"

 Comment 

My comments on Malleus' talk page were well beyond civil, even for a user talk page. They were a personal attack, and warranted serious sanction. 

For the record, it was a simple spontaneous eruption of contempt mingled with rage. Some have muttered that I went to his page to harass him; that's not the case. I went to continue a discussion that had been interrupted by earlier admin action. Some are muttering that I went there to ""bait"" or ""poke"" him into a block. I appreciate the complement but my Machiavellian intelligence is non-existant. Obviously. 

I lost respect for Malleus when he said, ""You already succeeded in getting me blocked, so I can only presume that you're trying to repeat the trick."" I had made it clear that I had no intention of getting him blocked, he knew it, and yet regurgitated this populist slur. That's where he opened the door for my unmitigated opinion.

But my rant wasn't aimed at the dishonesty I perceived in that comment, that simply gave me permission to express a much deeper revulsion that's been building in me over the last few months with respect to this project. 

It's a feeling, so I'm not sure I can make it clear. A kind of nauseous disgust. It's to do with how we deal with the hurt we may cause others, other editors, our subjects and our readers. I'm pleased to see the faltering steps being taken toward a more civil ethos here. Those who actually know me know that means a great deal to me. There is a long way to go. Pesky pointed out that finding the right form of words for what's required is difficult. I agree. That's the challenge. The right form of words will emerge if we discuss these questions enough.

With regard to respectful discourse between editors, Malleus has been addressing the real root of the civility problem here for years. Telling someone to fuck off, or calling them a cunt is obviously uncivil and an easy call for an admin. But the real evil here is not Malleus and me calling each other names, it's the sleazy aside from one editor to another, undermining the reputation of a third. One editor can bully or badger another for days or weeks without ever calling them a name, and it's their victim that cops a block when they respond accordingly. So I'm glad to see more admins taking civility seriously, but you're going to have to work on the sophistication of your approach.

I'm disgusted by the way this project treats its readers with regard to controversial images. The bit that disgusts me is the mantra that ""we don't care if we offend our readers."" Seriously. That has been repeated ad nauseam during the Muhammad images debates and others. I can see no excuse for that attitude, and don't want to participate in an enterprise that has that attitude towards its readership.

And finally, contempt for our subjects. I first noticed this on a BLP. A teenage girl and her boyfriend made a sex tape. Later, when she was a minor local celebrity, the tape was posted on the net, without her permission. It's there now; Google her name and ""sex tape"" and you got it. She's now won a TV competition, so is becoming better known.

The tape's existence has been mentioned a few times in the press, but not much, and usually the ""nudge, nudge, lucky bastard"" type of comment, but it doesn't seem to have affected her career or even her private life. An RfC asked ""Should we mention the tape?"" Policy-wise you can make a case for its inclusion, but it's borderline. What really disgusted me was the utter unconcern of many editors for the effect our inclusion of the factoid would have on the visibility of the tape, and the consequent effect this would have on the woman. I won't elaborate further; you either get it or you don't.

And it was concern for the subject of a BLP that brought Malleus and me together. He was arguing for the preservation of a borderline notable BLP that the subject said was distressing him. I argued that it should go, simply because it's borderline notable and the subject doesn't want it. 

Although Malleus asserted the wishes of the subject are irrelevant, an assertion he is incapable of justifying, and a position I find morally repugnant, he deemed it appropriate to also declare the subject's claim of distress is implausible. Unfortunately, Jimbo had already primed me with a similar judgment. Jimbo had ignored my response, so I thought I'd add a little emphasis when I explained my view to Malleus.

I've suffered chronic pain and fatigue since I had an unnecessary medical intervention at the a