User talk:Bishonen

Block

I've lain low with regard to Jimbo Wales' block of me, because I wanted first to wait and see if the matter might work itself out if I gave it a few weeks (see contributions). I've been working at Wikipedia for five years, mainly writing content—you can consult Raul654 for the quality of my work, if you like—and I guess I had a notion that some value might accrue to that, but it seems I was mistaken. I'm taking an indefinite break, not just because Jimbo Wales has called me a "toxic personality"[1]—a quite remarkably personal attack, from which he had to be pried loose in a meanly unapologetic statement.[2] And not just because of the demeaning way he blocked me: without warning; without discussion; in retaliation and punitively; blocking a user with five years of squeaky clean block log under her bra; blocking a user vulnerably asleep and thereby incapable of self-defence; blocking without care for context ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]); and blocking in a hurry.
And he blocked me under the banner of holding himself "to the highest standard", yet. No, it wasn't just that, but because other issues have been piling up, making me mull over whether this is a good place to be: compare User:Yomangan's farewell message, and Llywrch's post.
I'll save people a question: what made me expect satisfaction, even an apology, from Jimbo Wales? Well, I didn't really, for it was not, in my view of his personality, to be expected. But I've become aware that he has—in secret corners of the project—in non-transparent places—received some major criticism for his block of me, and I guess I figured he might have the grace to admit to me and/or others that the block was problematic and that it demonstrated extra low rather than extra high standards.[9] No soap, though. Indeed perhaps you and I had a culture clash, Mr Wales: California[10] versus Northern Europe. Hasta luego, all my friends. Probably I'll return one day, even though it seems so un-tempting right now; but I understand that people do. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Crap. Well, do what's best for you and what you enjoy, many thanks for all your contributions and your sense of fun which was much appreciated. Sad, dave souza, talk 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry about this. And Giano, too. Who is going to finish the encyclopedia now? Sandstein and Jimbo will have to work overtime now. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I never thought such a situation could ever arise. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Return as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think she could use a wikibreak, she's been under a lot of stress :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

California vs. Northern Europe? Seems more like Gordon Gecko vs. Mitt liv som hund's Ingemar. CEO's have no place at volunteer projects, and the CEO personality has no place outside of a reality television show.

In my own look through history, people get obsessed with the letter over the word, the word over the sentence, when they're afraid, when they're stressed, when they don't understand. "I don't know what's going on here, but that one said 'shit!'" is the attitude of the puzzled authoritarian. It's the reflexive attitude of the person whose action confesses instantly that there is coercion but not control. Well, the idea that there would be either one in such a place, in such a case, is laughable, and can only be proof that we're looking at a neolithic mindset. Geogre (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, degenerated as it may be with all its committees, behavioral guidelines, and pettifogging patrollers, is still a social experiment in taming the neolithic mindset. Largely failed in that respect, in my opinion. Or rather, it has contributed much to the development of the elaborate neolithism that dominates nine out of ten disputes these days. Enough of that. Bottom line: fscking crap. Kosebamse (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We behold

Bishonen, see this garden? It's like your contributions over the years to this project—rich, colourful, deep, multifaceted. Mr Wales was wrong to block you. Please don't give that incident false dignity by reacting to it. You're strong and it will pass soon. Badge of honour, if you ask me. So please, if you must take a break, make it short, will you? We need you. Tony (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bah, humbug. :-( Tex (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a Californian of Northern European descent, it's certainly my hope that there needn't be any cultural clash between those two places. I can assure you that Signior Wales's actions are not representative of California. As for this Californian: He hopes you'll be back before too long and values your contributions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Upon my return to civilization, I am disgusted at the way you have been treated - and even more disgusted that not one Arb had to the common decency or guts to publicly stand up and defend you! What a bunch of cowardly little shits they are. Giano (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Bishonen made a small error here: if she's writing about Wales, he's not from California, but from the American South (born in Alabama, lives in Florida). And while we Oregonians aren't all that fond of Californians (well, at least officially), there's nothing in a Californian mind-set which explains, let alone justifies, what happened here. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you do with a problem like a toxic asset "CEO?"

Here is a new question and suggestion:

1. Civility is the quality of behaving in a way that allows for civilization
2. Civility is that which allows the civil society to function
3. Civility has nothing to do with taboo or politeness, everything to do with the social group functioning politically.

If these statements are true, and I think they cannot be doubted (borrowed from other users), then blocking a productive (building relationships and content) user is uncivil, while calling someone a twelve headed gastropod is not. Calling someone a miniature scat is irrelevant compared to blocking someone who builds and enables building.

Bishonen is well known as a defender of the blocked, as a questioner of the received wisdom of blocking. Such a person is inevitably going to annoy and inevitably going to be invaluable, as long as she uses rational argument and evidence. In all of her defenses of the rapidly blocked, she has proven her cases. She has been, in these cases, working tirelessly and thanklessly to keep the project functioning, to put the brakes on mob rule.

Bishonen has also been one to coordinate efforts and social interactions between editors. She has argued against power, which, of course, will antagonize the proponents of power, but it is also invariably an important position in keeping a multifocal and open project functioning. It is vital for the "civil" side of Wikipedia that there be no log jam of power brokers. Nor has she done so with inflammatory language or off-wiki tools, as many others have done.

It therefore seems to me fairly clear that Bishonen is a force for and of civility and civil construction at Wikipedia.

Blocking people with whom one disagrees is a long time taboo at Wikipedia. No one is supposed to do this. From the earliest moment of the project's creation, people were supposed to seek the uninvolved before doing something like blocking. However, when a person uses a term like "toxic personality" (n.b. "personality," not "edit," not "action," not "words"), that establishes that the block is performed out of malice or anger. It is a violation of the blocking policy.

Supposing that there are different standards of behavior for different users at Wikipedia is to suppose that there are special people. Such a belief puts the lie to the very founding impulses of the project, where all contributions were to be seen as equal. If some contributions are to be weighted more than others, then, indeed, there are holy and unholy users, and yet there is no way of telling who those people are. To my knowledge, there has never been a process at Wikipedia for selecting such a person, as selections of administrators carry no such warnings.

If there is no special status inherent or adherent, then Jimbo's block of Bishonen is administrative abuse and a breech of WP:CIV.

Therefore: should an RfAr be opened on Jimbo Wales to seek his demotion? Is there no other way to solve these fundamental misunderstandings? Can Jimbo no other way give up the illusion of "god king" and "CEO" and other such concepts of infallibility? Can there no other way be an apology and a measure to prevent more such Alexander Haig-like command? Utgard Loki (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

an audience with the king

Over at User talk:GiacomoReturned#So!, Giano suggests that you still care about this block from Jimbo, and above he complains that Arbs have done nothing. That isn't quite true, as Casliber did mention his "dismay" over at Jimbo's talk page, and Jimbo did clarify that he did not intend to label you as a toxic personality. However calls for an RFAR, or a desysop, are terribly premature. You have both been around for long enough to know that dispute resolution starts with a one-on-one discussion. I am guessing you meant to start that with this post, however there are a lot of bystanders on both user talk pages, so I recommend that you two have a discussion on a separate page somewhere in userspace, either your own or you can use my userspace if you wish for me to exercise some control over unhelpful heckling. I would rather not become involved, but I will ask Jimbo to engage with you, if you are willing to have a one-on-one discussion with him. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, John. I will have a discussion with Jimbo if he's willing. However, since you mention it, I should point out right away that I'm unimpressed by Casliber's intervention (however well-intentioned) and by Jimbo's "clarification". I'll explain why if the occasion arises. A new subpage in my own space would be appropriate; I can't believe heckling would be a problem, once I explain to the too-helpful that the audience is supposed to be with the king, not the courtiers. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

I have taken the liberty of changing the tongue-in-cheek heading for a more direct one. This is not a moment for cuteness.--Wetman (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I would prefer that the original section name was preserved to put this in the right light of the accused, but I have added it as a hidden section name for now, as there is an incoming link. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

…and I’ve switched ’em back. I think the original section heading gets right to the heart of this issue — that this was a Royal Smackdown. Best wishes, Bish — Jack Merridew 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is the "toxic personality" Mr Wales referred to, then? Tony (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a question for him to answer; I am just endeavouring to set up a forum for Bishonen and him to chat in the hope it will allow these lingering questions to be answered. See also his clarification where Jimbo acknowledges that his use of "toxic personalities" was not ideal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Swift pointed out that the ancient Athenians argued that it was acceptable to say whatever one wished about whichever politician one liked. Call Themistocles a name, and you are alright. However, call Athens evil, and you will be hung. Call mankind bad, and you will be executed. It is better to lash an individual than a class. Well, speaking of "personalities" at all smacks of hubris. I want to know how anyone is qualified to speak of anyone else's personality or even the "personalities" (i.e. the virtual realities of discourse symbols that we call "users") other than that according to just some dude. I.e. if Jimbo is just some dude with an opinion, not held to any higher standard and not afforded any higher power, then he can think, for example, that I'm toxic or corrupting or diseased or venereal and I won't care -- he's some dude, and some dude will always have an opinion. However, Jimbo was simultaneously announcing that there were super-ordinary standards for expression and then betraying those by passing judgment on unspecified "personalities." Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that he has any longer any credible reason to have extraordinary authority. Such authority would either have to come from being well informed or extremely wise or extremely prudent, and not only are the facts against that, here, history argues that he is less and less any of those things. I don't know what sort of cloud he came out of to make such an announcement, but I don't think it was a nimbus. Geogre (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

←Please pardon my interruption, but I noticed that Jimbo asked on his talk page if there was a sub-page for discussion a few hours ago. I know it's absolutely none of my business, but I'm only hoping that something can be worked out where we wouldn't lose a great editor and great administrator. If this is all being handled privately, please feel free to just delete my post. I honestly hope that any disagreements can be resolved all the way around. Thank you for your time and use of your Talk Page Bish. All my best, — Ched :  ?  19:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So, um, if there isn't, then, uh, where on Wikipedia would Jimbo like to take part in dispute resolution? Seeing as he's deeply committed to Wikipedia to the point that Wikipedia need only hear his name to agree to his decisions, trusting that they are made with the best interests of all of Wikipedia at heart, I presume he would only want to use Wikipedia and wouldn't favor some off-wiki venue, like IRC or another website. Patience is a virtue, but one would rather not let the stale turn toxic worse. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Bishonen/block discussion has been created. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your problem

Burlesque Toni hitting the floor deeply, before a weekend camping trip.

Bishonen dear, this is rather delicate, but I feel someone should mention it. I have noticed of late that you seem to have a problem - it's ..er...talking to yourself [11]. Perhaps a longer Wikibreak is called for, somewhere nice, relaxing and soothing. Might I suggest my own establishment The Noto Home for Nutters permanent and temprorary cures guaranteed from $500,000 per weak. All credit cards accepted or cheques to my Cayman Island account. Giano (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh just in case you get a reply, you may find this helpful. Giano (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Is "hit the floor" a literal translation of 'curtsy'? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope not! I have just been looking for images here and discovered the "Texas dip." It has to be either a wind up or a bizarre sexual position because I can't beleive that has ever been practiced in any court, I'm sure it's anatomically imposible as described there: "The "Texas Dip" is an extreme curtsey performed by a Texan debutante when formally introduced at the International Debutante Ball in the Waldorf-Astoria. The young women slowly lower their forehead to the floor by crossing their ankles, then bending their knees and sinking. The escort's hand is held during the dip. When they get close to the floor their head is turned down towards the gown and floor. The rising is made as an awakening." Oh the Americans, you can't help but love 'em can you? Giano (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Going native ay? Was there a lot of tap dancing in Italian courts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they actually hit the floor. After all, the chamberlain hits it to tell 'em the king is acoming, and he hits it to tell 'em where to stand. I figure this is like dog training. After all that advice about not baring their teeth and snarling, it's got to be something like a stomp. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good theory, but with all of that floor stamping, it must surely have been deafening. Plus, the phrase "hit the floor deeply"? is odd in that context. Hit the floor "Hard", yes - "with deep feeling", maybe..... --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is becoming quite clear JC that you do not move in exaulted circles, in fact I suspect you may never even have witnessed the "Texas Dip." I realise Buckingham palace is not what it was, but please do not mick the behaviour at the Quirinal. I expect though there is quite a bit ot tap dancing and Texas dipping going on at the Palazzo Chigi though these days. Giano (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So, when the Italian guys in my neighborhood tell me that I need to pay up or they'll slowly break my leg, they're offering to take me to a royal party? Utgard Loki (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[ec]It is to my deep shame that the closest I've come to the Texas dip is Guacamole, but I do thank your God, despite the recent expenses row, we don't have to endure the soap operas of Burlesque Toni. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have a Texas dip in my mouth right now. Tex (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's it. I am going to get a burrito. Back after lunch... Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I survey this page: No wonder you dreadful people are where you are, lowly, vulgar, common editors, while I am invited to take Dom Perignon and canapes with Jimbo and the Arbcom - I know that the cocktail stick should be discretely placed in the handbag and not used to impale one's enemies - I also know that in the presence of ones betters one smiles and slowly breaks one's leg - a choice you will happily make when I catch up with you in RL. As for Signor Berlusconi, had poor dear Amilcare not been so cruelly disposed of, I would be the current "La regina d'Italia" - and beleive me, you would all be hitting the floor super pronto. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lady Catherine, may I be so bold as to suggest that now one is in one's incorporeal state, one may sip whatsoever one wishes, with whomsoever one chooses whenever one chooses? Given that, it seems odd to see you quaffing the odd bottle with the lay-judiciary and a man with no razor. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

EEEUUUUW. Texas dipping sounds like something that Lady Catherine should not be exposed to. Or can we all relax in the knowledge that it is some new type of poker? Tony (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The joys of nicotine without the perils of paralyzed cillia. Oh, sure, one's face gets eaten away by squamous cell carcinoma, but most of us don't have much in the way of a face to begin with. Meanwhile, the nicotine boosts memory and... other stuff... like... where the city of Copenhagen is. :-) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to mess up the Evidence, below, but I found a picture of the Civility Patrol admin. corp! It took some doing, too, as the flash can induce panic.

An administrator encounters a dirty word and reacts with proper offense.

Utgard Loki (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Evidence regarding views that blocking is inappropriate for provoked single instances of incivility, possibly provoked, without attempting to discuss with uncivil editor

I see you have been asked for evidence. Feel free to use this as evidence, if you wish. I believe Geogre would not be averse to you citing User:Geogre/Civility; I know there are other links which may prove useful, I will link here if my fuzzy little brain spits them out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Punitive blocks for incivility are bullshit, and discussing matters with the editor is always preferred." Me, Jan 2007.[12] KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• "We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia." Radiant, Jan 2007. [13]
• More comments on blocking for incivility by Radiant [14]
• Many of the comments, as well as the deletion nomination rationale, at the discussion concerning WP:PAIN which preceded the current WQA, discussion located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard
  1. "I'm now convinced that Civility Warnings, Cooling Off Blocks, etc. are a mugs game."[15] Lar, Jan 2007
• Wikipedia:Blocking policy, where the only mention of civility is at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which cites blocking criteria as "when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project" and clarifies this to be "persistent gross incivility"' no other mention of incivility is made at all.
• User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility "Enforcement of the civility policy ... it's not a terribly helpful one." and "For those who insist that one cannot ignore uncivil users: Why not, pray? "
• WP:ADMIN "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."
• The oft quoted WP:CIVIL has "A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." There's no specific definition of 'civility' other than a description of the effects. "Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment." How nice. Nothing there about blocking without warning. "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• The blocking policy hits the nail: "cooling-off" blocking is forbidden, and so is punitive blocking. The onus is on the blocking admin to explain, when queried, why a block is necessary to prevent damage to the project; that onus is encapsulated in WP:ADMIN's policy on communication. It's as simple as that. Shoot now, explain later is fast becoming outmoded, and a good thing that is for the sake of the project. Senior admins need to be setting an example. Tony (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ah woe. A flash of irritation at a time when a close friend appears to have just been driven from WP, and a nagging insensitive follower of the rulebook is descibed by a term which is not terribly stong in some cultures, but perhaps a deadly insult in others. Followed six hours after the event by a 3 hour block for "Incivility unbecoming an admin"[16] Sadly, punitive actions to make examples of admins have a history of unwanted effects, and had it been anyone else a warning would have been properly considered the appropriate action, a necessary precursor to any block. As it is, this has engendered bad feeling and wasted hours if not days of wikitime. Including mine, when I should be contemplating orchids. There must be a moral there. Ideally both blocker and blockee would concede that they've been rather naughty, and agree to make that an end of it. Just my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • • I am without standing, but may I only say this: I was reminded of what I've seen at AN/I. Someone shows up there, saying, "X has been mean to me, and he called me a craphound." A naive admin goes and blocks the person who used the dirty word, but the more experienced ones go and actually investigate and frequently come back saying, "You know, you were being awful. You were trying to insert junk, and you were past three reverts, and you were trying to get outside websites to bus in to win the argument. UserY shouldn't have called you a craphound, but it was understandable. You will be blocked if you don't start conforming to policy." Reacting to a dirty word is the mark of someone who is either too foolish or too naive or too indifferent to understand what is going on in a situation, and that's a bad, bad way to get civil interactions. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • ↑This guy is smart↑ Everyone should listen to Utgard Loki. Someone should frame the above post and hang it on the wall beside Jimbo's desk. Tex (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• My view may be a given, but I'll state it. Blocking is a last resort, not a warning shot. Blocking stops conversation, and Wikipedia is nothing but conversation surrounding articles (and, hopefully the conversation is about the articles). As for "civility" and its rank among our concerns, let me quote a famous person, Sigmund Freud: "The first man to hurl an insult instead of a stone, that man was the father of civilization." Insult and opprobrium are part of civilization. Violence -- including exclusion, coercion, and intimidation -- is not. What Jimbo is calling "civility" is a question of language, and specifically of "social register". In language, profanity functions, surprisingly, not to offend, but to indicate the emotional state of the speaker. Obscenity is supposed to offend, but in contemporary English it is rare. To offend, we usually go to something extended. "You should go to the sperm bank, because there people will like the fact that you're jerking off" is something I wrote to someone years ago to offend. My mood was coldly furious, and I wanted to wound. In general discourse, though, "You're a piece of shit, you know that?" is not designed to make the other person feel shock of offense: it's designed to say, "You have made my so angry that my next step is to violence." Online, where real violence is impossible, people move this language up and use it sooner, because the consequences do not exist. However, this is functional language designed to ensure civil interactions by communicating degrees of emotional freight and warning. It is not "offensive": it's admonitory. Blocking over something like that, then, is, if you'll excuse me, insane. It's stepping into a situation at the height of the frustration and looking at the person who cares the most and blocking that person. The "bad words" are signal words, and they're social signals that the other person needs to moderate behavior, but when a block comes in, the message is to validate the bad behavior. When Jimbo blocks an experienced administrator who has been pushed to her limits, he is saying, and user:Daedalus was quick to interpret it this way, that Deadalus should go on acting that way, because there are no consequences, and that process farming and whinging are winning ways. There is much, much more to say, but I fear I've gone too long and started to be specific. Geogre (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you little users. Appreciate! [Bishzilla eats little 'shonen's strawman with obvious enjoyment.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

• [Bishzilla performs a Texas Dip. Little users flee screaming.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Is that it then? Well as a soap opera It has rather lost my attention - have you noticed the way paint hardens and acquires a sheen and gloss as it dries, utterly fascinating, I could watch it all day. However, I digress, back to the dull side of life - so what was the outcome of the great Wales/Bishonen clearing of the air? - Is it you that has the "toxic personality", or someone else. Perhaps it is User: !!? I seem to remember Wales dismissing and trivialising his complaints as he was driven from the project. It seems you are to be trivialised too. Not really good enough is it? I would be bloody angry if he had called me a "toxic personality", but of course he didn't - it was you. Sorry, can't stop chatting here all day, the undercoat has just dried and I have found this long-lasting specialised paint that only takes 36 hours to dry, it has a secret micro-porous recipe and is only available from good hardware sho.............. Giano (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let us just pretend that a warning was, in fact, channeled prior to the (singular) offense having been committed (i.e. powers of telepathy and precognition, somehow!); and let us also pretend that Mister Wales can act as just any ordinary administrator without his blocks carrying any special and extraordinary significance.

Because not pretending that makes the chippie sad...

Which, hopefully, can still be remedied with extrahard petting!

Whoa, where didn't I come from? El_C 10:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Without question, Bishonen is one of my top four or five favorite people on WP. Among the reasons I like her is a practical, common sense approach rather than being a "policy wonk". Also her block of user:FT2 (then a sitting arbitrator) was a pretty gutsy thing to do. Regarding the incident at issue, I fully concur with the insult handed out at the editor, though I would have added another choice adjective or two for a full-flavor experience. HOWEVER… not everyone who heard about the insult knew about the past behavior of that editor. As was evident from the responses, the discussion quickly turned on the question of user A (an admin) intimidating and insulting user B (an editor) from a position of superior power. If no action had been taken, many people would have concluded that admins are free in general to abuse and threaten good-faith editors. Which in fact DOES happen frequently enough to adversely affect the user experience on Wikipedia. True, there is the question of fairness, when much worse behavior by admins goes unpunished or is punished much less severely (e.g., only a 1-hour block on admin Scarian for his lengthy hate-filled tirade, spammed across several WP pages, against user:Malleus Fatuorum.) However, fairness and justice are always elusive concepts. In short, it is my opinion that while worse admin conduct often goes unpunished regrettably, this three-hour block by Wales was right or at least not grievously wrong. Sorry. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please advise me: a block should never be imposed to prove "a principle"—that is my intuitive understanding, but it may be wrong. Can someone who knows more about the rules of blocking confirm that this is correct? Tony (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong. Every consensus-built project page I've ever read about blocks on en.Wikipedia is very straightforward about this. Blocks are technical steps which are meant only to be preventative, to stop edits from a named account or IP from doing later harm to the project. Hence, there has to be a good faith notion that there's a meaningful likelihood of later harm, meaning the technical step of the block is needed to stop it from happening. There may be disagreement over the likelihood, or whether what could happen is even harm, but policy abiding blocks can never be punitive, or "cool down," or set to such a short time that they're clearly meant only to note unhappiness over some behaviour. Anything else calls for a warning, a ban (which is not at all the same thing as a block), RFC or arbcom outcome of some kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm Right: I'm Always Right, and I Was Right Again

It's rough, when you think you're talking to a person, and it turns out you're not.

A translator.

I mean, there you are, ready for logic, and you find that it's just Gumbo, or Jumbo, or some Spoonerism thereof. It's like watching an interview with W. Bush. Geogre (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

temporary fencing quickly erected

Privatemusings created User:Bishonen/block discussion with a copy of the messages that Jimmy removed from his userpage.[17] From the edit summary of that removal it is obvious that Jimmy wishes to continue discussing this with you, and part of the agreement was that it would be a one-on-one discussion, so I have redirected and protected User:Bishonen/block discussion, and left privatemusings a note about this.[18] Do what you will with the page from here, and sorry for interfering with your userspace. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As that wandering-off-topic discussion was primarily about "bad words", I suggest redirecting to Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, where they can add their views somewhere it might be useful, rather than intrusive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins who curse

I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.

— From Inherit the Wind,
by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee

Admins are people too. I cannot agree with the blanket statement that "admins who curse at people should be blocked for 3 hours (or more) for doing it, and should be at serious risk for losing their adminship". It cuts across well-established policy, as Gwen has pointed out above, and it is increasingly the practice by admins to use a more conciliatory approach with established editors. Such an approach might include an examination of the underlying context, a strong suggestion to consider either a unilateral or bilateral apology and perhaps a self-striking-through of the text at issue. This type of approach is implicit in the New Admin School's excellent section on dispute resolution, and in positive responses by RfA candidates to recent questions on this matter. Incivility, ruffled feathers, heated off-the-cuff comments: we're all human, and I see no reason to hold admins and other experienced editors to different standards. If a curse-word occasionally pops up, it should be treated as an opportunity by admins to promote healing and harmony. Blocking, I believe, is normally appropriate only for intransigent, repeat offenders who refuse to engage in productive dialogue about the matter and who are likely to cause damage to the project. Leadership by example would be most welcome. Tony (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively we could make it very clear that Wikipedia has a warrior caste with a strong codex of honour including no swearing. You become a member by fighting vandals and optionally doing some gnoming, then you advance to adminship. And a content creators caste with more liberties but no promotion path. Content-creating admins like Bishonen are only suffered under a grandfather clause. If they can't follow a brainless military code of honour they must give up their tools or will be shown the door.

Further reading for members of the warrior caste who are confused by the previous paragraph: Sarcasm. Hans Adler 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

nb: you can often spot the wannabe-warrior-caste-types by their sigs; look for an abundance of mark-up and styling of the colours-and-borders-and-background variety wrapped around some ludicrous user name. If their, sig, user name, and general demeanor are all about attention-seeking, you may have landed one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Gack; (not intended to impugn humourous alternative accounts that may be derived from Smaug, of course;) — rather, the sort all so common on simple:wp and oh-so-focused on the Whack-a-Vandal or the Great-Sock-Hunt games here on teh encyclopaedia that any idiot can edit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It reminds me of the blinkered, superficial focus of some fundamentalist religions. Some words are "bad", and some words are "ok", and your motive, spirit, and intent behind the "ok" words can be absolutely horrible, but it would only be wrong if you used the "bad" word. The result of this is vindictive, mean-spirited, and hurtful people who will insult you by calling you a "little turd" instead of a little shit, who will damn you by saying "darn you" instead, and who will mock and humiliate homosexuals by calling them the ok word "gay" and not the "bad" word "fag". But they will think this is all within the bounds of reason, because they have only used acceptable, non-cursing language. I remember being allowed to shout terrible things at my older brother when angry, and it was always ok, until I used a curse word. Surely the whole point should have been to not be shouting at him at all, or to not be wishing to wound him, or to not be angry? It pains me to see this attitude actually being enforced on Wikipedia. Encouraging a shallow, meaningless, and trifling concern with "words", and wholesale ignoring a much more sinister, bitter, and damaging spirit hiding in the shadows. Maedin\^talk 09:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, above, we need to shout, as humans in a civilization. Now, we can do so stupidly without bad words, like the admin who wrote on the talk page of an article, "If you don't speak English, don't edit here!" We can do so cleverly without using the forbidden seven, as has been my wont and Bishonen's and Giano's. We can modulate, using the simple profane as an attention getting message that is embedded in a full argument, which is a perfect use of profane words. We can smile politely all day and conduct secret trials. We can adopt the habit of some people and say absolutely nothing at all, but merely block and then put in nine words in a block summary. The last of these is the most barbaric, the least civilized, the most totalitarian. Otherwise, we're off with the worst of the Taliban mullahs. Geogre (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't look at me!. Though I think that if you're going to swear, at least reserve it for when it's really really important, so like once in a wiki-career or so; or, unless it's really, really funny ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) You looked anyway, didn't you?

Toxic shit

Bishonen, I just wanted to offer you my 2¢, which is a decidedly outside view by a decidedly uninvolved regular editor. I’ve heard about this dispute on the grapevine for a while now, and just looked at User talk:Bishonen/block discussion. You and Jimbo seem to have gotten into a vicious circle here, where you are both trying to save face. He is quite right, administrators, who are *supposed* to be held to a high standard of conduct, should not call someone a “little shit”. I, frankly, couldn’t care less what language anyone uses, but… (you know all the arguments so there’s no use repeating it). And Jimbo was quite right to block you. He made an example out of you. A very small, short block, but a symbolic example nonetheless. And, after dealing with KC, below, I might add that while what Jimbo did wasn’t in accordance to the rules of blocking, we all know that admins dish out three-hour-long “gentle taps” to editors all the time, so let’s be “real” here and not spin our wheels in a rut of our own making because of the *principle* of the thing. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, however, made a huge error in writing “toxic personality”. For a hard-working admin who exercises good faith—and since the words came from such a notable person as Jimbo—such words were deeply, deeply cutting. I see that Jimbo clarified “toxic personality” as having been meant as “toxic behavior”. Too little, too late.

I encourage you to drop this. Frankly, the words uttered from the tips of Jimbo's fingers strike me as having been an forgivable error. However, his failure to offer you an unconditional retraction and unconditional, profuse apology speaks, I think, more to his shortcomings. He seems to not understand how hurtful those words were to a well-meaning, hard-working volunteer such as yourself. He appears to be all wrapped up in trying to make his point about how inappropriate it is to have administrators flouting rules of conduct. Your dropping it at this juncture will reflect well on you. I wouldn’t be surprised too, that after a few days to a few weeks after you drop it, Jimbo might reflect on how showing magnanimity to volunteer followers wears exceedingly well on leaders and he might make an overture to you. At least, I hope he will. Greg L (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy expressly forbids blocking to "make an example" and any admin who did so would be up before ArbCom in short order, if not de-sysopped by Jimbo. As your entire "the block was ok" argument hinges on your severe misunderstanding of the blocking policy, your entire post is moot. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true the block strayed from policy, given the background, there was no way a three hour block filled any technical need to stop harm to the project. I may raise eyebrows by saying this, but had the block been for longer, say 3 days, it would have been within policy as to the technical goal of a block, though likely not supported by consensus as to any harm it was stopping. At the very least, civility blocks must follow warnings and a pattern of incivility. Even then, some wonder whether civility blocks are even helpful when made on the accounts of good faith, long term content contributors. This said, I agree that admins should stay wholly professional in how they word things, but folks do slip up now and then, each in their sundry ways. A friendly but stern warning from Jimmy would have been enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with Gwen; except as regards the 3-day block: no harm was imminent or indicated. My post was specifically adressing Greg L's complete misunderstanding of the blocking policy; it was he who used "make an example" to characterize Jimmy's block of Bishonen, saying Jimbo was "quite right to block you. He made an example out of you. A very small, short block, but a symbolic example". This is horrible reasoning; no block is to "make an example". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

KC, only to clarify, a three day block would have fit the technical (software) goal of stopping harm, but only had there been harm to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then we have no disagreement at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should have come out and said the block strayed from policy in at least two ways, but I wasn't keen on rubbing it in, still not. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rubbing it in? I was trying to correct a complete misunderstanding of the blocking policy. As admins, we are charged with explaining policy and educating those who are ignorant, or confused, about our policies. I don't think a second voice confirming what our policy says would be rubbing it in. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were rubbing it in (but I'm sorry if you took it that way, it's not at all what I meant). I was saying I didn't want to rub it in to Jimmy, how thoroughly he strayed from the blocking policy. He's already said he won't block anyone for six months. I know other editors have other worries about other things he's said since the block, but I've come here only to comment on the block itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying - but I believe you are mistaken. Jimmy only said he wouldn't block for six months if Bishonen explicitly repeats, word-for-word, a statement Jimmy has given her. Its conditional, you see. Unless he didn't mean to say that, in which case he really needs to rephrase completely. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Ok, I could be mistaken, he said Therefore, I pledge not to block anyone for 6 months as a good faith gesture to you. In return, I want you to... Since he made an unconditional pledge in a stand alone, complete sentence, I didn't take the next sentence as a bargain that went with the pledge, but maybe it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right. It is unclear enough that I am uncertain, and at least one other admin has publicly agreed and said it sounds like "either an ultimatum or a horse trade". Pending clarification, I cannot presume to know for certain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict, hope this helps to clarify> Gwen, I agree that the pledge itself was unconditional, but then what he wanted "in return" was backed by the implicit threat that a failure to deliver would be "incompatible with fundamental principles of Wikipedia". The latter statement remains in the latest version, as I read it. Most unfortunate, but clearly against blocking policy as I think we agree. . dave souza, talk 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Having read what must be over a thousand of Jimmy's posts for over 5 years, I think he's made the pledge but KC did get me wondering. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, all three of us have been here a while, not sure its worth mentioning (unless for page stalkers who are curious?) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, only speaking for myself, only noting I've read lots of his posts, which make me think, maybe wrongly, that I understand the meaning behind his syntax. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As all three of us have been here around 5 years, and 2/3 of us think his meaning is at least unclear, then I suggest there is a problem with phrasing. On the chance that the 1/3 of us who is tentatively confident she understands what is intended, may I gently suggest that if 5 years of careful reading of Jimmy's posts are necessary background to understanding his meaning in this one, then that is far too obscure a subset of the human population to call his post in any way clear. Either way, it requires clarification from He Who Wrote it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

KC, I wasn't comparing myself to anyone, I was only speaking for myself. As I've said maybe thrice now, I may have misunderstood what Jimmy said. Moreover, I came here only to comment on the block itself, which I have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• KillerChihuahua: I know all about blocks. I also understand human nature. Admins are people and they come in all sorts of flavors. Some are wise and mature. Others are immature dicks. And admins hand out blocks. So let’s look a bit more at blocks. They are meant to be *protective* and not *punitive*. It’s kind of a gray area ain’t it? Administrators hand out unjust blocks all the time with utter impunity and hide behind the apron strings of “protective” whenever they do so. Moreover, admins often have a severe double standard and will block regular editors for minor lipping off to admins that wouldn’t get on anyone’s radar screen if it was directed to a regular editor. Check out my block log. All five are for lipping off to admins. Take note of my first one. I twice reverted an edit made by Connelley himself. His remedy? A three-hour block, accompanied by this edit summary: “edit warring at g-force - gentle tap”. So I don’t buy into your implicit argument that Jimbo is not allowed to dish out a little bit of “correction” given that admins do it all the time. We all know what is really going on here. Jimbo gave Bishonen a “gentle tap.” But because it was Jimbo, it’s all blown out of proportion.

  I hope you chose your next post with care, KillerChihuahua, for your message point of “I disagree with one part of Greg L’s post so the entire message is moot”-argument has given me some insight here in your style, which doesn’t impress. Greg L (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You know "all about" blocks, yet you argue that an expressly forbidden reason to block can be used to legitimize a block? Uh, no.

Perhaps I was unclear: your entire post, since it hinges on that argument, is rendered moot by the falsity of said argument. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion, which amounts to “Keep making a holy stink about this Bishonen/Jimbo thing” because of your principles. You missed the point of my post by being blinded by your intransigence. I will no longer respond to you. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about my opinion. Dont quit your day job; you're not a good mind reader. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your "small" comment above, you're wrong again. You were blocked for edit warring, which is clearly stated in the blocking comment. That Connelly called your block a "gentle tap" does not obviate this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe William M. Connolley is one who's block reasoning should be imitated by anyone. If Jimbo is following the example set by that particular admin, we are all in trouble. Tex (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumpers, it's too bad you've (apparently) decided to continue your retirement, Bishonen. I suppose, life goes on. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• So, according to the subpage, Jimbo blocked Bishonen because it is policy that you should block people for saying dirty words, and the good that came of his block is that it established that policy. I.e. it was policy because he thought it. It had been policy because it was his idea. The usefulness of the block was that he did it, and that set proof for everyone else.
• Well, for all the people who think that Jimbo is something more than an administrator, or who believe that he possesses wisdom, despite his overt lack of prudence, this should not allow you to heave a sigh of relief. Indeed, this subpage has made your lives much, much, much more complicated.
• Now your divine leader has, by fiat, created policy without the intervention of pesky administrators or policy review, and he's going to leave it to you to figure out what it means. Let me give you some things you'll need to settle for yourselves, ok?
  1. Are all dirty words the same? Does a "shit" get the same block as a "fuck?"
  2. Are all dirty words the same in context? Does it require the word to be used as an adjective or verb, or can it be an exclamation? Does, "Oh, fuck me! I made a terrible mistake" get 3 hours, while, "Fuck you, you twerp" get 4 hours?
  3. Will there be a list of words that people may and may not say, so that people can be sure, in advance, when they are allowed to express their anger or frustration and when they are not, and how?
  4. If there is a list, will it be the American FCC's famous Seven dirty words, or will Wikipedia avoid systemic bias and use the BBC's list? Or will a person get blocked for using a word disallowed by the national broadcaster of the IP address of the account he or she is using?
  5. If there are differences, will it matter where the person receiving the comment is? Does it matter that calling a British person an "ass" is calling him a donkey, while calling an American an "ass" is calling him a rectum?
  6. Now that you have sorted out the exact weight and penalty of each word, will you also get at the synonyms for profane terms so that clever wordsmiths do not avoid the letter of the law and may be blocked for saying, "Intercourse your mother, you unstoppable masturbator?"
• Be aware that you have a brand new day of blocking ahead of you, an exciting time when you will get to block lots and lots of people, and perhaps even yourselves, for all sorts of words. I'm sure that you will have a good time discussing the words and how bad they are. After all, you don't want "process wonks" to question you. No doubt they're up to no good. Geogre (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Civility is not a naughty words filter. There are numerous ways to be uncivil while using clean words. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  Good point, Jehochman. Try 'splaining that to the "god king". Tex (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the Preview button, is helpful when considering using 'colorful words' in one's responses. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not followed the affair

except its minimal outline but here's my advice anyway: extract some vague lesson? Which I believe would be an idea that although at the end of the day surface things don't count for much, still it takes so little to change surface things that, if they are taken to count for much by another, simply change em (maybe a surface thing that ultimately doesn't account for much, anyway...). ----- Sorry, Bishonen, it's late and I've been up a long time. Anyway, good luck...and congratulations/thanks for all your help with this open-access encyclopedia's really great/fun/rewarding project. ----- Oh, and the other option is just to come back and be yourself? The poor guy gets so many reverberations from having blocked you, he'd be hesitant to block again for a mere word or three. Anyway, it seems you're a real asset and are/would be sorely missed. (If this post makes zero sense, just treat it as some random collection of words: albeit sent you with good intentions.) -- Just me here now 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just sad.

I just read that pernicious page referenced above, which resulted in four otherwise-uninvolved housecats being awakened from slumber by the sound of their human yelling at her monitor--"NO, that was NOT what she SAID..." and "ARRGH are you even LISTENING?" and similar rhetorical devices. When even I, dense as I am in matters of logic and philosophy, can pick out the garish flaws in an opposing point...well, they've gotta be sticking out there like a sore thumb, is my point. I have never seen two people conduct a conversation so completely at cross-purposes to each other, and since Jimbo's line of questioning repeats consistently three points which you have already disproven--that you allegedly think you were right to cuss at Daedalus, that you think all admins should be allowed to cuss at will, and that you believe policy should be adapted to encompass that ability-- I would say your assertions are much better-supported. (And that's to say nothing of yet another most-beloved Wiki-principle: AGF, anyone? The assumptions made about your opinions--assumptions which, I repeat, you had already debunked several times--show an expectation of spectacularly BAD faith. Per those assumptions, you are a defender of profanity and personal attacks, you advocate rude treatment and unkindness based solely on rank, and you believe that rude behavior should be specifically codified and advocated by policy. I can think of only, perhaps, a few malicious trolls who would cop to supporting any given ONE of those three tenets; certainly, as a good-faith contributor and (dare I say it?) a da...er, da...um, a doggone good admin, I cannot imagine even an alternate universe in which you actually believed a word of that mess.) Personally, I believe the block was per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, pure and simple, and no matter how many times the concept of "civility" is invoked, it will not justify the block that was given--except to those who view "civility" through the same lens as Jimbo, and those people would require no justification, since they would have already supported the block. And around and around and around...

Okay, then; enough about my opinions of Jimbo's opinions on that page. You will be missed; come back soon, and in the meantime, be well. The encyclopedia will haz a sad without you.GJC 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One last try then

And I think this would be best on that page.

Can you explain to me why you think current policy allows admins to engage in personal attacks, indeed to curse at users and not be blocked for it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ye gods, Jimmy, she never said she thought that. Would you stop this "when did you stop beating your wife" line of questioning? She never said that she thought that, she never indicated she thought that, and your obtuse persistence in repeating the question only makes you look extremely dense, or else hostile and manipulative. If such is not your intent then I advise striking this accusation masquerading as a question. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, I know your on line. Why do you think continuing this "feud" is doing wikipedia any good? Jack forbes (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one genuinely question the sanity of anybody who continues to want to contribute content to an encyclopedia headed in any manner by someone who could pursue this topic with such small-minded, petty, un-nuanced and to my mind unintelligent views as Jimbo has demonstrated during the course of this discussion. Abandoning this project is the best response. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See the last on my talk page. I have been asked what I am planning to do about something and what I would be willing to give up. The question is whether people are willing to give. They need to feel a sense that they're giving to some people (in my case, the world... until a -bot comes to put a banner at the top saying that the article is worthless because it has no footnotes, and, despite being written by an expert in the field and containing numerous references to exact sources in words in the sentences, no one should read it) (or to the workers at Wikipedia, in the case of people like Bish, who seems to care about people). They need to have a sense of giving something of use. They need to have a sense that what they're giving will be gotten. Take any of those three away, or, in my case, all three, and there is no reason to give. Geogre (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I gave up trying to discuss anything long ago with J Wales - he wants Wikipedia to be only one way - his way. All debate with him his futile. However, he cannot be allowed to have it all his own way because we are the ones creating the project. From what I can see, he now travels the world proclaiming what a fantastic idea Wikipedia was (indeed it was and is) and has lost touch with what is happening on the ground floor. It seems, any editors proving themselves too prolific or intelligent becomes a threat to the inner circle over which Wales presides. His discussions with Bishone proves that, his method is that if one says something loud enough and often enough it becomes true, and on J Wales' Wikipedia that does seem to be true. Giano (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis alwasy best, to practice usage of the Preview button, when formulating responses. Avoiding usage of 'colorful words & phrases', helps. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is so unconscious.

In fact, if I get in the mood for a final post or something, I promise to write

COMING SOON The Handy Chart for Converting Cussing to Expletive:

BEING

An Useful Way to Translate the Dirty Word You Want to Say into a Word that Means the Same or Worse, Guaranteed, but without blocking

It'll be a chart. You look in the first column and find "little shit," for example, and then, in the second column, you see that you should, instead, say "toxic personality." Instead of getting a three hour block, you'll have people lining up to tell you how wonderful you are. Geogre (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I eagerly await the fucking chart. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

For "fucking," substitute "drama," and vice versa. For successful administrators who model the best possible behavior, it's the preferred term. It means less, it's true, than "fucking," but it gets a person into the circle of Friendso'Jim. Geogre (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are the letters so large? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• My favourite piece of incivility is a line uttered quickly by Helen Mirren to one of her subordinates in State of play, a film in current release: "Fuck you very much." Tony (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This one sighs and faces a wall,

'That is not what I meant, that is not it at all.'

Difficile est satiram non scribere, but you guys managed. Geogre (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC review

I mentioned your expertise here. Hope I got it right! Tony (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if you'll see this, but...

I've not been around for a while, and when I come back what do I find? More drama created by the autocrat of all the wikipedias - still, a block from his nibs is a badge of honour in my opinion. I hope you are keeping well, and remember Noël Coward's advice to just try to rise above it. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Rise above it, like cream! Like balloons floating over the arctic ice! Like smoke from a fire! Like... um... like other floaty things! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... Scroll wai down! Float and crash! Bishonen | talk 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

Hrm, not crashed yet. Floundering, I'll grant. We shall see. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Floundering? I beg your pardon? Did you click on the diff? (Please scroll way down, it's a silly diff.) Bishonen | talk 22:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

I'm sure KC meant co-floundering, safe in the knowledge that you would never flounder alone ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Spoiling for a Flounder block, are we, Privatemusings? There's nothing like the life of danger, after all! Say it! Little... Little... Come on, you know you want to! Bishonen | talk 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

fortunately I've slept with Jimbo, so I'm ok :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dif? Image? Ebay auction? I'm afraid this is unverified. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

are you around right now?

Hey Bish,

I don't know if you remember me from the good old days - I'm A Train/Fernando Rizo. I've got a bit of a project I'm looking a little help with, probably half an hour of your time, but I saw that your userpage is blanked right now. You've got some recent edits, but are you on a break or anything? Let me know if you've got the time/inclination to be a second set of eyes for me on something.

Cheers, A Train^talk 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a break or something, sorry, A Train. A dramafest. I blanked my page in protest against what I consider shabby treatment by the Founder. I won't necessarily edit any more, we shall see how the drama pans out. About your project: it's not the half-hour, as such, that I begrudge you... but... I'm just too stressed right now. Sorry again, and for replying so late. Best wishes. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Bish, don't you worry, I completely understand. Drop me a note when you're back, I've been meaning to spend more time on the project. Hope to see Bishzilla back before long, too. A Train^talk 08:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and Jimbo's bloody brilliant block

While I can understand your want for ArbCom to deal with your problem, I really think this is going to be a waste of time. I just can't see any chance the committee's going to be willing to look at a single admin action, particularly because it seems they continue to labour under the myth of Jimbo as some ordinary admin. (Never mind the fact that he can prevent an Arb from taking a seat on the committee or fire an Arb at whim, or that the last time someone undid an admin action of his, he was temporarily desysopped. Just a normal admin, indeed. Not even sure the committee members themselves believe such nonsense, but I think they feel bound to support the idea, anyway.) I suspect that any move to check Jimbo will have to come from the community at large. Anyway, I'm bothering to make this note on your talk page just to say I think you won't get what you want here, but that I continue to think you rock and hope to see you contributing more in the future, as unpleasant as that can be (I just got off a two-week enforced Wikibreak because of frustration about how things are going here). Here's hoping to see you around. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If the ArbCom are wise, they will accept this case. To let so much bad feeling and confusion fester on would be destructive. Giano (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Homestar Runner. Though... even if it comes from the community at large, it has to start somewhere, you know? Man, that's a great comment you've written, I wish it was somewhere the committee could see it. Like round about here maybe. Anyway, glad to see you back, I was concerned about your break. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

I'm OK. Thanks for your concerns, though. It's always good to see that people care. I may be cutting back at Wikipedia just to deal with real life, but I'm sure I'll be here at least some. I know what you mean about how it's got to start somewhere, and I'm not sure where that would be. Incidentally, in response to both you and Giano I'm not sure I can see the committee being able/willing to solve these bad feelings and confusion even if they were to accept it. As usual, I haven't really got any good ideas for how to fix this sort of thing. Maybe I should just go proofread an article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on ARBr

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=303341535&oldid=303339394 I interpret the summary and the last sentence as an personal attack on Jimbo, and would like to ask you to retract that statement. _→AzaToth 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• You obviously have not been attacked enough in your obviously short life AzaToth. Giano (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by that statement? _→AzaToth 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got information from fellow wikipedians that the statement is an old american folk saying (Teaching grandmother to suck eggs), which I've had never heard about; I'm sorry if I offended you in any regards. _→AzaToth 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@Toth - Sucking eggs is a rather easy thing for anyone to do, however, for person's of a certain vintage for instance, your Grandmother, it is generally considered that they have become more adept at the skill than others - Have you really never heard the expression? [19] - now retract your baseless accusation of Personal attacks please. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have never heard about that expression at all before; Also, it was implicit I retracted the accusation in my comment above, but if you want ,i do it explict here as well; Bishonen, sorry for the accusation of personal attack, please ignore it. _→AzaToth 15:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Come now, Joop! Please refer to this here encyclopedia right below your feet ! Bishonen | talk 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

I am shamed - I've started a new article as penance. (also see here penance Aza? I think we're on the safe side of civil with that one too) --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think about it, children today aren't allowed to collect bird's eggs, what with the planet coming to an end, being green and Prince Charles and so forth. So it's not suprising younger people don't know it.Giano (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to mediate

Hello Bishonen. Please see my offer to formally mediate your dispute with Jimmy here. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read Bishonen and Jimbo's exclusive talk page, where they discuss their differences and his responses on his page, I would say all attempts at reconciliation have been met and made. 10 out of 10 Ryan for effort in this matter, but neither party is prepared to concede one inch of ground, as far as this matter is concerned. There is also another small matter, perhaps it is just me, I find something sinister and menacing in his choice of words, cannot quite put my finger on it, but I know what I mean. Probably a language and cultural difference I expect. Just I can't quite get it out of my head somehow. So I think it is best to let the ArbCom sort it out rather than drag you and even more people into the mess. Giano (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano is mistaken. I am ready to concede a lot. I believe that reasonable people can find a mutually satisfactory solution if they work on it. A public discussion page is not the best place to do that, and Ryan will be a trusted and neutral person to help us work out a solution that works for everyone. In email, Bishonen has suggested that what would work for her would be for someone to work out a statement for the block log that she and I can both agree to, and I hope she'll accept Ryan as a person to help us try that. It strikes me as virtually certain that I'm willing to simply freely give Bishonen a lot more than she would get out of an actual ArbCom case, and I hope she agrees. (If she has a problem with Ryan for some reason, I'm happy to talk about others who might help us.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In commercial disputes we occasionally have each side select a mediator, then those two mediators select a third. The decision of the three mediators is then binding or influential. On the arbitration request thread I posted what I thought might be a reasonable settlement. You both are free to read or ignore my prattling. Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'll be happy to assist in any way with this. Jehochman's suggestion has considerable merit, IMO. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please see my note on the Arbitration requests page. Sunray (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Jimbo, please stop saying I've suggested we work out a statement for the block log. I have not. You must have completely misunderstood me. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

What, again? Give it up Bishonen, he seems to have some kind of breakage wherein he decides you've said something, and no amount of telling him otherwise penetrates. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales

Hello bishonen. I've gone ahead and filed a request for mediation which will be accepted should both you and Jimbo agree to the request. I've added a number of issues to discuss during the mediation, but please feel free to add more should you think of any. As it stands now, me and Sunray will be acting as mediators. Should this be a problem, we can certainly look at other mediators to take over the role. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"What, again? Give it up Bishonen, he seems to have some kind of breakage wherein he decides you've said something, and no amount of telling him otherwise penetrates." Giano (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Crossposted to the mediation page.)
Sorry, Ryan, I'm not trying to be difficult or make some sort of point here, but I do not agree. I have tried to discuss and communicate with Jimbo already--note, not only on my subpage User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, but by now also on the arb's mailing list. I'm completely frustrated and stressed out by these attempts. We both do our best, no doubt, but I've never had so much difficulty in communicating and arguing with somebody before. Surely this whole thing can't depend on me performing that feat? And what the blazes is so wrong with the arbs opening a case? Presumably the community looks to them for guidance on this--not to me. (I am, whatever Rlevse says, after all a "Jane User", although Jimbo is by no means a "Joe Admin".[20]) The arbs have already proposed a number of suggestions for how to frame a case--for the scope--on the RFAR page. Also, if there's is something magically repugnant about an "arbitration case" about Jimbo, NYBrad has said he's proposing to deal with the matter by a motion instead, and what's wrong with that? Bishonen | talk 14:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

I've asked you a question about that here. Sunray (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I belive that question has already been answered, on the MedCom mailing list. I'm beginning to believe that my fellow mediators, cheerful optimists that they are, are in this case greatly overestimating any possibility a mediation could be of use here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we are referring to the same question. As to being an optimist, guilty as charged. However, I've stated reasons on the Arb case page why I think mediation should be tried. In any case, Bishonen is not privy to the MedCom list and I would like to hear her answer. Sunray (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken; I thought you were saying you could see no arguments against; not that you were specifically interested in her reasons. My error. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)poi

Actually, if the mediators managed to convey it to Jimbo that a Founder with a very plausibly (not to say necessarily) perceived honesty problem is not in anybody's best interest, especially not in his and not in Wikipedia's, then I think such a mediation could have a chance. Hans Adler 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"If" being the operative word, and to convey something, the other party must be open to actually listening to what is being said. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bishonen-Jimbo Wales. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Support

I want to offer you my sympathy and support.

This is not support for any particular behaviour, in particular not support for behaviour you've said is not ok, but support for you as a person.

I'm sorry that you're in this unfortunate situation, I realize it's very difficult for you, and I feel for you.

Jimbo is also in a difficult situation. The extra attention you've received by virtue of having been blocked by Jimbo is extra attention that he receives on a regular basis. I can hardly imagine what that's like but I'm sure it isn't easy.

Jimbo seems to have been missing the point that some behaviour may be prohibited and yet, if the behaviour does occur, a block may not be the best response. Judgement needs to be used in each situation, and most often some other response is better than a block: e.g. page protection, warning, reminder, advice, mediation, defusing, diplomacy, use of humour, or doing nothing. This point may be much easier to accept when stated by someone other than the person who was blocked. It may not be a matter of blocking being prohibited in a defined set of situations, but of use of good judgement.

It seems possible to me that there is a misunderstanding over the definition of the word "personalities". Jimbo could perhaps have been using sense 9 here [21] "a disparaging or offensive statement referring to a particular person: The political debate deteriorated into personalities".

I'm sorry that all this has happened and I hope it's all resolved to everyone's satisfaction soon. I hope this message from me doesn't make things more difficult for you in any way. Email me if you feel like it (though I may not be available until the weekend). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig, I appreciate your message very much. I have thought of the sense of "personalities" that you suggest.. but it's perhaps a bit strange that if that was what Jimbo meant, he seems to be himself quite unaware of having meant it--the phrase itself allows for that definition, but his responses about the phrase, to Casliber and to me, don't really allow for it at all. Also, there is a third, quite different, possibility ... I'll think about sharing that one by e-mail. Regards, Bishonen | talk 19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC).

)

Hello

Saw your RfM up at MedCom between you and Jimbo. I'm sorry to see that you declined the request (personally, I don't think mediation was the best option anyway, so whatever). This dovetails with a previous exchange we've had (the only one, I think) a few days ago (or weeks -- I have a fuzzy brain) regarding the sockpuppet tag placed on User:Utgard Loki's page. You had reverted the tag, which, given the knowledge that folks were in-the-know, I apologize for (I hadn't known).

IIRC, that exchange took place before the RFAR (and the subsequent attempt at an RfM). Particularly since, coming here, I took a look at your talk page (the chipmunks kinda distracted me ;-) ), where both Utgard and Geogre are talking together, which at first gave me the impression that there were more people talking until I saw the sigs. I was wondering if you made Jimbo aware of this offsite? It wasn't clarified here on your talk that they were the same people. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh... did I make Jimbo aware of it? No, indeed. Jimbo doesn't usually take any interest in such ordinary admin stuff, and would probably be in a state of permanent exhaustion if he did, with the size en.wikipedia is now. Do you yourself make Jimbo aware of all your admin stuff..? Surely not. Did you perhaps mean, did I make an arbitrator aware of it? No; I knew several of them already knew. Of course I was also myself aware of the rather simple reason why Geogre needed one work account and one home account. Do you have any complaint about the way the two accounts were used? I mean, was the impression you received harmful in any way? That would be what "abusive sock", or indeed "sock", means. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Geogre - a wiki-friend of yours, whom you knew owned and operated both accounts, was using both his accounts to support your position, and in your user space - and you didn't consider that the person with whom you were in dispute, had a need to know? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, FT2, I would leave well alone the subject of why people were not openly told that UL was Geogre - it is not usually necessary to tell people what is generally comsidered to be already known to them. This whole case has been allowed to pass with the minimum of accusations, mud flinging and presentation of unpallatable facts. Durova called and Wikipedia sacrificed, against my better judgement I have allowed this to pass, but beleive me, please do, beleive me, there is nothing I would like more than to fling some mud. So in the interest of the project fuck off from this page and shut the fuck up! Giano (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good job you're not me. The question - to Bishonen - is unchanged. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FT2 makes a very good point here. The person involved in the dispute, and indeed the public reading the dispute taking place on the page, had a right to know that the dispute was being subverted by an individual using multiple accounts inappropriately. Bishonen, perhaps you should release Jimbo from the pledge he made about using the blocking tool. It's highly unlikely he would ever use it to block you again, and it appears that he made the pledge under a false impression regarding how many people supported you. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked Jimbo whether he knew that Geogre = Loki at that time? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And whatever else is true or not true, Giano you don't get to speak to anyone like that. No one does. RxS (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RxS - apparently, Giano does - he just did. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I've left Giano a note - let's not get bogged down by the perceived incivility here. Xave and FT2 have important questions that need answering. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not percived and I've left Arbcom a note here [22] RxS (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Do be quiet, Giacomo. It's totally inappropriate for FT2 to attack me on my page, but then nobody's going to take it seriously. He's embarrasssing himself, not me, so don't let yourself be baited. As for you, Cirt, I'm astonished to see you coming out of the woodwork. Are you actually watching this page? You making a hostile appearance on it isn't quite as inappropriate as FT2 doing it, but not far off. Why don't you go ask Jimbo how interested he is in how many people support me? (And if you do a count, you might be interested to note that I have archived those supporters once, before the page started filling up again.) Geogre, by the way, is a valuable supporter—for anybody, about anything—not by way of filling up a headcount, but because of his logic and his eloquence. If you have an itch to discuss this matter, FT2 and Cirt, perhaps you'd like to do it on some appropriate RFAR page? Isn't that a good idea? You'd get much more attention there than here, and you're surely not ashamed of the points you make, or of your battleground background with me and with Geogre? Are you? Bishonen | talk 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

P.S. Oh, good grief, somebody did take it seriously. Ryan, would you like to read up a little on FT2's and my adventures in January 2009? Cirt, I think yours may be the prissiest "Miss, Miss, he did a bad thing, send him to the corner!" remark ever to disgrace this page. (Note that I'm not saying you are prissy!) Bishonen | talk 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

(ec x 2) The only attack made on this page was a brief use of gutter language from Giano. But since he also pulls my name into the Bishonen-Jimbo debate (an issue where I've had no involvement), it does seem like two contradictory things are being asserted: either Jimbo couldn't be expected to know that Geogre and Utgard Loki were the same person because he doesn't have time for it, or Jimbo was assumed to know because some people assert it was obvious. How about just asking him whether he knew? And in good faith it would be conciliatory to release him from his pledge about the block tool if he didn't know. It's highly unlikely he'd ever use that tool on Bishonen again so she has nothing to lose by being gracious. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The question of fact is not an attack. Trying to attack Cirt (describing him as "coming out of the woodwork" or describing his post as "a hostile appearance") is pointless. This isn't formal dispute resolution, this is purely a talk page thread. All that's asked is a simple question. Hopefully you can easily answer it and put the thread to rest. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk about a simple question that can be easily answered, FT2, and that's the reason you ought, in particular, not to attack me. This thread is more than a little ridiculous, and the answer so obvious that it makes the soles of my feet tingle to discuss it, but very well: I'll assume that the three of you are despite appearances asking in all seriousness, and will be satisfied if I answer. Here it comes: Jimbo's pledge not to use his block tool again is nothing to do with me, nor can I "release" him from it, nor do I intend to offend and annoy him by going to his page and offering to do so. That pledge has been made to a) the community, b) the ArbCom. Not to Bishonen. All right? Are we done? Bishonen | talk 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

• No were are not done actually. Ah Durova, here you are, read again - no one's personage has been attacked, my own civility code is not broken. I'm sure Ft2 has been told to fuck off before probably in RL too, which is far nastier - I doubt he is even offended - most men aren't - it's a term in modern parlance - wise up. I merely think it would be a good idea if FT2 (for the good of the project) dropped this line of questioning; Like you, he is another dissatisfied customer, out to sell and cause trouble and simultaneously put themselves in a good light. Which brings me neatly to you Durova: - Sweatheart, Durova, it aint gonna happen. we have moved on, the likes of you and FT2 are transparent - no one's impressed - you're history, now go restore an image or whatever it is you claim to be very good at...go shooo.... Geogre is de-sysopped and whatever else it was you wanted is done ....now go, just don't expect thanks and reverence as a result - you are as nothing on this page. Giano (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd, haven't read intervening post, to Bishonen) Actually that doesn't wrap things up and these events are related to you. Jimbo's pledge to cease using the block tool is a direct result of your complaints and RFAR filing after he blocked you. Your discussion with him about block that took place in your user space, and Geogre used multiple accounts on your user talk to discuss Jimbo and his role. It isn't a stretch to suppose that distorted the appearance of consensus, especially since it requires a rather hardy spirit to come to this page and express polite disagreement. Would Jimbo's perception of the community's opinion have been different in a neutral Wikipedia mediation? We'll never know. But you could certainly earn good faith by making a statement that, for your own part, it would be all right if he resumed use of the block tool. Durova²⁸⁸ 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)