Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-22/Arbitration report

← Back to Arbitration report

Discuss this story

The headline is sensationalistic and inflammatory. Per Wikipedia, "War is an organized, armed, and, often, a prolonged conflict..." While the civility discussions are indeed prolonged, they are neither organized nor armed. It's just a website. Nobody Ent 12:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How is it inflammatory? Given the way this scandal is tearing apart a portion of the encyclopedia, maybe it's time for people to wake up and realize the damage they are doing. AutomaticStrikeout 13:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what we are saying to the authors of this piece. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that. This is just gasoline on the fire for no apparent reason. Anyway the Arb election is coming up shortly, so there's no need for anything to happen urgently. Gigs (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost merely reports what is happening. Are you aware of that battlefield? The journalists saw and presented to the community, in a balanced way as far as I can see. Tony (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've followed it. I don't see it as a battlefield. I see a lot of editors trying to do what they think is the right thing, some more misguided than others, and without any defined "sides". I think framing it as a battlefield is a disservice. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was an oped piece, sure. But lets leave the inflammatory commentary out of the other stories. Resolute 13:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Look, I appreciate the efforts you guys are making to improve Signpost coverage and reach, and I appreciate that some of it is coming from improved writing. But a chunk appears to be stealing headlines from The Sun. Ironholds (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, there have indeed been wars that have not been armed nor terribly organized. That said, in many ways, this situation has felt like a war amongst editors. For one, as was already stated below, editors are fighting for what they believe to be the right thing to do about Malleus, for Wikipedia, for the community, and for policies. That, and damage has been done in the resulting exit of several constructive editors and reluctance of some editors (like myself) to have any strong opinion because it is one of the few times in Wikipedia when participation because you believe in a principle actually makes things worse than better. So yeah. That's war enough for me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "not a Wikipedian" post was retracted/redacted - why no mention of that? This is a pretty poor piece not helping in a delicate situation. Nor does it explain why the first motion was proposed. It isn't very neutral at all.--Scott Mac 14:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It was neither retracted nor redacted. The specific wording in the vote was changed slightly, but still raised concerns, and the "not a Wikipedian" sentiment was reiterated elsewhere. Agree broadly with the neutrality issue, though I don't think there's any way to write this that would make everyone happy while still presenting the specifics. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not good enough. The article quotes verbatum the offending remarks but makes not mention that the one everyone is quoting was later stricken with an "ammendment".[1], and [2]. I'm sure that what was left still raised concerns for some folk - major ones. But not to at least mention an amendment and let the reader decide the significance is incredibly poor form indeed - inexcusable. --Scott Mac 15:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That was my oversight. I've added it now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why does drama follow Malleus everywhere? I can't really be arsed to figure out what's at issue, because I know its pointless.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• An exemplar of why people find the Wikipedia community difficult to participate in. Speaking as someone who has no knowledge of whatever events led to this debacle, it appears ridiculous on its surface. Why is there such a drive to protect prolific content contributors who find themselves not only unable to collaborate with others, but actively disinterested in a live-and-let-live approach? And to echo Jclemens, we reject ersatz participants who are not here to write an encyclopedia, who refuse to write from a neutral point of view, and who refuse to follow our copyleft requirements... why cannot we reject those who likewise refuse to be civil? Powers ^T 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps because the clear-cut difference is that contrary to the vandals, the POV warriors and copyright violators (who are rarely banned), some of those you would like to reject actually produce some of the encyclopedia's best content. Perhaps also because incivility is a highly subjective concept, in the sense that way too often, it is clearly seen, identified and called out in our opponents and those we disagree with, while overlooked, ignored or trivialized in those we see as our allies. To wit, Malleus' opponents see no problem with the formulation "is not and has never been a wikipedian", while those who support him consider it a blistering personal attack. Copyright violation is mostly a black and white issue, with close paraphrasing the grey area. Civility is mostly a grey area with only very little pure black or white to be found. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, Malleus' "opponents" (critics might be better) have generally rejected the "not a Wikipedian" remark, and the person who uttered it has retracted it. I've not seen the same willingness from supporters to disown Malleus' more blatant incivility. You are, of course, correct that there are grey areas in civility, but things like "fucking cunt" not so much. My problem us with people forming high-minded "my side is right - my friends are beyond criticism" battle-lines - it is better if everyone sees that all issues are at least a bit gray, and perhaps friends should not only defend their friends, but be a little more willing to say "please do tone it down a bit - the other side, for all their faults, do have something of a point here sometimes". Anyway, this is off-topic to the article.--Scott Mac 09:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I believe I am in full agreement with everything you just wrote. Where's the +1 button? :) More to the point, while indeed off-topic, it's highly relevant to the issue of civility and its enforcement issues on the project. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sadly I am no longer surprised at anything that comes form ArbCom, who individually are mostly respectable. I was surprised to see an Arb is subject to an interaction ban though. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
  

I've edited the title, that was not my original wording, Ed changed it at the last minute for publication in my absence. Any perceived sensationalism was unintentional, I do not believe he did this with malice aforethought. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:02pm • 07:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall any formal suggestion of any interaction bans between myself or Jc37 and Malleus...maybe it was mentioned somewhere...I guess with all the back and forth I didn't see it. Oh well.--MONGO 02:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a significant gap in the coverage of this story. It mentions Isarra's request for clarification and then jumps to: "The first proposal called for Malleus to be banned...". It omits the fact that SirFozzie conjured the ban motion rather than answering the question that was asked of the arbs. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)