to LT's section as editors are permitted to edit in their own section only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Civility">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)