Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Appeals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What's the appeal path for incorrect and premature decisions at ANI?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing any of the background or type of decision. Either waiting and going to AN/ANI or to ArbCom (one of WP:A/R/C, WP:BASC, or possibly WP:A/R/CA. Without knowing more (or looking into it and working it out) that's the best I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_page_moves_by_SMcCandlish#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish. An admin (paying zero apparent heed to the proven fact that the ANI case was poll-stacked by canvassing, and thus overflowing with unprovable, unrelated accusations and bad faith assumptions by editors who came here specifically because they have a bone to pick with me on other matters) short-circuited an ongoing negotiated close because he didn't like my opening position in the negotiation, and imposed as a mandatory ban an over-broad version of my own suggested voluntary moratorium, itself a moderated version of the filer's own also voluntary moratorium idea. This was done on the absurd basis that the canvassed pile of hate actually represented a community consensus. The closer's rationale assumes bad faith on my part (see their more detailed reasoning on my talk page), is predicated on a vote headcount not an analysis of the actual merits and reasons of the !votes, was premature, and most importantly is patently punitive, not preventative, since I already conceded several that the page moves in question did turn out to be controversial, that this was an error on my part, and that I would not be making any more such moves. It takes a truly wild leap of bad faith to assume that after these public statements and after proposing my own 3-month moratorium on similar moves that I must be forced into an imposed and even broader move ban because my obvious evil plan is to immediately go back to moving pages controversially. It's seriously one of the worst ANI closes I've ever seen in my 8+ years here, and it undermines faith in the process of negotiated closes and more importantly in ANI not being a battleground for vindictiveness, or gameable by tendentious parties to get admins to pre-emptively win content disputes for them, even after shameless and unmistakeable canvassing of parties who have no connection to the issue, only animosity for the accused. I've asked Prontonk to revert or modify this close, to address these issues. But I'd like to know what the proper formal avenue of appeal is for something like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Update: A discussion with Protonk has made it clearer that there was some confusion between my certainty that my AT/DAB interpretation is correct vs. me being unwilling to recognize that the moves turned out to be controversial after all, and between my observation that being wrong about whether they'd be controversial isn't evidence of bad faith disruptiveness, vs. me not agreeing that the moves being made outside of RM process was in fact a mistake.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, posting a) yet another wall of text and b) appealing a (valid, IMO) decision so soon after it was implemented...? GiantSnowman 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a request for appeal procedure, not another venue for you to pursue and attack me in your continual battlegrounding against MOS. If you find a single, clearly written paragraph to be a "wall of text", you need to find another hobby, since an encyclopedia consists of about 99% paragraphs of text. Of course I'm dealing with the appeal procedures quickly; few processes on WP permit any kind of appeal or review if the matter at hand is very stale at all, and closed ANI cases are archived very quickly. Did you have anything else pointlessly antagonistic and anti-collaborative to add, or did you maybe have something productive to do?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI most bans are not usually appealed for 3 months after implementation. No, your 'wall-of-text' method of discussion was raised as an issue in the ANI thread, and I know it has also been raised before, so you might want to start listening to legitemate concerns. You might want to stop with the baseless accusations that editors are "attacking" you; both of those things will only serve you well. Furthermore the only one showing issues with BATTLEGROUND is you, hence why you have received the topic ban - there were also calls for you to be indeffed (which I opposed, before you start ranting further) but it should show you that your editing is being viewed as increasingly disruptive. You need to listen to the concerns and address them; if you continue being so bloody stubborn it's only going to end one way... GiantSnowman 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

For a true wall of text, see WT:MOSICONS#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles and its tendentious "give us flag icons all over soccer articles or else" campaign, championed by GiantSnowman and a handful of other football editors, year after year; the enormous pile of noise there is just the latest round. Page-search there for "Giant" and you'll see that GiantSnowman totally dominates that discussion, responding profusely to virtually every post, engaging in precisely the same editing pattern he criticizes. Cf. psychological projection. "There were also calls for you to be indeffed", yes, and they were ridiculed and even suggested for WP:BOOMERANG treatment. I did listen to the concerns and address them; clearly the moves were controverted and my assumption that they would be uncontroversial was incorrect; I agreed repeatedly that I wouldn't be making any more moves of that sort. The community is not saying I'm being "increasingly disruptive". A handful of canvased axe-grinders from unrelated MOS disputes they didn't prevail in, and who unreasonably and unprovably blame me for their "losses", used such labeling, because (as with you) it furthers their own contra-MOS wiki-politics to see me pilloried. Anyway, needless to say, waiting three months to appeal a three month ban is pointless, and you're mistaking my meaning - I'm not asking to have the ban lifted as a behavioral matter, I'm objecting to the close on technical/procedural and accuracy grounds.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What has a old, completely un-related discussion that we were both involved in (along with lots of other users?) got to do with this at all?! Trying to appeal a ban by exhibiting some of the exact same behavior that got you banned in the first place (e.g. pure BATTLEGROUND behaviour, trying to start a conflict/argument for no reason whatsoever etc.) is not a sensible move. GiantSnowman 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not old and unrelated, it's long and still-ongoing, and about MOS matters and your personal distaste for me and my argument style, which is remarkably similar to you own. I wasn't kidding about this looking like projection on your part. Given that my informal appeal to the closing admin resolved the issue without need of a formal one, I guess I don't need to address your dire warning about whether my desire to and basis for an appeal was sensible or not. Having an admin bit doesn't make you wiser, less fallible, a better editor, more expert about WP policy and procedure, a better judge of others, or better at self-analysis than me or whoever else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well no it's not on-going, the only person still yammering on is you. Oh, and I have no "personal distaste" for you - we disagree on stuff, so be it, that's as far as it goes for me. You, on the other hand, obviously bear a grudge... GiantSnowman 20:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't even posted on that page since July 6, and the last to add to that discussion was the one other football editor (Nubmer 57) pushing that "change MOS to do what WP:FOOTY wants" proposal. That proposal has not been closed. I even filed a request for closure at WP:ANRFC and it hasn't been acted upon. I don't bear a grudge, I just recognize your username as the dominant one in that MOS dispute, and all of a sudden you turn up hostile an ANI against me. I'm glad you don't actually have an issue with me personally. I don't with you, so let's move on. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Last thing I'll say, in the spirit of "moving on" - if you haven't posted since 6 July, and me long before that, how is the discussion ongoing? ;) GiantSnowman 09:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that the first point of appeal for a ban enacted at ANI should be WP:AN. (Ban proposals should be there anyway.) –xeno^talk 15:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This wasn't a ban proposal anyway; even the filer of the ANI complaint did not propose a ban. I'd be ameliorated if the close was modified to remove the unproven claim of disruption (a move that turned out to be controversial after all is not "disruptive", it simply wasn't uncontroverted and should have been an RM after all) and other aspersion-casting editorializing (e.g. the false claim that I did not acknowledge the concerns raised), and changed to reflect that the proper close result is acceptance of my self-imposed 3-month move moratorium with regard to breed article, not imposition of a 3-month involuntary move ban in general. If User:Protonk were amenable to such an adjustment, that'd be the end of it. Reversion of the premature close so that the negotiated close could proceed would actually be much preferable, but I'm busy IRL and want to move on. Protonk need not ack any of my above criticisms of the close, only agree that the revision I've suggested would be more accurate and fair.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Without any regard to the merits (sorry, that is one I didn't follow): If you are appealing the close as being unrepresentative of the discussion, or wrong on technical grounds (ie: sockpuppets were voting, closed too soon, etc.) then appealing at WP:AN (not WT:AN) after close is proper. At a glance, closing too soon wouldn't apply as it ran almost 5 days, but I can't speak to the other possibilities. If it is overturned, another admin would need to close, and there is always a possibility they would read it more strongly than the previous admin. Just saying, that is always a risk. I have no opinion as to the case, as I've indicated I haven't read through it all, but will note that statistically, appeals of long and drama filled discussions don't usually end well, either with the same or worse results. Make of that what you will, isn't my doing, just my recollection of history at WP:AN/ANI here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and the risks are noted. But yes, the close was unrepresentative of the discussion (minus the false accusations, etc.) and wrong on technical grounds (most of the !votes were canvassed). It was premature in the sense that a negotiated close was under ongoing discussion, not in the sense of not enough time having passed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Happily, Protonk and I have come to an understanding on this, and the close has been clarified to address these concerns. Again, thanks for clarifying the appeal avenue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Quick question, can an administrator unilaterally override or modify community consensus as was done in this case? Dreadstar ☥ 22:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite. Although I have already reverted the close and was about to drop a note here. Closers are entitled to tweak their closing statements however Protonk has changed both the scope and the meaning of his close so it is no longer in line with consensus. As the close now does not reflect consensus, I have reopened it. I am about to drop him a note letting him know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks OID, I was quite surprised to see a close so out of line with community consensus. If we could do that as admins, then Katie bar the door! Dreadstar ☥ 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• I have re-closed it using Protonk's original wording. This was a community-imposed sanction and could not be unilaterally modified. I re-reviewed the original discussion, and found nothing wanting in that close as it was a proper reading of consensus the panda ₯’ 23:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good job, thank you - restores my faith in process.... Dreadstar ☥ 23:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• To properly answer the question: Can an admin override discussion in a close, the answer is yes he can, if the close reflects the greater community consensus, as determined by previous discussions. I have closed discussions as "no action" where the majority was demanding a topic ban, as the discussion turned into a mob and wasn't reflective of the greater consensus in those kinds of matters (kwami, to be specific), and it stuck. I'm not saying that applies here, just saying that there are times when closing against what looks like consensus is perfectly within policy, so generalizing by saying you can't close against consensus is not true. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're saying Dennis, my question was about community consensus, not some dog-pile numbers game. Dreadstar ☥ 00:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This is exactly such a dogpile numbers game. There is no consensus at all to be found in a vote-stack of editors who have long-standing axes to grind against me, who were alerted to come here by anotehr such editor, despite having no relationship to or stake at all in the matter actually raised by the ANI case. There is absolutely no connection between WP:BIRDS (in which a lot of people are angry at me over MOS matters) where Montanabw from WP:EQUINE (also angry at me over MOS matters) canvassed, and the moves at issue in the ANI (sheep article disambiguation under AT/DAB), other than unrelated bad feeling toward me personally and MOS/AT regulars generally. It's the very definition of canvassing. It's exactly the same as an Azerbaijani canvassing WP:TURKEY for Turk editors to come to a Canada-related dispute (or whatever) to help dogpile an Armenian editor, just because they both are angry with him over unrelated edits. There's also no point in making the move ban mandatory when I already agreed to it voluntarily; that's purely punitive not preventative, since obviously I'm not insane, stupid, evil or possessed by alien mind control, and am not going to go moving articles after publicly agreeing not to. Sheesh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Are you saying that each of the seventeen editors who supported a ban is corrupt? Why did no one oppose the ban? Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Of course not. But many have axes to grind, and due to emotions, especially at WP:BIRDS and about MOS, running high lately, extraneous issues, blame and anger spilled over into this ANI like a waterfall. Why did no one oppose? A) Already extant, canvassed dogpiles look like WP:SNOWBALL. B) A whole section on a negotiated close, then in progress, discourages input that !voters feel is liable to be moot, and people generally want to see what's going to come out of the negotiation. Also, it's not even true that no one opposed a mandatory ban. The ANI filter's own negotiating position was for a voluntary one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish you might want to consider dropping the stick and backing away from the dead horse. Even if you get another closure it is unlikely the result will be any different. Chillum 01:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't reopen this thread, but had marked it resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to split WP:AN

Having struggled to use this over-long page on mobile last night, I believe it should be split. The easiest way to do so would be to move the "Requests for closure" section to its own page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it technically on its own separate page already but it's just being transcluded here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe don't try and look at AN on a mobile...? You know it's going to be long/busy, so...GiantSnowman 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And how does that help all our colleagues who have mobile-only access? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If so, why bother transcluding it here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapse the transcluded RFC's? the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When text is "collapsed", is it still downloaded to the browser and then visually hidden, or are fewer characters actually sent? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing the transcluded requests for closure would greatly reduce the value of that page. –xeno^talk 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, on the mobile site the requests for closure section is collapsed by default and takes up a total of one line. What is the actual problem you're getting? Mogism (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not collapsed in the Android app. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm with xeno, the purpose of that page is to provide information to admin about non-emergency issues that need addressing, which it currently does fairly well. ANI is usually 3 to 6 times larger (currently 490k) and we deal just fine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI does not work "just fine" on mobile, in the same way that AN does not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You would be better served by addressing the engineering team responsible for the mobile app. AN & ANI are not critical for mobile users, and I heavily doubt admins and power users REALLY need top speed access to those pages on their mobile devices. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For me, AN and ANI work like crap on my Samsung Tab 2 10.1 (scrolling through to add edit doesn't work right), but work great on my Samsung S5 smartphone. Loads fast on both. I don't use the Wiki app (blech), just Chrome. I guess your mileage varies. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this might be becoming a perennial proposal. The purpose here is so that RfC closure, which is a primary means of dispute resolution, get attended to, and so I am with Xeno. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what your device is, but for editing on my Nexus 5, Chrome works better than Wikipedia's official Adroid app. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Shackleton misdoings

It is not my purpose to discredit any kind of person,

but given the unjustified allegations and libel against Captain Robert Falcon Scott over Wikipedia (and its bunch of subsequent articles), I think anyone dedicated to a remotely balanced account of reality should be aware of this report and how starkly the "Wikipedian" account is limited to the resource of one single person that seems to be a lover of Ernest Shackleton:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/hero-who-rebelled-against-shackleton-is-honoured-with-statue-of-beloved-cat-6166876.html --Shacklewatch (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the huge blob of copyrighted text pasted here multiple times. That being said, I'm going to assume good faith and ask you to elaborate on what actual issue there is here. (For what it's worth, it certainly doesn't belong on this talk page, but someone can point you in the right direction, assuming there is a legitimate issue.) --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What? You're removing truths that editors happily try to be acknowledged by the public and at the same time, you are talking about "good faith"? >ou may take a look at Robert Falcon Scott's page and see what kind of [inhuman] reproaches he is exposed to and if he ever killed a cat by his own?--Shacklewatch (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are still confused, Kinu, you are not alone. I can't tell if this is trolling, clue deficiency, a real problem, who knows. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Same issue at Talk:Ernest Shackleton#Hero who rebelled against Shackleton, where I undid the posting of a complete article from The Independent on the talk page for copyright reasons. In that case the poster was 37.230.15.203 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked both, seems to be advocating something, quite poorly. Or trolling. Regardless, not here to build an encyclopedia. The IP picked up after the named account was warned. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Where and how to request a Civility board

I was reviewing the Administrators' noticeboard and was surprised to become fully conscious of the fact that, under "User conduct," there is no board for Civility! There are Abuse (long-term cases); Article sanctions; Conflict of interest; Contributor copyright; Edit warring & 3RR; Editor restrictions; New pages patrollers; Paid editing; Sockpuppets; Usernames; and Vandalism... but no Civility.

Considering that civility is one of the five "pillars," this seems a remarkable omission. If NPOV is one of the pillars and has a board under "Articles and content," civility ought to have its own board, too. Certainly edit warring is an uncivil behavior, and I can see why it has a board, but considering the difficulty Wikipedia has attracting and keeping good editors, it seems like we would want to regulate civility as conspicuously and as diligently as NPOV and 3RR.

Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make this a unique noticeboard area?

Thanks.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are looking for Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. The community voted to shut it down [1] and deal with civility issues at WP:ANI and WP:DRN. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As it is late in the day in my neck of the woods, I will read it in more detail tomorrow, but my first comment is, this discussion is nearly two years old. Is there any reason why it couldn't be brought up again? Maybe starting as some kind of poll for users, current and perhaps even retired (if there's no law or policy that says they cannot be contacted), about the quantity and quality of incivility they experience (if any). Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It would take a discussion at the same place, and you are welcome to contact the previous supporters of the program (I was one of them) but honestly, I don't see it happening. Civility isn't really very enforceable for a number of reasons. See WP:BIAS for some of the reasons, ie: what is offensive to one group of people isn't to another, so it is often impossible to define what "civil" is. Another is the observation that some of our best content creators can be, well, testy. That is the controversial part. I've never blocked for simple incivility and likely never would because of this. What often happens is that a discussion on civility often gets very incivil itself and can make the situation even worse. Personally, I try to let incivility and even insults just roll off my back, and recommend others do the same when it is possible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur to follow up at WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. Although there is no agreement on specific words that are uncivil, there are a few editors known as "good content creators" who are intolerant. In the short run, they benefit Wikipedia. In the long run, they may or may not benefit Wikipedia, because some of them are clearly over the line (no matter in what Anglophone culture). There should be a better mechanism for addressing habitual incivility. By the way,WP:DRN is not and cannot be a way to deal with incivility. Since dispute resolution is meant to address content disputes, the dispute resolution volunteers will close a case if it is being complicated by conduct issues. Dispute resolution works best when the editors are willing to work collaboratively but need assistance. WP:ANI is not an ideal place for discussing incivility, because extended threads there become uncivil (and because some of the most contentious content creators have entourages who support them, and due to the supermajority nature of consensus, it becomes difficult to get consensus to sanction them). I agree that a better process is needed for addressing incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I am still studying the Village pump link you gave. I have only just finished going through the first of multiple threads under the section header. After my first pass, I count 98 votes. And some of the comments there, and even here, surprise me. Specifically, that civility isn't enforceable or that there is no agreement on what civility is. But certainly there is agreement about conduct that is uncivil. There are actual policies re: Personal attacks and Harassment. Disruptive editing, on the other hand, is described in a behavioral guideline, and tendentious editing is described in an essay.

I would wager that a lot of people who leave Wikipedia, especially women who leave, do so because they feel civility is a crumbled pillar. You practically have to call someone a expletive or say something about their mother... No, honestly, I've seen people use that kind of language here with no repercussion. Not to say that there aren't good men on WP - there are. Or that there aren't bad women - there are. But when you have a self-policing group that is at least 85% men, you get what Wikipedia is today.

First step, IMO (and I probably will start an honest-to-god discussion somewhere soon, after I've done some more thinking and talking here), is not to call the civility board the "Wikiquette" board. Right off the bat, we alienate the whole crowd of people who read that and think they have to stick their pinkies in the air when they drink. I saw a lot of talk about a 3O board for conduct, and that might work. Frankly, I think it ought to be simply the Civility board, and make it clear at the top that it addresses civility policies only. (Make people take disruptive and tendentious editing, and other guideline or essay based conduct) to ANI or ArbCom, because those are harder to prove.) And if there is concern that there are already too many conduct boards, why not merge some of those? Why have separate COI and paid advocacy boards? Or separate sockpuppet, username and vandalism boards?

I honestly think that if Wikipedia cracked down on harassment and personal attacks, there would be, at first, a rash of short bans/blocks, then a huge improvement in conduct and in content, too. It is ridiculous to condone incivility in some editors because they're somehow too good to lose otherwise. This is supposed to be a "wiki" (collaborative) "paedia" (body of knowledge). Kill the wiki - and incivility does just that - and the rest will lose its vigor. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin with over two years with the bit, I'm one of those that thinks that civility isn't enforceable on a multi-national website. We can deal with personal attacks, and deal with long term gross incivility where there is a clear pattern, but anything else is unenforceable. I didn't think so two years ago, but I do now. From my experience, talking with editors and trying to find common ground, plus tolerating a a good deal of heat and occasional swearing is the only way to deal with it. If you start blocking people for singular incidents of incivility, you would lose half the wiki in a week. The fact is, when people work together, they will bump heads, and sometimes good things come from that, sometimes just rudeness comes from it. This is true in the real world as much as it is here. Grown ups will sometimes tell each other to "fuck off". I'm willing to talk to folks and get them to try to get along, but I'm not willing to block over it. I understand it can be frustrating, but it is part of the process. Yes, some leave due to the occasional crassness, but at least as many would if you tried to enforce civility. The really, big, big problem is that it is impossible to enforce civility without introducing my own version of civility, which may differ from yours, or other admin, so it would be enforced unevenly, which is grossly unfair, and would cause all kinds of drama at the boards because Editor 1 said "piss off" and got blocked, and Editor 2 said the same thing and wasn't, because two different admin reviewed it. You can't codify what is and isn't civil when you live in a global neighborhood, at least not when we are talking about small doses of it. My opinion is that it would be a net loss for editor retention if we enforced it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)