User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Rebooted discussion

And I'm writing here just to say that I'd like this discussion to continue but with concrete proposals for improvement rather than the fight that was going on.

As for me, one proposal that I would make - just to open brainstorming - is to ask "What can the Foundation do?" and answer it with a hypothetical (which I neither support nor oppose but think worthy of consideration): imagine if the WMF hired community managers and gave them mediation training and asked them to help the community deal with civility problems. The idea here is to say: look, here is a problem worth solving, and resources to give good people time (a full time job in fact) to help solve it can be useful. There are obvious potential objections to this idea: what powers will these new WMF community managers have? Will this be a tyranny of staff? What recourse will the community have if the mediators aren't behaving properly themselves? Etc. I think it's not too hard to devise a plan which overcomes such objections. Please discuss and although Wikimania is coming up, I will read with great interest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's an excellent idea. I have my granddaughter this morning, but I will think about it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a mistake to think that language has unexplored territories. These terms are not expressive. Beyond a certain point, which has long since been passed, it is not the terms which matter but rather the overall message. This is a discussion about words, is it not? But nowhere in this discussion, unless I overlooked it, is there a discussion of wider communication, i.e., what is one is one trying to say? I think you will see that nine times out of ten the same message can be said without resorting to the questionable terms discussed. Therefore—why are questionable terms used? I don't know if questionable terms should be banned, but their use should be frowned upon. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the reason I hatted the original discussion is that I think discussion about whether particular words should be banned or filtered is not a very fruitful approach. The problem here is not that particular words are magically bad, but that aggressive and abusive communication (whether using questionable words or not) is a huge problem. The negative impact is disproportionate across different demographics as well, which negatively impacts the quality of the encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Or, don't bite the newbies. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Give these CM regular priveleges, including the possibility of RfA, and maybe a dedicated noticeboard where they can post and discuss and uninvolved admins can act on them as needed. The CM's should be subject to the same possibility of admin imposed sanctions as anyone else. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, I honestly believe one of the problems Wikipedia has is separating content disputes from personal conflict. There seems to be a somewhat uneven handling of conflict, incivility and personal attacks on Wikipedia. Many times there can be a very quick response to tell editors to have a thicker skin one moment, and the next outrage that something stronger isn't being done. The uneven reaction is understandable...that is just life, but in a group or crowd sourced editors we do need a more standard approach. But a standardized approach can be difficult to achieve with so many people of differing opinion. Lightbreather had asked about a civility board, but your suggestion of paid mediators sounds interesting as well, although I would suggest these not be editors. It might be better if these were mediators that were independent of the project.

A centralized board for personal attacks sounds like a difficult arena to control, but...perhaps if we were to accept that along with dispute resolution....we should be attempting some sort of Conflict resolution the project can move forward. I just feel that, some editors cannot understand the difference between a "dispute" and a "conflict" and I am not trying to split hairs here. I truly believe that generally, disputes are over content and conflict arises as a personal issue or attack on the individuals or groups.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to rescue a snippet by Wbm1058 from the hatted section that I think is very smart: "Doesn't it seem to be a double standard that we have an Orwellian friendly space policy for in-person events, but are like the Wild West online? Some balance needs to be found." — That is very true. There needs to be a reasonable place between shrill, ultra-PC, bureaucratic micromanagement of every word, thought, and action on the one hand; and intentional loutishness by those who feel they simply can on the other. The problem we face is that by attempting to write formal proscriptions of the behavior of the latter (small) group of people tends to create the first-mentioned situation, which leads to the censorship of all. And, speaking for myself, I don't find that outcome at all acceptable. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not one word of Eric Corbett's comment in the edit summary would ever end up on a list of "blacklisted words", if such a list were even desirable. Yet, the manner in which these innocuous words were fashioned into a sentence were clearly in violation of the foundations Terms of Use. To paraphrase, the terms state: "You are free to: [participate] Under the following conditions:  • Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users." There is no ambiguity in those terms, and the foundation is egregiously remiss to not enforce them; verging on culpability. Civility needs to be elevated to the same level of enforcement as "no legal threats" and because so many administrators are willing to exploit the "second mover" advantage, wp:office is not ill-advised. The terms of use are a legally binding instrument by the way, and trampling them contemptuously as I have too often seen erodes our institutional standing in lawful commerce. So tell me, why should wp:office be out of bounds as a corrective measure?—John Cline (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: because as soon as WMF begins meddling in the daily activity of the community, there are no logical limits to their intervention. They have inspired no confidence with their so-called Friendly Space Policy, which takes "civility" to ludicrous (and offensive) extremes. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• In the lead of the policy WP:NPA is the following sentence.[1]

"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone."

Could this have been used in the example where someone was referred to with a vulgar word? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion re: this question moved to side discussion WP:NPA discussion per WP:TPOC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo, that's an interesting proposal. I think that a mediation approach could be very valuable in some contexts, and useless in others. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better to start by breaking down the problem?

My thinking is that there are several different situations in which incivility occurs:

1. Generally civil editors who snap when having a bad day, or find themselves in a situation more stressful than they are used to
2. A disagreement (whether about policy, content or conduct) where the conduct of two or more parties progressively deteriorates down a slope from "I think your edit was inappropriate" to personal abuse
3. Editors who fail to consider how comments which may be acceptable to people like them may be offensive or threatening to people from a different demographic (racism, sexism, *phobia)
4. Editors who have a persistent pattern of aggressive, rude or abusive behaviour

(Others may identify a longer list)

I think that the ability of mediators to respond to those situations would vary by type. Hopefully trained mediators would have the skills to engage effectively with people. They should be able to point people from #1 towards resources on how to identify when they are reaching their flashpoints; #2 needs guidance on techniques for structured non-accusatory discussion; #3 needs someone with a lot of skills to try to build some empathy and explain how the world may look very different from someone else's shoes; and #4 is probably unamenable to mediation.

But in each case, we need the ultimate backup of sanctions against editors, which is where the community currently fails.

Personally, I would support adopting the full wmf:Friendly space policy; it is no more than what applies in the workplace of most responsible employers in the developed world. But the problem we have is that a vocal minority of the community repeatedly opposes upholding even blatant breaches of our current relatively weak policies on civility and personal attacks.

If an editor reject the approaches of a mediator, what then? Unless they have power of sanction, then I fear that the best any mediator can do is to engage with the least problematic type of incivility. The sort of editor who replies "**ck off" to an attempt to engage them about civility is one of the most corrosive on Wikipedia, and those are already the type who the community is least effective at restraining (not least because they seem to attract an über-loyal fan club).

Every web forum or email list I have ever been involved with has avoided this sort of problem by having someone empowered to draw a line by curtailing the access of people who cross the line; the visible evidence of that enforcement reminds others to restrain themselves. The best fora have skilled mediators who can help people avoid draw back from the brink or improve their approach, but their carrots are backed up by a stick.

Sadly, en.wp currently has no stick, so my reckoning is that without effective enforcement, mediation only tinkers with the edges of the problem. Sorry to appear negative, but that's my first take on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes! Brainstorm on the problems. Identify commonalities. Define problems that are relatively easy to address. Handle those first. The others require deeper discussion.

1. Misuse of edit summaries. Make all or part of that article policy. My personal experience and observation is that abuse of edit summaries is one of the top easily-addressed problems re: editor conduct.
2. WP:PERSONAL is already a policy, but it's not consistently enforced, that I've experienced or observed, especially WP:WIAPA. I have seen numerous editors accuse other editors (not just me) of being "tendentious" or "disruptive" - without evidence. Saying it doesn't make it true, but the more it gets said, the more the sayer and his/her audience start to internalize it. WP:TENDENTIOUS is an essay with a long list of "Characteristics of problem editors." Allegations of tendentious editing are serious and should fall under WP:WIAPA bullet 5: Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
3. Have online, self-paced harassment training, followed by a simple test, that editors are encouraged to take. Taking it is voluntary, unless civility has become an issue for an editor; then, it would be required as a condition of keeping editing privileges.
4. Allow civility blocks to be punitive, not just "preventative." Allowing someone to behave uncivilly sends a strong message to others: Incivility is tolerated on Wikipedia. Punishing those whose conduct runs afoul of workplace civility policies (after first receiving a warning, if the behavior wasn't egregious) will make a whole lot of editors think twice about behaving similarly.

(I chose to add the last two items here to keep my ideas together.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BHG, that conference Friendly space policy is a great overall policy. The whole thing, including contact info is a little over 300 words. And you're right, it's comparable to a bare-bones, plain English workplace policy. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. The so-called Friendly Space Policy implies the existence of an inner circle of (politically correct) censors who are to make determinations about the limits of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" speech. It also implies a specific and inevitably expanding list of formal behavioral proscriptions. For example, whoops, nobody even mentioned age discrimination! Add one to the list. And the NYC conference took the bold and silly step of including "favored copyright license" as a protected class! This will go on and on... Eventually, we are all oppressed victims carping over interpretations of the laundry list behavioral rules, enforcement of the laundry list of behavioral rules, the composition of the body policing the laundry list of behavioral rules... Which is fine if you want to have a picnic of like-minded people at a charming conference in New York City or something (where the FSP document was filed as unnecessary), but not so good in the real world of haggling about writing an encyclopedia — in which some of the most valuable contributors are also the grumpiest. Carrite (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC) —Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite, could you put your concern into a form that meets Jimbo's request (as host of the discussion): I'd like this discussion to continue but with concrete proposals for improvement rather than the fight that was going on. Lightbreather (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I read Carrite's comments as an endorsement of the status quo, where some editors are effectively given carte blanche because they write good content. Jimbo specifically invited discussion based on the fundamental premise that we do have a problem, and that some people should be banned for it. If Carrite does accept that premise, they should make that clear. If not, then as Jimbo wrote, they are in the wrong discussion.

@Carrite: the cries of "censorship" are getting a bit old. People who want unfettered speech are free to go set up their own website; but any collaborative project has boundaries, and the Friendly Space Policy (FSP) just spells them out in an inclusive way. The current policy on en.wp does not properly describe practice ... because the practice on en.wp is that some boundaries (such as racism) are clearly marked and vigorously policed, while other are vague or non-existent, such as the tolerance of sexism and transphobia, where complainants usually get more grief than the offenders.
No magic inner circle of interpreters is required, just a commonsense interpretation of good manners which doesn't stop at the things which personally offend the young men who predominate amongst editors. What we have at the moment is a different sort of inner circle: a small and self-appointed group of a few dozen cheerleaders for a particular type of aggression.
The claim that tightly enforced civility somehow impedes open discussion about writing an encyclopedia is simply implausible. If someone is genuinely capable of writing a fine encyclopedic article, then are also quite entirely capable of expressing disagreement without resorting to obscene language or accusations of brainlessness, and capable of ending a discussion politely. If they are capable of fine writing which adheres to NPOV, then they are also capable of understanding that some language is unacceptable to others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, BHG, in recent days it finally sunk in that despite the policies, if someone has been unofficially (maybe it's official?) awarded the valuable contributor award, then their conduct has earned less scrutiny. I actually read this in a discussion yesterday: "[editor] is an enigma: he can be so course, yet he writes amazing prose, one of our finest by anyone's standards." While I do appreciate good prose, no-one is irreplaceable. In a collaborative environment content ≥ conduct. Lightbreather (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. I am sorry that you feel discussion of the implications upon free speech of the so-called Friendly Space Policy is "a bit old." That argument is not going away. I personally think that complaints about "obscene language" and demands for "politeness.........or else" are a bit old. Those are not going away either. The fact is, the Orwellian-named "Friendly Space Policy" is already pretty much the law of the land on-Wiki and has been for years. See: WP:WIAPA. Of course, be sure to read that carefully: the banned behavior are attacks made against an editor or group of editors; and there is no universal consensus here about the limits of such things. There is always going to be someone making the call and someone not happy with that call and at that point the food fight begins. Sure, it would be swell if smart people with rude streaks would bite their tongues. Sometimes they don't. We have procedures for dealing with that, and the consensus is what it is. I'm a realist. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite, en.wp is not and never has been a "free speech" zone. The terms and conditions make it very clear that some types of speech are unacceptable, and what I find old is the repeated desire of some editors to uphold a principle which is not and never has been policy.
As to realism, I am a realist too. The reality is that some editors are behave disgracefully because they know that they will get away with it. I am quite sure that they are well capable of behaving responsibly when they are in their employer's office or talking to a cop or to the grandmother; they choose not to do so here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. Ah, yes, let's return to policy. Excellent idea. An objectionable statement was made. A complaint was filed. A discussion was held. Consensus was rendered. Then the forum shopping and drama began. Consensus is what it is. Carrite (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite, that brings us back to the nub of the problem, which is that by leaving these issues to the consensus of the young white men who predominate on Wikipedia, our civility policy is filtered through the lens of that demographic. That dominant young white male group has repeatedly shown a consensus not to uphold the civility policy.

When we have an admin openly expressing a view such as this, without apparent fear of sanction, then we have a problem which the community is unable to resolve through its usual mechanisms.

Leaving this to a consensus of the currently active community of editors amounts to the appointment of young white males as the arbiters of what constitutes good and bad practice in creating an inclusive environment. I know of no other context where that approach has has successfully overcome a gender imbalance, and am unsurprised at its failure here. That's why I believe that the Foundation should actively intervene, just as it did over BLPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - You express an axiomatic belief that the gender imbalance is a direct result of the failure to create of an inclusive environment. Well, I suppose that could be, although you are guessing. Let me repeat here a little story for you that I have told before and recently repeated on Wikipediocracy......... During the 1990s I did a punk rock label. I put out a lot of stuff — across all formats, something like 100 releases. I was active in the national scene for my subgenre, pop-punk. We are not talking about shirts-off, ultra-macho, fights-in-the-slam-pit hardcore here, but rather the most melodic and accessible form of punk music. Think about Green Day and The Ramones, there ya go... Anyway, I promoted local shows, I went to a fair number of shows in the state of Oregon. The gender of the crowds? Eh, maybe skewed a touch past 50-50, male:female, but pretty darned close. But my mailing list, sent out to 1200 or so record buyers around the United States — that ran about 85:15 male-to-female almost as a constant (+/- 2%) throughout the entire 7 year history of my label. I know because I tracked gender on my database, I noticed the disparity ("gender gap," if you will) almost immediately, and I was interested in it. [Digression: my #1 customer in terms of dollar sales was a woman, interestingly.]

Now why was this? The live shows had gender parity, the record buyers had a gender imbalance almost precisely the same percentage as that of Wikipedia... Why? There was nothing misogynist about it, the printed catalogs were neither more nor less "impolite" than the language used at any live show or at any high school or university anywhere in America. My own personal-political background included a year sitting in on meetings of the New American Movement, a self-described and actively practicing "socialist-feminist" political organization. I don't have any hesitation in saying that I identify with the feminist tradition. There was absolutely nothing that I did or said or wrote that caused the gender imbalance of my mailing list — it is something that simply was... So you will have to forgive me for being sanguine about this situation, to forgive me for doubting the basic premises being advanced here. I do believe that aggressive obnoxiousness can drive away good editors. That's obvious, and it can be proven — see, for example, the case of User:Khazar2 cited above. But I absolutely do not believe that the attitudes and decision-making of "young white males" are necessarily (or even very likely) to be the cause of the gender disparity at WP. It is an interesting phenomenon, to be sure. More study needed. best, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (52 years old, white, male). /// Carrite (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to look at that Khazar2 situation more closely before you attempt to draw any conclusions from it. Eric Corbett 17:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the idea of the WMF getting involved, I suggest having a WMF arbitrator with enhanced administrator powers, that editors can go to for help when they encounter an uncivil editor. The decision of the arbitrator could not be reversed by administrators or other editors, although an administrator could appeal to the arbitrator to change a decision. After a case is closed, the involved editors (plaintiff, defendant, and possibly a regular administrator) have the option of giving a brief review of the arbitrator. WMF management could periodically look at the editor reviews and case histories, and discuss with the arbitrator as needed.
  

This arbitration system for cases of incivility could be done on a trial basis for 6 months. Near the end of the trial, the Wikipedia community will have the opportunity to comment on whether it should be continued. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask the women?

The first step would be to create an environment in which editors feel free to raise concerns.

I was quite interested to read in the recent interview of Lila Tretikov that the interviewer claimed to have had contact with more than one female editor who revealed their gender to him privately, but not on-wiki.

I too have had women identify themselves to me privately, when their public identity was not known. I am not really up to speed on the topic of gender, but here is a collection of comments given to me by women editors Offwiki.

On editing

• It is dominated by men. Everyone is assumed to be male.

• There are crude, sexist jokes among administrators and any objection is ignored.

• Topics that in any way involve feminism or men's rights are dominated by men.

• Then toss in harassment of female editors, who then end up in this place where male editors can tell them to fuck off, question their reading skills, question their language skills, tell people they should be editing... all while doing very little of their own content work.

•  Women who start contributing at a certain level have to be perfect while dealing with harassment. Anything else is not acceptable.

•  I'd guess that the level of women amongst elite editors is even lower than the 10% estimates because once you get to that point, women bail to get away from the toxic editing environment.

•  Admins have repeatedly been willing to count votes and articles getting more traffic as a way of circumventing WP:NPOV in terms of treatment of gender segregated sport. This has a huge potential impact on female editor retention because it sends a message that NPOV is secondary, and when women or editors of women's sport bring this up, it can get really ugly.

On articles

• Articles on topics of interest to women are often required to have better reliable sources, which does not apply to topics that tend to be of interest to men.

• Images of women on WP are too frequently pornographic and in some cases sadistic.

• Women who are BLP subjects are much more prone to have difficulties having irrelevant information about them taken out of their WP articles.

• The categorization system on WP is sometimes used to separate women novelists (fill in anything to replace novelists) from the category of novelists.

• Women of notable achievement in all areas are less likely to be in Wikipedia than men; irrelevant muck is too often drug up when there is an article on a notable woman.

• In sports naming conventions (because only one topic can be at a particular title), a non-neutral position of preferencing men's teams over women's teams when it comes to national teams where they are by rule segregated by gender and both represent the country at the national level.

How could this be addressed?

• It probably can't. At this point women either have to edit WP as a man or as a gender neutral name or they have to band together to get their proper edits to stick.
• Ridiculous. I do not edit as a man, and have never really felt a need to do so. Yes, there are a few jerks on Wikipedia of all genders and backgrounds. Let's not begin man-bashing, just because it might be popular and politically correct in the context of this thread, its too easy for it to turn into a whiny "I'm a woman and the men are holding me back, poor little me!" I have been working with the men on this project for about eight years and have never felt ganged-up on because I am a woman. Yes, there is the occasional jerk of course, (of all genders), and they are best handled on an individual basis. There is no cabal. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

well said Sue Rangell, and glad to hear of your experiences here. --Malerooster (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of my own suggestions

1. Participation of at least one woman admin in gender-topic situations, as in the three-admin closing of the Hillary article. Agree on the names of closing admins in advance.
2. A specific policy for respect, tolerance and acceptance stating that comments that demean any person—whether a fellow editor, an article subject, or any other person on the basis of personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression—are unwelcome, and are grounds for blocking, topic restrictions, or other sanctions. The ArbCom has already come to terms with some of this in the Manning naming dispute case.
3. I have read somewhere in some Wikiproject that WP:Mansplaining is still a redlink. Someone should fill it in. striking because of explained objections> I'll leave it up to the readers' sense of irony to see if it is edited first by a male or female user. See Splaining. —Neotarf (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I can haul it to AfD to see whether it's a Non-Notable Neologism, as I presume it to be... Carrite (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mansplaining was created by Sue Gardner in August 2013. There's a redirect from Splaining. PamD 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And, to quote from the article, "In 2010 it was named by The New York Times as one of its "Words of the Year." PamD 22:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's an easy pass of GNG from footnotes showing... Learn something every day. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

<Redacted, see it at AN/I. —Carrite> Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who or what this mess of epithets is directed at, but I have left a note on the user's talk page to the effect that its removal is in order. —Neotarf (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've replied declining as the intent is clear in the comment that I am not singling anyone or group out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So, it's ok to be a jerk, just as long as the jerkishness is directed at everyone? Tarc (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well let's try it this way...sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you. If you haven't the ability to see the message behind the words, I'm sorry I can't help you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

<Sigh.> —Neotarf (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh you deserve a barnstar for the most cowardly and passive aggressive ANI notification I've seen in almost 4.5 years. Congrats. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You got a ping, isn't it bad enough to have all that embarrassing stuff on your talk page as it is? That's more consideration than you show for anyone else. —Neotarf (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So, Hell in a Bucket...can I drop the c-word on your mom? Your grandma, wife, sister, girlfriend? Would you tell any of them to just shrug it off? Tarc (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We're told that often enough as kids to ignore the bullies or people that call us names. Do we just forget it just because we are adults? Sorry but that's a non-sequitor Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're an adult? If they told you that as a kid, they lied. —Neotarf (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I guess the beard didn't key you off on that...guess that explains a lot about the person I'm dealing with...and in reference to your excuse on why your passive aggressive ani notice about wanting it to be nicer then having it on my page...bullshit you have been here long enough to know that notice means shit. You posted it here in hopes that more people here would see it and comment and thus stir up the pot more. Nice try how's that thread working out btw? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd still like to see the internal wiki WP:MANSPLAIN version go bluelink, maybe with some DIY tips. I bet in time it could replace WP:DICK and WP:DIVA in popularity.<striking because of explained objections> —Neotarf (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

All very valid points, and gender problems do contribute to overall civility, though I'm still pondering how to address this on WP. I was invited to join the Gender Gap project just a few days ago, but within 48 hours of my joining, another editor joined whom I do not trust at this time. When I mentioned this, and why, a couple of male editors on the project chastised me - so I withdrew from the project. My focus now is overall WP civility. Maybe when that improves, individual projects will seem safer and more female friendly, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What I just wrote is in response to the larger issue you described, but your first two suggestions above are spot-on and do-able. In fact, the second one is just about covered by the first item in WP:WIAPA:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

It just needs to be enforced! Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Enforced by whom? Carrite (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Who enforces BLP policy? Or en dashes? Formerip (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The concept of WP:Mansplaining is a hateful and sexist neologism and amounts to an ad hominem attack against men based on their gender. I will MfD any incarnation of that page. There is no room for discrimination on Wikipedia whether it be focused on women or men. Focus on the central point of an argument, not on the argumenter.--v/r - TP 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then what about WP:DICK? —Neotarf (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If Mansplaining becomes standard use in 100 years and is part of our vocabulary, I'll grudgingly accept it as an essay peice like I grudgingly accept WP:DICK. I'd prefer a discrimination free encyclopedia though.--v/r - TP 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's already in common use in various corners of teh interwebs, and is certainly a shorthand way to conveniently explain a set observable behaviors, but in any case, I won't be the one to start it, at least partly because of your strong reaction to it.

But for the way the phrase can hit the nail on the head, see this heartbreaking combination of obvious good will and "don't worry your pretty little head about it because I know what's best for you-all lady folk". —Neotarf (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It is in use in certain areas of the interwebs activism and it can stay there. It's a neologism that amounts to telling people to shut up. Regarding your comment about Dennis - you'll have to prove Dennis wouldn't talk to anybody like that and that his comments are motivated by gender before I'll accept it as evidence of 'mansplaining'.--v/r - TP 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Then, TParis, you don't understand it, because it has nothing to do with motivation. Try this one. —Neotarf (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Neotarf, you don't understand. And sadly, you never will. 'Mansplaining' is entirely hateful, sexist, discriminatory ("Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do"), and diversionary. You arn't bridging a gap by perpetuating the neologism here, you are widening it. You mine as wlel be one of the other editors saying the "C" word, because you are having the exact same effect.--v/r - TP 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can just agree to use the word "patronizing"? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have no problem describing the behavior. I just don't want us to pretend to be talking about gender equality by using gender discriminatory words. Patronizing is good with me.--v/r - TP 02:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm late with this, but I agree. Patronizing is the (much) better word. Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

These proposals seem to be targeted more at gender bias on WP that at incivility. There is overlap between the two, and there's no doubt that there is gender bias on WP. But the proposal for mandatory women closers has nothing directly to do with incivility, and I doubt that "mansplaining" is much of an issue here (it could even be argued that it would be a sign of progress for male editors to talk down to female a little more, since this would at least be a form of acknowledgment that they exist). Formerip (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is being framed as a hostile work environment issue. The c-bomb especially, repeated at least ten times on that thread alone, is being seen as a dog-whistle message for women to get out of Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it's terrible and you should focus your efforts there. I'd be your biggest ally.--v/r - TP 01:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When places like AN/I are filled with hostile and garbage advice that women editors should hide the fact they're women or they forfeit any expectation of non-harassment or equal treatment, as shown in this gem or reasoning, then it's going to be viewed as a hostile environment; at least until there's some indication these viewpoints are more broadly repudiated by the general population of editors. Anonymity is a great as a choice, but it shouldn't be an expected requirement. There's a lot of people worried about civility concerns somehow restricting their freedom that then have no problem demanding other people live under a code of silence. That's a bit of "Liberty for me, but not for thee."__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There was also the admin who invited[2] women to clear off if we find the place too male-dominated or too rude. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: try reading what I said, not some warped interpretation of it. I never said women editors should hide their anonymity. I said that everyone has that option. Yours is typical of the bias: reading things that are not there an then labelling them as hostile, garbage etc. The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, if there aren't groups of people talking about problems facing women editors, then there won't be problems facing women editors. You have fascinating ideas. Maybe if you stop sharing the things that bother you, then you will achieve a similar harmony for yourself? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? You've not addressed your original misinterpretation and you've not addressed the dreadful naming of GGTF. All you've done is cast an unwarranted aspersion and made an illogical assumption. Class act. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How did I misinterpret? You said: What gender gap? This is all BS promoted by, mostly, a vociferous group of people who, if they chose to apply the anonymity that they are entitled to, could just get on with doing what we're supposed to be here to do. Hard to interpret that as anything other than something like "people who complain about bad interactions from people who know their gender had the right to hide, and if they didn't, they don't have the right to complain". Am I far off your intent? (As for naming a task force somewhere, that's some strange red herring you've brought up. Demanding I address it is just weird. Did people somehow hurt you when they named it whatever they did? In any case, that's not me.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have an observation about the use of the "c-bomb" (the four-letter "c" word) in recent conversations. It was repeated about 15 times by eight or nine male editors. (One female editor used it five times in one post. Seemed a bit much to me, but she had her point to make, I guess.) Anyway, I used the word "cocksucker" in my original post to Jimbo. No-one repeated it. Talk amongst yourselves. Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA discussion

• In the lead of the policy WP:NPA is the following sentence.[3]

"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone."

Could this have been used in the example where someone was referred to with a vulgar word? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and in this case the post was removed and the editor that made the comments just put it back.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for that? Eric Corbett 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence in the policy WP:NPA is the following.[4]

"Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

Could this have been used when the editor repeated the attack? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What attack? Eric Corbett 23:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who was referred to with a vulgar word? Eric Corbett 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is no longer a valid argument. I defended the remark, only because you have said it to many people. But, should you be saying it to anyone? I mean after all, your very own words could be used to describe your behavior...could they not?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've said what to many people? What about answering the question I asked just above your evasive reply? Eric Corbett 21:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My reply was not to evade. I think you know the answer to your own question and I find it a little odd being asked by you. Seems rhetorical to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What I may or may not know is not the issue here, so why not answer the question? Eric Corbett 21:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked a question you are fully aware of, even if you don't agree on the details.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to press you, because you're propagating a lie. Who was referred to with a vulgar word? It's a simple enough question to which I do indeed know the answer: nobody. Eric Corbett 21:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Other editors and for the derogatory word see:[5] [6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You as well eh? So which "other editors" did I refer to with a vulgar word? Eric Corbett 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The wording is "derogatory about", and the editors would be the ones you sought to advise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As evasive as ever. Which editors were referred to with a vulgar word? Eric Corbett 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric, if you're looking for an example of you referring to editors in a vulgar fashion perhaps this edit summary will suit? It took less than five minutes to find. 81.171.97.186 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I was actually looking for an answer to my question, which you and others here are for some reason desperately trying to avoid answering. Eric Corbett 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've answered your question 'So which "other editors" did I refer to with a vulgar word?'. Or are you now going to try to say that your edit summary wasn't directed at an editor? Moral fibre indeed. 81.171.97.186 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The policy concerns "derogatory comments about." The editors you advised in your comment is not evasive, that's who you were addressing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get it that you don't have the moral fibre to admit that you're simply dissembling. Eric Corbett 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't mistake yourself. I'm just reading the words other people have written. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For reference: diff that introduced the word cunt to the subject discussion [7]; diff that redacted it [8]; diff that restored it [9]; link to the discussion section for context [10]; link to corresponding WP:ANI section of complaint [11]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the above diffs — An editor used a word that another editor considered offensive and a personal attack. The two editors could not settle the issue between themselves. A complaint was filed at WP:ANI. No administration action was taken. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Entrenched sexism

Wikipedia isn't alone in having a toxic work environment. There are a lot of real-world examples of organisations that have successfully dealt with this issue. Why doesn't the WMF partner with, or solicit advice from other organisations as to how they changed? One example that comes to mind is the ACLU, whose key mission is to educate, and who I'm sure would be able to give some very useful advice, but I'm sure there are many others. The issue of entrenched sexism is not unique to WP and I think it would be very helpful to learn from others in this circumstance. 101.116.91.82 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the evidence for the existence of "entrenched sexism" in WP? Eric Corbett 00:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just have to look - anyone can do it - [12] and [13] .. [14] -- Moxy (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This source doesn't describe it as sexism, but it does analyze the gender imbalance on Wikipedia:

• Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender imbalance =/= sexism. Just think about it, anyone can do it. Eric Corbett 00:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your observation is noted. Have you read the paper yet? Or the other links? Or maybe done a little research yourself? Can I get you a cup of coffee? Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What research do I need to do to know that gender imbalance =/= sexism? What research have you done to prove the case for your claim of "entrenched sexism"? Doesn't seem like you've done any. Eric Corbett 01:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Its hard when people are not willing to even consider others POV. A better rebuttal would have been this link. Wikipedia is made up of people from all around the world and many come from places where women simply dont have right or are consider less able .....this is reflected in attitudes towards women here. They bring up problem and get even more humiliated for being considered to sensitive. We have to ask ourselves - are there just a few bad apples we need to toss out or is it a bigger wide spread problem? -- Moxy (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably both at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen no "entrenched sexism" on Wikipedia. I see the odd (in both senses) individual, just as there are for anti-Semites etc, but not some institutional ethos. That seems to be more a case of some people making illogical leaps. Like Eric, I've got on well with various contributors who self-identify on-wiki as women but I really couldn't care less that they are such and & it is evident because I cannot name names off-hand. They are no more special here than someone who self-identifies as a man. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems your personal experience with it has been great then. Thanks for self-reporting how fine you are with women.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm, or whatever it is you were aiming at, won't get you anywhere. I am still waiting to see proof of the entrenched sexism. You and others are shouting loudly but you are not providing proof. Which is typical of many pressure groups and of at least one specific person who is at the heart of the GGTF. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How about looking at our content? Female-oriented content is barely visible, while male-oriented content makes up most GA and FA work. Start there. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no metrics for that but, yes, it might be true. However, all of the shouting is about civility, not content. If the GGTF (better renamed}} was intended to promote more coverage of those topics then I'd support it. I know that they do mention that aspect but their main purpose - encouraged by radical real-life activists like CMDC - seems to be more "anti-male" and civility-based, intended to sanitise and censor rather than improve. I'm probably not saying this well: should have been out of the door & off to work five minutes ago, sorry. You don't have to be female to cover female-related topics, of course. - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what female-oriented content is. J3Mrs (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You can start by reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists ("part of Wikipedia's systemic bias is that women in science are woefully underrepresented"). Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

But I find anything with women in the title so off-putting. Why would any editor want to be directed there? If you think that's what women come to edit then I'm not too surprised at the lack of take up. J3Mrs (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell if you are being purposefully obtuse or if you are in denial of the gender gap. You've been given evidence, yet you still deny it. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Obtuse? Not deliberately but I really still don't know what it is. What proof is there that closing the gender gap would produce this "female-oriented" material? I think there are more women here than some suppose, writing about all sorts of things that interest them, art, history, geography, literature, biography, industrial archaeology, who knows. Editors will edit whatever takes their fancy and should be judged on the quality of the content they produce, not whether they are male or female. I've produced, with help, some GAs but I don't see them as being oriented in any direction, male or female. Volunteers will do as volunteers please, thank goodness. J3Mrs (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A thought or two on "Don't ask, don't tell"

I'm wondering whether "DADT" might be a viable solution for the sexism problem on WP. I's sure most well read editors will be aware of the application of a DADT policy in the US military establishment w.r.t. sexual orientation and the problems that have consequently arisen/not been solved. However, the online environment is different because "nobody knows you're a dog". We don't (or at least don't need to) reveal our actual identities/characteristics at all - an editor's WP-persona is whatever they say it is. If nobody on WP knows that I am a 40-something, white, South African, English speaking, male, wheelchair user - it is impossible to subject me to any of the "-isms" that arise out of those characteristics. I would be immune to sexism, ageism, racism, disableism, etc. because a potential insulter/discriminator won't know which "-ism" to use against me. Has any IP editor ever complained of sexism/racism/etc? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually proposing the implementation of a failed policy that was recalled in 2011? Seriously? So when discrimination does arise, we should just ignore it? That's your solution? My gosh, is it 2014 or 1914? Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, sometimes on Wikipedia it looks more like 14BC :(

I wonder whether people who make suggestions like this one ever stop to consider what their life would be like only if they took care never to disclose some core attribute of themselves, such as their gender, race or sexuality. Have they ever considered what it would be like to be fired from your job because someone became aware that you were -- whisper it -- heterosexual? Or that if they disclosed the fact of being male, they had nobody but themselves to blame for abuse or discrimination or hostility which followed?

Hiding those attributes doesn't make hostility to those attributes go away. It just means that people are unable to disclose the impact of denigrations of those attributes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:BrownHairedGirl I fully realize the hostility doesn't go away - but by not revealing that you have the attribute the hostility cannot be aimed at you - someone can't be stoned if there are no stones. I'm not saying blame the victim, but maybe if the victim stops actually giving the haters the stones, they won't be able to throw any. Just like WP:Deny seeks to disarm trolls, if there are no easily available targets for the haters here, they can't exercise their hate. Again - this is cyberspace, nobody really needs to even have a race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not proposing anything, I'm just putting an idea here for discussion - this is Jimbo's talk page, not WP:VPP. As far as I know we have never had such a "policy" so how could it have been "recalled in 2011"? You seem to be missing the key point - if nobody knows that I'm male/female/white/black/gay/Muslim/atheist/Australian/Russian/whatever it is impossible to use it as a basis for discrimination. That's where the US military policy failed - in the face-to-face world it is basically impossible to hide characteristics that form the basis of discrimination. Here in the online environment people only know things about me that I have actually revealed. BTW the WP:Advice for younger editors page does in fact recommend exactly this strategy - it advises young editors not to reveal their age to make it impossible to victimize them for being young. Has any IP editor ever complained of racism/sexism/homophobia? No, because an IP editor is just a number, an IP has no gender, race, nationalty, religion, etc. - maybe we should all just be numbers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, isn't the argument more around what in European discrimination law we call "indirect discrimination" e.g. an atmosphere/conduct that repels women, preferencing topics that find more favour with men etc The disclosure of gender only has a bearing on "direct" discrimation. I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the foregoing - just that this suggestion wouldn't address much of the alleged problem in any case. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

IPs complain about racism/sexism/homophobia all the time. You want examples? "I don't want to take part in the community aspects of this website, particularly as the area that I edit in has a lot of openly sexist editors and it means forming an identity with them --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)"[15] Dodger67, please try to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. You couldn't be more wrong about your characterization of IPs and how to best deal with discrimination. Hiding our heads in the sand is not the right approach. And as for victimizing people for being young, that's somewhat of a joke. In the real world (such as not on Wikipedia) people are victimized for being old, not young. Unlike other countries, in the United States, for example, youth is prized above all else in every facet of life. This kind of youth-obsessed culture didn't really exist in the US until the 1960s. And if you do the slightest bit of research on the subject, you'll discover it's a long-term marketing campaign intended to provide a fresh supply of consumers who will demand that their parents buy them the latest x, y, and z. So if you're looking for victims, look no farther than the old people who have been discarded by society at every level because they are no longer hungry consumers and productive creators of junk. Young people like Frosty who think it's unbearably funny to refer to women as cunts are victims of their own immaturity. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah....because DADT worked sooo well for the US military it surely will work as well or better on a civilian, international, encyclopedic website? (In case anyone missed that...it was sarcasm) So what....you gonna ban everyone who uses their real name? Force us back into the "closet"? This was just not thought through very well, but I trust the good faith of the OP. The issue isn't our characteristics, its the problem of allowing others to discuss them as weapon or a blunt object to beat over an editors head.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of WikiLove and WikiPeace

How about we let go of all this pointless hositlity, join hands, and sing a lovely ditty?--The Loving Kindness Advocate ^{♥ ♥}23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hall of fame quality troll, vanishing in five - four - three - two... Carrite (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I like the way this Devil's Advocate thinks. ~Frosty (Talk page) 01:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Which proves my point. Your user page says you are only 18 years old. You don't yet have enough experience nor knowledge based on experience to understand this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well ain't that just a beautiful (and inappropriate) ad hominem. KonveyorBelt 03:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the context of proving my point (which is discussed on Lightbreather's talk page), there is nothing ad hominem here. I maintain and continue to theorize that all of Wikipedia's so-called gender bias problems can be attributed to its young, immature demographic, which just so happens to be male. In other words, older males are less likely to fall afoul of the gender bias, and we've seen this to be true time and time again. Young males like Frosty up above, who openly praise and admire trolls who make fun of women simply don't have the necessary self-reflection that comes with experience and age. Physiologically, his brain hasn't even finished developing. To address the gender gap, therefore, we must first address the immaturity of our editors. I've recommended on Lightbreather's page that we should focus on education and strategies over and above noticeboards. This means doing exactly what Lightbreather is doing, calling editors on their bad behavior whenever it appears and offering insight and strategies for dealing with and getting along with other editors. So, nothing ad hominem here at all. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, nope, under Big Brother's Friendly Space Policy™, you have just committed an ageist attack and you are gone. The Thought Police (pro staff of WMF) have so ruled. There is no appeal. Thank you for your service to Wikipedia! Carrite (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You've evidently never been to Silicon Valley, the Solar System's leader in real, institutional ageism. It's worse than Logan's Run. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with real ageism, racism, sexism, ultra-nationalism, or religious hatred, ad infinitum? This is all a gigantic diversion. Civility can't be policed with Civility Police, it takes a common will of the entire community to show provocateurs of all stripes the door. This issue should have ended with the first ANI decision. The next step would have been an ArbCom case. Instead, we all have made Orville Redenbacher (kindly deceased front man for ConAgra) into a rich man with forum shopping, idiotic epithets, involved blocks, non-consultative unblocks, abruptly terminated ANI debates, and on and on. The mess traces back to the original verbal bomb-thrower and the aggrieved party who refused to accept community consensus and follow standard protocol for an appeal. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, 18 is quite advanced in catfish years.--The Ichthyology Advocate ^{tlk. cntrb.05:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)}

Refocus indeed?

I would like to point folks back to the initial response by DangerousPanda to the initial post (all now hatted), where DP laid out the forum-shopping background to the OP and suggested there was some WP:SPIDERMAN action going on here. I want to go back a step further than DP did. Just prior to launching the civility/sexism crusade that DP describes, Lightbreather received a topic-ban from gun-control topics at Arbcom Enforcement, which you can read here. As far as I can see, and as I tried to point out to her here, Lightbreather has pretty much zero self-insight into the behavior that led to that topic ban, and instead of taking the topic-ban as a wakeup call, has shrugged it off and redirected the advocate's zeal that got her topic-banned into a new crusade.

It is crazy to me see all the whirlwind that has been created from such a beginning. They make movies about stuff like this.

And the discussions and drama that have unfolded point up the difficulties of enforcing Civility as a pillar. The aspects of Civility in action that matter most, are very hard to clearly define, and when violations arise, it takes a lot of work to sort out what happened between other editors, and it is so, so easy to put one's own spin on things and just hear what is important to you, and so hard for so many of us, to see the plank in our own eye. Which one can observe a lot of, in what has unfolded. And these are the some of the reasons the community's efforts to enforce Civility have collapsed in the past. ~Maybe~ it is worth putting some structure back in place, but it needs to be done deliberately and wisely. By insightful, experienced editors who have lived through past efforts and understand why the community walked away from them. Not in a passionate crusade.

And in my view, Lightbreather remains as unaware of her inability to leave advocacy at the WP login as the day she received her topic ban. The problem for her is still the speck in someone else's eye.Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to point out to her here, Lightbreather has pretty much zero self-insight into the behavior that led to that topic ban... Re: that link, I do hope everyone who's interested does read it: Jytdog's comments and mine. One of my favorite lines from him is: "Plenty of kind folks have you tried to help you see you what you have been doing wrong." Though I'm not too keen on the term, this is a good example of mansplaining. If you don't want to gum-up Jimbo's talk page, here's a space for you, too. [16] Please keep it civil. Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. That is perfectly normal to be said in the course of almost any administrative action. It has nothing to do with gender or incivility. Sometimes people just aren't listening. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh! And since Jytdog wants others to read DP's initial response to my discussion with Jimbo, I want others to read my response to DP.[17] Lightbreather (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog - Arbcom is not made up of perfect saints. WP:A/G itself states that the arbitrators "do not have much time" and they "care much more about product than process", which ensures that the majority of their decisions are at least controversial, if not outright inaccurate. -A1candidate (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A1, generalities aside, if you take some time and read the discussion and links in the AE, you will see that the outcome was apt. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I clicked the link to ArbCom, and the first thing that caught my attention was an inaccurate topic-ban of Herxue, but that's another topic for another day. As for Lightbreather, I actually took the time to read the bulk of the discussion, but I came out less than impressed. What happened was that EdJohnston first proposed a warning to both parties and everyone agreed. Then EdJohnston changed his mind and proposed an arbitrary (pun fully intended!) 6 month topic-ban and everyone agreed again. The ability to pause and critically evaluate an issue before passing a judgement was (and is) entirely non-existent. -A1candidate (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is an inaccurate reading. On July 2 already Ed brought up the question of who was making edits on other side of Scalhotrod's reverts, listed by Lightbreather, and said that if that was one person, that person would likely be sanctionable also ... 6 days later Ed said it was looking to him like both parties should at least be warned, and by July 12 Ed had looked and seen the edit war was the two of them and looked at the behavior of both of them at RSN that had developed since they had started deliberating, and found that "we have two one-note editors who are going to make edits favoring their own position on any mainspace articles", and recommended topic ban for both. Other admins were following the reasoning all along and consented. There was never a "change of mind" but an evolution as they looked deeper. It was deliberative and not rushed. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

But this is off topic in any case. The point I am trying to make is that enforcing Civility is pretty much impossible. Way too subjective, and way too often (present company included) folks are too busy looking at the specks in other people's eyes and not seeing the plank in their own. Especially on emotionally-laden topics. And even in pretty-clear cut cases, it is hard to get admins to read carefully through a bunch of horrible discussions and actually take action; what volunteer wants that job? It needs to be really screaming bloody murder - a real personal threat - to get action taken. And that is not what this crusade is about - it is about much more subtle things that are much harder to define, much less take action on. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Lightbreather’s topic ban isn’t really relevant. I admittedly know nothing about it, so will not attempt to comment on whether or not it was fair, but either way, it seems we should stick to the civility debate she’s brought to light regarding whether or not “cunt” is an appropriate word to throw around on Wikipedia and whether or not Wikipedia’s current norms and practices represent something similar to a “hostile work environment” for female editors. Currently, only about 10% of editors are female so this is a serious issue and I think it’s best we stick to the issues as much as possible and not make things personal regarding editors. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Having lurked at ANI for a bit and seen quite a few civility-related discussions come and go, it seems to me that the problem is that there are a few admins who very vocally oppose any action on civility and that this is interpreted as a lack of consensus to take any action. A related problem is that the probability of ANI action is generally inversely proportional to the length of discussion minus what has been contributed by the parties in a dispute. There have been a number of cases where there has been more-or-less consensus to take action but no action has been taken and my slightly-cynical assessment of the reasons is that no uninvolved admin could be bothered reading it all to assess consensus.

Presently almost any accusation of incivility on ANI is quickly shot down. Usually it is explained that action for incivility is almost impossible, citing some other particularly egregious case where no action was taken as precedent. Why this isn't dismissed as WP:OTHERSTUFF I don't know.

So it seems to me there are three possibilities for fixing this, if indeed it needs fixing:

• Change policy to allow any single admin to impose a (perhaps limited) block for incivility. This would avoid the inertia of long ANI discussions but would be easy to abuse.
• Remove responsibility for enforcing civility from the general run of administrators and give it to someone else (the Civility Board that has been suggested elsewhere). This would avoid the inertia of long ANI discussions but would probably lead to a lot of complaints.
• Create lots of new admins who view incivility as a problem, effectively stacking ANI. I'm not sure this would really work - it's hard to get the right people, they would have all sorts of other powers we might not want them to have and it might actually make the inertia of ANI worse anyway.

GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As an afterthought to that, I also think that this discussion needs to be separated from sexism. Where it happens, sexism is a problem and a nasty one, but the problem of incivility is much wider than that and I don't think it's productive to frame it as mainly about sexism. Much of the discussion above demonstrates this. Even if every complaint of sexism above is an example of the worst sort of discrimination, it has nonetheless had the effect of derailing the discussion. Perhaps that in itself is even a demonstration of entrenched sexism. Nonetheless, I take the pragmatic stance that making progress toward our goals is more important than arguing every point to death out of principle. GoldenRing (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since I've been mentioned in this discussion, I'd like to make a comment. The person who is campaigning for a means to encourage enforce civility on WP and presumably concurrently reduce sexism is same person who made a what I consider a sexist personal attack, twice, during an ARE proceeding and then later made a reference to it, though in a less direct way, on the Talk page for the Gender Gap Task Force when Lightbreather accused me of joining for no other reason than to annoy/intimidate/disrupt her. I asked about the original instance and it was acknowledged by an Admin that it was a "personal attack or close to it" [18]. I was advised to let it go because of the impending Topic Ban and did that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why did I leave the Gender Gap project less than 48 hours after acting on an invitation to join? Here's the full story, in my own words: [19]. Lightbreather (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrators specializing in civility issues

Suggest having a registry where administrators can voluntarily register to handle incivility cases. Editors who encounter an uncivil editor can choose one of the administrators from the registry for help. After a case is closed, the involved editors (plaintiff and defendant) have the option of giving a brief review of the administrator to aid future editors in choosing an administrator for help. A link to the review history can be conveniently located next to the administrator's name in the registry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect those volunteering for such duty would include a wide array of personal-political POV pushers. One could choose their favorite agent of change and obliterate their foes in five minutes, QED. Actually the best people to remedy such conflict are apt not to be administrators at all... @Cullen328 (Jim H.) for example... Carrite (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A biased administrator could be identified by the history of reviews and would risk being sanctioned upon further investigation.

An alternative is to have an employee from WMF with administrator powers, instead of the registry. Such an employee would be subject to a performance review by WMF management which would include involved editor reviews as in the registry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I think could work....need not be admin and yeah...Cullen is an excellent editor for civility issues and I can think of a few more, but everyone has their detractors.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Re "need not be admin" — a non-admin would not have enforcement power. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility cases are almost invariably content disputes that get out of hand. Sometimes they are provoked as a POV-pushing tactic. Do you want a compromise negotiator or a dissident crusher? I'll go further the other direction: if we're going to have Civility Specialists, they should NOT be administrators. "Get the deal done or I will call in somebody and get you blocked" is all the leverage they would need. We've seen in this very incident how administrators can be quick to escalate to blocking when they get frustrated. The parties should have ZERO control over the selection of the Civility Specialist, otherwise this institution would almost immediately devolve into a simple POV warring tool. (Civility Specialists are not necessarily a horrid idea, but if done wrong it's a horrid idea...) Carrite (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My experience and observation is that incivility has become a POV warring tool... to the point where editors accuse other editors of being too civil. Civility is considered uncivil by some powerful editors and groups of editors. They might not lead with such an accusation, but if one stands their ground and keeps their cool? Yes. And then civility gets equated with censorship or tendentiousness. There is no policy that says asking another to keep their comments civil is censorship, or that standing your ground - if your evidence and arguments stand up under scrutiny - is being tendentious. Lightbreather (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead of special admins for handling civility I think it better that we simply insist that no admin take an admin action in an area where they are unwilling to or unable to understand and follow the consensus of the policy. That is to say if you think NPA should not be enforced then you should not be engaging in unblocks for NPA. Chillum 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Suppose Wikipedia:Civility/Noticeboard be created with a discussion to be held on its scope and methods of resolving disputes, whether by mediation or enforcements (IBAN, block, etc.) KonveyorBelt 15:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there was some discussion of that elsewhere. [20]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Past discussions re: WP:WQA and WP:PAIN, and why they were closed/shut down,[21][22] need to be reviewed, as do suggestions made here, but actually creating the board, with a "Coming soon" message would make it clear that there is intention to make this happen in some form, details TBD. Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this. For one thing the old WP:WQA was easily gamed, especially by fringe POV pushers, some of whom were prone to take criticism of their pet ideas personally. Cardamon (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Civility needs to be enforced by everyone, editors and admins alike. We need to stop thinking that the "tools" are going to change anything. At the end of the day it's just us, whether you have a block button or not. I've said it before and I'll say it again, people have to learn to be civil, and they need to be taught which strategies work and which don't. Wikipedia's biggest problem is that it doesn't spend any time teaching users how to improve their skills, from researching to writing to basic strategies for dispute resolution. Until we focus on how to make users better editors, we will be chasing our tail. There is no noticeboard nor any admin toolset that will solve this problem. The answer lies only in self-improvement, nowhere else. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be an admin noticeboard, rather I would hope uninvolved editors help, like in DRN or even sometimes ANI. KonveyorBelt 03:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that most DRN and ANI threads don't really need Administrative intervention. The proposed board will need an administrator to impose specific sanctions (IBan, TBan, Block, CBan) because these are cases where either by convention or by toolset a regular user cannot impose a sanction. By giving the sanction the authority of an administrator whom the community has vetted, it further demonstrates to the sanctioned how grave the situation is. Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the most serious problems is that that many of the people enabling and engaging in personal attacks and incivility are admins. What we need to do is become more willing to block an admin without a handful of other admins screaming bloody murder over it.

Call me crazy but I think if we all had the same treatment for the same behavior things would be a bit better. Chillum 15:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO eliminating the admin class would do far more towards creating a civil atmosphere and encouraging more women, 3rd world located ppl etc to contribute than any of the increasingly authoritarian approaches others are suggesting (such as desysopping those who dont agree with whatever the ppl at the top are saying, e.g. the terms of service proposal by BrownHairedGirl on this talk page♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This place would be encyclopedia dramatica if we had no admins. Surely this is not a serious suggestion? All we need to do it eliminate the culture that admins are immune to blocks and then block those that don't follow consensus. Chillum 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Debating is more stimulating than creating content

I think that's the basic problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Sorry Jimbo for saying a fairly bad word here. But this is nonsense. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. The claim is over broad and oversimplified, but I think we can remember that sometimes debating (and/or drama) is something that people can (perhaps inadvertently) enjoy more than they should.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's the nub. (so to speak…) Some people are getting off on "cunt"; it's a pity they can't admit it (and then just enjoy it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is "train wreck" or "car wreck" syndrome, people just can't look away. But here on WP instead of just causing traffic congestion, people comment and the "wreck" continues in slow motion. This must be hard wired into the human DNA because everyone seems to do it regardless of gender, race, culture, etc. Heck, what else would explain why NASCAR is so popular. No one will admit that the real reason they watch is because there might be a wreck... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

While that is certainly true to some extent, I would take the analogy further and compare it to a car wreck in a city of a million people. Many people in the vicinity of the crash will stop to look (these drama-fuelled arguments), but for 99% of the population, life proceeds apace (editing articles). Resolute 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I quit enjoying debating things on Wikipedia a long time ago, Jimbo--unless it's over some actual content-related thing. There's debate and debate. The academic debate over the grammaticality of "Between you and I" (you should read that article: it's written by one of our finest editors) is exciting, but the various debates on my talk, on ANI, on Dennis Brown's talk, on your talk, not so much. They serve only to entrench. But I'm not supposed to be a frequent visitor here; it prevents me from filling up my own talk page, so sayonara. Don't forget Alabama: you have a standing invitation to have a beer and dip in the pool in Montgomery, and when you make it down here, please don't forget to bring my admin shirt. I'll take a medium, even though--apparently--Wikipediocracy thinks it makes me look fat. Bob, article writing is more fun than most things here--Zazie in the Metro, for instance, is woefully underdeveloped. Best, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Super. :-) I fully support what you are saying. I sometimes feel like closing my talk page and refusing to talk to anyone about policy for a week or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just took your talk page off my watch list a while back. It actually helped me to get back to content creation. I like reading the debates here but sometimes...they aren't really debates...so I understand Drmies comments and yours. Back to work (which really isn't work or I'd probably not be doing it. LOL!)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We are I think in several topics getting to the point that some editors with a form of tunnel-vision and maybe something like ADD have decided that what matters is not the NPOV development of content, but the weight and attention it gets in a specific broad article. The "my group has this opinion on baptism, and it has to be covered fully in the Baptism article, whether there is a spinout or not." I have a feeling many of the debates we have in much of the content relating to beliefs of all sorts are driven by this need to clearly "win" in a topic. To the extent that is true, expect the problem to get worse until and unless wikibooks and longer content become better developed and known to the general public. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Debating to correct misinformation: Some debating is needed to refute false claims in talk-pages. Recall how Google Search will match to some WP essay pages or other project pages, and thereby link the general public into discussions, or debates, which could give the impression that misinformation is allowed, unchallenged, in other Wikipedia pages. For example, one user recently posted the false claim that Britannica pages often rank higher than WP in Google (not true) for "encyclopedic" topics if the user does not read Wikipedia often; however the truth is that WP pages often far outrank matches to Britannica pages even at neutral sites such as public libraries or hotel Internet rooms (where the active browsers sometimes have no history of "en.wikipedia.org" viewing). So, even though the debating in talk-pages or project-pages might seem a waste of time, those pages have become a tangent to the "sum of all knowledge" which readers access via the search-engine links. We have a shared responsibility to refute misinformation, and it is good to see various volunteers come here and help correct the misleading claims which some people have posted. The wikitext format of talk-pages makes it faster for power users to refute several claims across the page in a few edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI Noticeboard

Jimbo, I just wanted to inform you that someone (not me) started a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jimbo. -A1candidate (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

*Repeatedly hits head against desk* Can't we all just get along nicely? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

When this sort of thing kicks off, as it regularly does, don't you just think 'who the hell would want to get involved with us'? Anyone looking in on WP from the outside must think this place is just bonkers. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we pause this? I need to go buy more popcorn. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Really. I can't manage to sign out long enough to watch my evening news programs. Fylbecatulous talk 20:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This place is turning into a romper room with no adult supervision. Usenet, here we come! Dave Dial (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard as well. —Neotarf (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to repeat my position that the project would be better off in terms of productively and harmoniously producing an encyclopedia if we become less tolerant of people who can't behave themselves according to a higher standard. The sheer amount of time lost in drama created by a handful of angry people - the sheer number of good contributors driven away by them - is a massive drain on the happiness and health of the community. It is a mistake to imagine that we have to keep annoying people around because we want to improve the number of quality editors contributing. The best way to improve the number of quality editors contributing is to get rid of people who cause so much trouble.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am a strong believer in the use of polite language (vide my proposal relating to use of language on talk pages) - but demur on the "get rid of people who cause so much trouble" as being a valid solution. Once we start on that road, we can "get rid of people who have annoying opinions" and "people who annoy us on specific topics" with great abandon, and I suggest using that sort of argument would be ill-conducive to collegiality. We can require that people be cognizant that some words are offensive to others, and then ask they not use such words where any reproof as been given by a person so offended, and use dispute resolution if they decide to use such words where they are deemed offensive. Beyond that, we will be making a grave error IMO. Collect (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) .

I am a strong believer that polite language can be used in a far more unpleasant way than the odd "rude" word. I agree the encyclopedia needs far more quality editors but they are not necessarily the ones Jimbo would keep. Polite doesn't equal quality. J3Mrs (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am in complete agreement with Jimmy. Civility is a great problem on Wikipedia, and growing worse. Potential contributors, many of them women unused to testosterone-fueled chest-beating, whom would be excellent content providers or develop into such, are discouraged and driven away by arrogant and abusive types like Eric Corbett. Until such time as the situation is rectified, the battleground mentality will continue, with few dozen bullies effectively running the show. I once again advocate a top-down solution of reform to break the logjam, including wholesale changes in the way admins are made and unmade. Jusdafax 13:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In what sense is that not a personal attack? Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence that I've ever driven anyone away, male or female? All the evidence would appear to be in quite the opposite direction in fact. Eric Corbett 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I stopped participating when you implied I was an idiot in the edit summary. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jusdafax. On this Eric has a point. Without diffs this is technically a personal attack. This just goes to show that obsession with naughty words or liquidation of one or a dozen individuals isn't gonna end anything. There is always going to be drama on WP; there has been since the very first months of the project's existence. The contours of the quibbling and battling might change but there is no utopian solution with banning this word or that person. That said — @Eric: you need to stop this shit, man. This does not end well continuing on this path... Carrite (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything Carrite. Eric Corbett 13:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Most editors, male and female never come into contact with testosterone-fueled chest-beating on here because they never find the drama boards. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that women are driven away by "arrogant and abusive types like Eric Corbett". Provide some real evidence and do something about your own dual standards of civility. J3Mrs (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, there are many other Wikipedia locations of conflict other than found on the drama boards. I am experiencing some that has been rather distressing on (of all places), the WP:Featured pictures candidates project. Fylbecatulous talk 14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo - It's good to see some common sense here, but as Wikipedia is currently set up, your position is untenable. There are too many separated groups behaving like immature children. Antagonizing happens, then reactions, then blocks, then unblocks, then more and more drama until the next time. It's a joke and will never be solved without a structure of mature editors who see the problem for what it is. I suppose ArbCom could be that structure, but many times they are almost as dysfunctional as the separated groups going at each other. In other words, things aren't going to change unless things change. I don't really care that much about the civility a person has, up to a point. But when it disrupts the whole project for days or weeks at a time, and takes so much energy away from other editors, it's a problem. If there is no 3rd party to step in and put a stop to the drama, it will just keep repeating itself. No matter who is at fault, there are too many immature editors involved on both sides. It's just unbelievable that it continues time after time and there are not enough mature editors to put an end to it. Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) by Sue Gardner"4) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because they are conflict-averse and don’t like Wikipedia’s sometimes-fighty culture" It is absolutely not true that if you "stay away from the drama boards you won't get into conflict". I have seen major hate filled feuds over, for instance, infoboxes on articles about historic houses or whether to title articles Red Robin or Red robin. In both cases editors, especially ones who had some expertise in those subjects, were mercilessly bullied by others trying to impose uniform regulations across the whole site and told "if you don't like it, just go away" and some did. You have really got to be prepared to be very assertive here and stand up for what you believe in, and yes, fight, and many women, according to the study referenced in that link, do not want to spend their spare time volunteering to engage in online combats. I think the culture absolutely needs to change, not only should civility be enforced but editors who actually have some idea what they are writing about on this site should be protected more from attacks by "Randy from Boise" editors. I have seen this happen over and over, you can see what the most valuable editor in the field of Roman history, Cynwolfe, a woman, gives as the reason why she no longer edits on her talk page (The MOS straitjacket had started to feel like a drag...the dysfunction of dispute resolution. It's just too exhausting. I could revisit some of the war stories, but what's the point?)Smeat75 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors who get driven away tend not to come back just to prove they've been driven away. Some editors get driven away from certain articles because they find it just too painful to contribute. Don't know how you'd prove it, either way. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett asked Jusdafax "Do you have even the slightest shred of evidence that I've ever driven anyone away, male or female?": [23] DeCausa (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Man, that's a shocking loss there... Carrite (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Although undoubtedly there is drama on Wikipedia, I would like to see work toward discouraging use of the term "drama boards." The noticeboards are there for a legitimate reason, and calling them "drama boards" implies that anyone who goes there looking for help is a drama queen. It's another way to perpetuate an unspoken boys' code of not being a "rat." Bullshit. With a few exceptions, they might not be the first place to go, but they serve a valid purpose. Lightbreather (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment industry versus Wikipedia

See also: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 81 § Television, human values, and Wikipedia

It appears that the entertainment industry is undermining Wikipedia.

1. Wikipedia depends on editors who have intelligence and education. Society has expected those qualities to be promoted by educators in educational institutions (schools, colleges, universities, et cetera).
2. Wikipedia depends on editors who have courtesy and compassion. Society has expected those qualities to be promoted by philosophies in various places and by religions in places of worship (churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, et cetera).
3. People in the entertainment industry (producers, performers, and broadcasters) often prefer content that undermines proper education and proper courtesy.
4. Consumers of entertainment often prefer content that undermines proper education and proper courtesy.
5. People in the news industry often follow (to some extent) the standards of the entertainment industry.
6. In comparison with standards in the entertainment industry, standards in the news industry often appear to be more refined, even if they are less refined than what society has expected people to learn from places of education and from places of worship.
7. Consumers of entertainment and news can subtly pick up undesirable habits which they find difficult to resist.
8. Very careful selection of news and entertainment by consumers can help them to develop and maintain desirable habits if they wish to do so.
9. Avoiding undesirable content can be challenging, especially for people for whom there appear to be few options for "good feelings".
10. Entertainment relieves tediousness. Encouragement relieves discouragement. Entertainment is inadequate as a substitute for encouragement.
11. Each editor can execute a personal search for a view of life and a pattern of life that promote not only proper education and proper courtesy, but also genuine encouragement.
12. Some tips are available at Evaluating Internet Research Sources.

I have numbered my points for convenient reference in replies.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(1) Citation needed. (2-11) See (1). (12) Random blog - applying the standards given there, it isn't a reliable source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin who rejects terms of service

Hi Jimbo

You may or may not be aware of the comment at ANI's talk page by the admin John, who wrote "Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork".

I have asked John to clarify whether they wished to retract or withdraw that comment, but got stonewalled. [24]

So I want to ask your views on a few questions:

1. wmf:Terms of Use explicitly requires of every editor that "you support a civil environment". If an editor advocates that editors offended by a lack of civility should leave, are they breaching the terms of service?
2. Is such a view compatible with the holding the status of administrator on en.Wikipedia?
3. Does the WikiMedia Foundation have any mechanism independent of the community of editors for addressing breaches of its terms of service?

I look forward to any clarification you can provide. I understand that you may not be able to speak for the Foundation. If that is the case, I would welcome your own thoughts, but would also ask that you should guide me on where to raise this with the Foundation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me think about this for a bit before writing my answer. I want to be precise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. I appreciate your desire to be precise, so please take your time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What does "freedom to fork" mean? Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's talking about creating your own break away wiki from Wikipedia. Thanks, Matty.007 11:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It means that the content is generally freely licensed so that if someone wants, they can take all the content and start a competing website. I'd like to suggest that the extreme minority who think that being rude and tolerating mysogyny is the right thing to do, go set up a website with those as founding principles. I'll pay for the server personally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, a separate misogopedia for that minority seems like a great idea. However, that extreme minority seems well enough entrenched in the community's decision-making processes that they see no need to shift. Instead they expect the decent majority to clear off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, they already have a website with those as founding principles; the Commons. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please reflect carefully Jimbo, and make sure you don't encourage an approach that can backfire and open Wikipedia to a destructive "cleansing" by some of its more blinkered, self-righteous and vindictive users. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl Where were you when Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_156#Bird_common_name_decapitalisation took place then? The barrage of comments that every person supporting option 2 got, and the walls of text and belittling comments that were hurled en masse ...and left alot of birdos that have donated thousands of hours to wikipedia feeling gutted? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber, I guess I was busy creating content, categorising articles and closing discussions, as I usually do. If you believe that there was a civility problem in the discussion you linked, please can you raise it in appropriate venue rather than in this discussion? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You had been involved in that so I figured you might have been watching it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I was involved only as the closer of an RM discussion, and in the subsequent move review. Once the I had explained the reasons for my closure and the editors involved had accepted my suggestion to open a formal RFC to resolve the wider dispute, I had no interest in or reason for further involvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the contention that I reject terms of service is yours not mine. I reject the idea that you can bully people into civility. True civility is based on love, kindness and thoughtfulness, not things we can legislate for. For what it's worth, I feel more insulted by your misrepresentation of my position than if you had called me some rude name. Dishonesty and bearing false witness are really damaging to our community, and arguably more so than a few rude words, which are merely childish. --John (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

John, your words are very clearly written in plain English. As noted above, I took the time to ask you to clarify whether those remarks represent your view, giving you the opportunity to withdraw or revise them. You chose to reject that opportunity, and you now post here without any retraction.

It is regrettable an admin like you should not only refuse an opportunity to explain or clarify your words (contrary to WP:ADMINACCT), but follow that up with a false accusation of of misrepresentation and dishonesty.

I am fascinated by your belated statement that "true civility is based on love, kindness and thoughtfulness", which you chose to offer only when your unretracted statement was brought to wider attention. Your un-retracted suggestion that people who dislike rudeness can leave Wikipedia does not meet any of those 3 criteria. I suggest that you reconsider your position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of discussing this with you, as I have, for the moment, lost all respect for you as an editor, as I stated on my talk page. You blocked someone you were having a dispute with without warning for an edit they had made many hours before and then sat back and enjoyed the reaction that followed. You bore false witness again and again. I have no interest in your opinion of my editing behaviour, because I have no respect for you as an editor. I am only posting here to make it clear that I do not agree with your interpretation of my words. If someone else wishes to discuss any of my actions with me, they are welcome to do so at my talk page. I will make no further reply to you here, BHG. --John (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

John, I was not "in dispute" with the editor concerned, as the history clearly shows. If you disagree with that, feel free to seek action through the usual channels, but unless you are prepared to produce the evidence I strongly suggest that you avoid making such allegations. Nor did I in any way enjoy the reaction which followed; on the contrary, I was appalled as Jimbo was that even such blatant incivility through an edit summary was exempt from sanction.

It is entirely up to you whether you choose to respect me as an editor or as an admin. Personally, I have no desire to be respected by an editor who doggedly holds to the view that "Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork", and refuses multiple opportunities to retract those words. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BHG, let me summarize. You had a personal conflict with John. He made an unsound comment, and you berated him, demanding that he retract it, so you could then do the victory dance. What you are doing is bad. Why don't you both stop baiting each other, and John, please, at my request, strike that remark as a gesture of peace. It is insensitive to people who've experienced misogyny or rudeness. Wikipedia also has a problem with misandry and rudeness by female editors, though much less, because we have fewer female editors. Neither the belittling or dehumanizing of males or females is acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. This ridiculous forum-shopped circus was caused by someone who refused to accept a normal consensus decision about their more or less legitimate complaint. It will ultimately end up at ArbCom and there will be discussion there about whether your block of Eric was a bad block. It seems to me it was, it was a throwing of gasoline upon the fire. My opinion, at the appropriate time evidence will be presented. So, let's just have things move there so that we can get the people who need to be blocked blocked and the people who need to lose tools lose tools, shall we? (By the way, you invited me to fork and leave if I didn't agree with your interpretation of the world in an earlier thread related to this same incident, so excuse me for saying that you aren't going to find very much traction advancing the notion that someone saying that is committing a great personal offense.) Carrite (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl a person makes a complaint about civility. You appear to share concerns. A person she sees as incivil after mistakenly interpreting a comment as an attack on her when it was not, later makes another comment that most people would have brushed off and you block. True, you didn't have a dispute per se, but it is a bit like if I, as an inclusionist on some hypothetical AfD then blocked someone who voted delete who was rude to another editor. I'd never do that. If you can't see that you'd taken a position then I am not sure how to explain it more clearly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Casliber, I believe that your analogy is deeply misplaced, but if you want to discuss the block, please find another venue (which may be on another page or in a different thead on this page). This discussion is about the enforcement of WMF's Terms of Service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Casliber, That cannot be involved, otherwise anyone with a view of any policy is involved (ie., everyone), and not just the policy in issue but any other related policy (ie., every policy). Moreover, if your point is taken, than applying your analysis, the unblocking admin was involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, I appreciate your good intent to pour oil on troubles waters, but I think it is misplaced. I don't want any victory dance; I do want the Foundation to start taking action to ensure that its fundamental policies are respected.
I did not have a "personal conflict" with John. He was one side of a wider argument about enforcement of civility policy, in which editors took many different views.
My attention was later drawn elsewhere to that extraordinary comment which I believe goes to the heart of a wider problem on Wikipedia. Elsewhere there were groups of editors actively discussing their hostility to any efforts to close the gender gap on Wikipedia, while other editors explicitly advocated that editors who repeatedly refuse to be civil should face no sanction, in case they stop editing.
Enough of this. I want an end to the culture of incivility, and I want the WMF to demonstrate that its terms of service are not window-dressing. If those Foundation-mandated terms carry their plain English meaning, then it is time for the Foundation to insist that users of their website uphold those terms. The first step on that path is to reject the bully-boy culture which asks that editors uncomfortable with institutionalised incivility should leave, and John's unretracted statement is the most explicit, concise and unqualified articulation of values of that culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that in this environment true civility is based on love, kindness and thoughtfulness. I think that true civility in this environment is more based on articulateness. If we can't speak clearly we are lost in this environment. What part do terms such as those under discussion play in clear communication? I don't think those terms play any part in articulating a point. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl's assertions are an attempt to censor John and should be vigorously opposed, IMHO. If even admins are not allowed to say what they think wikipedia is going to have a serious and entirely unnecessary problem. Let us not allow political correctness to poison the atmosphere for volunteers working here. I have nothing against BrownHairedGirl opposing and challenging John's comments, my issue is in her Terms of Service claims which she thinks should be used to censor John and to send out a message to other admins who dare to oppose the politically correct beliefs of some users♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am in agreement that censorship is a bad thing but self-censorship could be a good thing. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps BrownHairedGirl might consider taking your advice♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you appear to be assuming that Wikipedia is place for unfettered speech, but that has never been the case.
Editors are barred from making legal threats, from harassment, from threatening violence, from breaching copyright, etc etc. The wmf:Terms of Use include a long list of restraints on what editors are allowed to write, most of which are well-enforced by the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

John hasnt been harrassing anyone or threatening violence or breaching copyright which is why I think your argument lacks merit. What he did was to simply expressing an opinion and you seem to want to shut him up using legal terms to unleash a witch hunt. And nor do I for a second believe that desysopping John will attract more women to the project but it will set a trend that will drive people away, both men and women. It strikes me that trying to censor comment in this way will set a precedent whereby some editors can legitimately engage in the harrassment of admins♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, though I'd probably word it a little more mildly. John should be free to express his viewpoint, and if we are going to try to use the TOS to take action regarding civility, I don't see him as a proper target given the quoted statement. He is, after all, objectively correct. People who don't like the nature of a community are not required to remain a part of it. However, I think the point that BHG is raising has merit in a general sense. Just what kind of community is Wikipedia willing to foster? Resolute 15:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute, well said. Why the hell can't I articulate like that? Oh yeah, I am a math guy :). --Malerooster (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We should expend effort not to destroy a sense of community. I find this statement off-putting: "Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork". Bus stop (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can think of few things more destructive to a civil environment than using the terms of service as a weapon, attempting to get the WMF to sanction someone, over that person stating an opinion that you disagree with. Civility is more than not using "bad words".--Cube lurker (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility involves more than just bad words considered individually. I agree 100% with that. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility is indeed more than not using "bad words". A lot more.

But I can think of few things more destructive to a civil environment than suggesting that editors put off by incivility should leave. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Expressing that is civil. Your trying to impose your viewpoint through WMF sanctions is not.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. BGH has a strong will to power. I know Jimbo rejected this claim, but I think the civility campaign here is a means of exercising that will. It's deeply uncivil. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice try, Nomoskedasticity. By your logic, anyone challenging abuse of power is seeking power. And anyone challenging incivility is uncivil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

By Nomoskedasticity's logic it is uncivil to oppose incivility. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

PS I am fascinated by Nomoskedasticity's faith in their ability to unequivocally diagnose a "will to power" in someone who they have never met. Nomoskedasticity, where did you get your psychology qualifications? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See Popular psychology. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of people who believe we should block people over civility issues, it's fascinating to compare John's more recent comments regarding policing civility with this case. It involves a woman editor blocked for "phraseology". He seems to be taking the exact opposite tack regarding the importance of editor civility and the need to block for "obscene aspersions" with a woman editor who was editing in footy pages. His rationale for blocking her included that she used the phrase "circle jerk" after being warned not to. It's harder to feel any sympathy for any "free speech" issues he might be facing after that. A consensus of wikipedia sports editors did agree that the woman editor used shocking! language that broached appropriate decorum and that people should be blocked for civility issues if they persist after being warned. I don't see anywhere near the same level of comments that people should be able to use salty language because we're all grown ups, "sticks-and-stones"-arguments, or sentiments that editors should just "leave if you can't handle strong language". Instead there is only a cloud of moral outrage that civility has been breached, and a firm resolve to make sure a WikiProject has not been smeared by close connection to dirty, dirty words. It's self-parody.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It is the free speech issues that wikipedia faces not those that John faces that should concern us. If there is an overall pattern of behaviour demanding desysopping there is surely an arena for that which is not here. But BrownHairedGirl has requested he be desysopped for making one isolated statement that she alleges breaches his terms of service as an admin. It is that and nott he individuals here which should deeply conmcern us♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think admins, as a class, shouldn't block someone for dirty words after being warned not to? You think actions like John took are the wrong way to go?__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont really have an opinion on that, Elaqueate, but that is because desysopping an admin for soemthing like that does not set my alarm bells ringing. What BrownHairedGirl proposed here opening this section, though, absolutely does set my alarm bells ringing. If you are going to desysopp an admin DONT do it for soemthing that can be construed as censoring his opinion♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What "opinion" might that be? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

His opinion that editors have the freedom to leave or fork if they cant handle the uncivil and/or male dominated environment. You dont have to agree with this opinion to support his right to express it. Otherwise we could desysop ppl for say opposing doing anything to attract more women to the site or opposing more severe civility policing. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When footy editors complained that a woman used uncivil "phraseology", he blocked her. He didn't tell the aggrieved editors they were free to leave, he didn't tell them to grow up, he didn't champion free speech, he didn't call the footy editors over-emotional. The fact he's using a different line of reasoning here seems to have little to do with an underlying principle. He obviously doesn't oppose severe civility policing, if he's performed it himself. What's different this time?__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think people are twisting John's message, really what does gender have to do with our work here? If you want to be just a screen name and not be judged off your color race and or gender then don't tell anyone. For Fucks Sake it isn't rocket science your gender doesn't matter here, whether you tell someone or not, your gender doesn't matter. dangler or otherwise, it's the work that matters not your organs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement with BHG. Admin John acts like a bully, then reverses course when a spotlight is put on his abusive, intimidating statements. I call on John to hand over his mop at once. It's the decent thing to do. Jusdafax 16:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It sure would be neat if someone could ask Jimbo an important question without it turning into the 7th page that there is a multipage debate about this very subject. We have this going on on several noticeboards and talk pages, we don't need to spam this talk page in order for BHG to get a response. Chillum 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought those discussions were all shut down? If you don't think it should be discussed here, which page are you suggesting discussion should be centralized?__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I was been shutdown on AN/ANI etc with advice to take it to RFC or Arbcom. This is a slightly different conversation about if admins are expected to follow the terms of service for this website. This is something only the website owners can tell us, ie the foundation. It is not a question for community debate. Chillum 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I know at least one administrator who firmly rejects the Terms of Use in its new provision requiring disclosure of paid editing. Since administrators are volunteers, they have no obligation to enforce each and every provision of the TOU. They don't take an oath to "support and defend the Terms of Use," the way officeholders and new immigrants take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." What matters is not if they enforce it or endorse it but whether they actively violate it. Unless that happens I don't see how it matters all that much. Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  You do? Oh my. You should probably gather evidence of that and post it at an appropriate noticeboard. I don't know any administrators who have ever been paid to edit.--v/r - TP 03:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The TOU applies to everybody who uses the website. Sure we don't have to enforce it, but we do have to follow it. And we cannot act against it. Refusing to be civil is a violation, blocking is appropriate. Reversing that block and effectively preventing enforcement of the TOU is a violation by my interpretation.

Admins should follow community expectations and the foundation which provides our servers is part of that community and they ultimately decide what is allowed. I think it is great that BHG is seeking clarification on this. Chillum 16:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When did "clarifying" mean bullying another editor with vague threats of Foundation involvement? The WMF has better things to do than resolve verbal spats. KonveyorBelt 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This has grown into something a bit bigger than a spat, as there is a very basic and fundamental divide over civility in this project, i.e. "grow thicker skin" vs. "be civil or begone". The community is hopelessly unable to bridge this divide on its own. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. I'm kinda sensing a watershed moment developing in terms of WMF involvement on this. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is ironic because one of their own is currently in the spotlight (ArbCom) for possibly abusing admin tools...an inherently uncivil act. Intothatdarkness 20:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like the WMF to take a position and make a statement, but I don't think they will start a culture change no matter what they do, except maybe Orwellian censorship. And we should not be threatening editors, whether it be John or anyone else, with WMF punishment. KonveyorBelt 20:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes change from above is the only solution to an intractable situation, even if they really don't want to intervene. Reminds me of the 1999 MLB vs. the umpires mess, where part of the kerfuffle was the commissioner trying to force the umpires to call the high strike as called for by the rulebook but which they rarely did. So it's abit like what we have here, where some people want admins to actually enforce both the spirit and the letter of the project's civility policy, where historically enforcement has been up to each individual admin to decide, much like how individual umpires once had their own strike zones. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A very astute comment from Tarc regarding "grow thicker skin" vs. "be civil or begone" groups. I think "grow thicker skin" was very useful in Wikipedia's founding days, but if we maintain this belief, groups that have been at the receiving end of a power differential for a long time (ie every group that is not a white male) will continue to avoid WP, which is contrary to WMF's goal of global engagement. I am sure there is a middle road that most users can support, although I'm not sure I've seen it proposed yet. 101.116.20.111 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A middle road can be a good solution, but not inevitably so. IN any case, a middle road is something which can arise only when the range of possibilities has been clarified. Without that mapping, a "middle road" just becomes one of the polar positions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reading this part of the discussion one would surmise that "grow thicker skin" vs. "be civil or begone" are both directed disproportionally against women. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Why is Wikipedia Sexist"

This is from a right-wing paper. Note that the question is not "Is Wikipedia Sexist?" but "Why is it sexist?"

The lede reads:

"The National Science Foundation (NSF) is spending over $200,000 to find out why Wikipedia is sexist.

"The government has awarded two grants for collaborative research to professors at Yale University and New York University to study what the researchers describe as “systematic gender bias” in the online encyclopedia."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• It seems pretty obvious to most people except a small, very loud group among us, that there is a problem. Jusdafax 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Leaving this off-topic discussion of taxpayer financed research here but closed so that we can get back on track discussing the main issue.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Even so, it's our problem to fix. I object to my tax dollars being given to the NSF to "study" it and then do what?--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Well, the purpose of study is not necessarily "to do" anything, it's to understand. Understanding Wikipedia has been an inquiry of study for awhile now. It's part of internet study, and it would be very odd if the internet or online phenomena were not studied by people at places like Yale and NYU. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC) A little over only 1 percent of income taxes funds all public science research in the US, including the NSF. You object to this pittance? Are we supposed to take this kind of reactionary view seriously? Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid that you don't get line-item veto power over NSF grants by virtue of being a taxpayer. Believe me, I wish I could exercise more discretion over my tax dollars as well. (For instance, Congress has spent nearly $54 million holding symbolic and ineffectual votes to repeal Obamacare, if that helps put the NSF's $200,000 in perspective). You can take heart in the fact that federal science funding in the U.S. has plummeted at an unprecedented rate over the past decade, though. MastCell Talk 20:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) The only reason Silicon Valley exists in California and not in Buckinghamshire, where it should have flourished, is because people like Ukexpat saw no need to fund the dreams of boffins and anoraks. The same is true for the British space programme. They missed opportunities that could have made the UK a leader in technology simply because they refused to fund it. That's a historical fact. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the internet attracts a large number of young technically minded males who hold rigid views not only of gender roles, but of society in general. So not only does Wikipedia skew more sexist than would be optimal, but almost all articles on controversial topics provide far too much weight to fringe views. Also, the manner in which content is determined is highly confrontational. For example, if one editor insists on reverting to his preferred version, other editors must apply for a block in order to stop them. That environment is more attractive to confrontational people, who often hold rigid views on social issues. TFD (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• The real "reactionary" view is that people still think that sex and gender exist. They don't. They're just tools created by the capitalist classes to divide the people, pure products of biological essentialism and social darwinism. Humanity must stand united in the face of capitalist classes. Anyone that believes that there is such a thing as a "man" or "woman" apart from the simple "human" is a fool. This discussion that's been going on is sheer proof that the capitalist classes are succeeding in their misdirection of the masses. RGloucester — ☎ 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Serious? Are you saying that sexes did not exist before the capitalist class arose? How do you know it is your analysis, that does not suffer from a false consciousness? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884) by Engles. But actually, as far as Glouster's main thesis - I'll have to ask my wife :-) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

... and then they invented sex in 1963? - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

. . . Perhaps? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The English were a bit slow. In Ireland it was invented when we got television, which was on 31 December 1961. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hail me as human, and so shall I hail you. Hail me as woman, and how can I hail you but as man? Such is the efficacy of semiotic division. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex and gender have existed since before Homo sapiens and will continue to exist, until the end of time. They may become equal, bu differences will always be present beyond simple anatomy. KonveyorBelt 21:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, mine was an attempt at humour - Larkin's Annus Mirabilis says (approx) "sexual intercourse was invented in 1963, just too late for me". His This Be The Verse has long been a standard text in UK schools etc and, curiously given the present contretemps, contains a certain word in its opening line. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who didn't follow the link, so was mine. The anti-semitic, fascist-sympathising politician Oliver J. Flanagan claimed that "there was no sex in Ireland before television". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I followed the link and had a bit of a giggle, thanks - that guy had passed me by. With all the recent kerfuffles, a bit of witty banter etc should be allowed even if we ain't a social network ;) Can we all lighten up a bit for, say, 10 minutes at least? - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Christmas 1914 :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gloucester may be right. The Soviets didn't have sex until 1985, with the advent of Perestroika, learning about it from Phil Donohue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• What seems clear is that a number of editors here are threatened by the question "Why is Wikipedia sexist?" With the growing popularity of the 'pedia in the last decade, and its obvious importance as an online source, pov pushers of various stripes established themselves here. I think for some, if not a majority of these types, a hostile "Wild West" editing environment serves their interests very well. Women generally tend to focus on viewpoints that don't represent the concentrations of power in our society, which often are headed up by males or profit them. Additionally, the increasing shootout mentality, only mildly ameliorated by the veneer of Wikipedia-en governance originally designed to uphold the Five Pillars but now riddled with corruption, allows the isolation and marginalization of feminist voices and viewpoints. I continue to advocate notihing less than a complete reboot of the self-interested administrator caste, which operates largely immune from sanctions or even meaningful scrutiny, with few exceptions. Admins who buck the trend, like BHG, are reversed with impunity. I additionally submit, Jimmy, that enforcement of the Five Pillars by the WMF through terms of service provisions and appointed facilitators is the sole remaining option to address the increasingly unpleasant editing environment at Wikipedia-en now effectively serving entrenched interests. Jusdafax 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So essentially you believe a more authoritarian wikipedia will attract more women? Or am I misunderstanding you?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not be so dramatic: it isn't clear at all, BHG was not reversed "with impunity" (the discussion about that action rumbles on) and as for "corruption", well, prove it. I think your feminist bias is showing and it really doesn't help your cause if you misrepresent things. You are, I hope, aware that there are many men who support reasonable measures that would aid female contribution here and also that there are many women here who do not subscribe to your feminist worldview: you run the risk of alienating both groups. Then - because of consensus - a fork for "feminist Wikipedia" might really be your only option and I don't think it would work well. It most certainly would have problems maintaining neutrality in its actual article content because it would have very little at all of the balancing effect inherent in contributions from a wide range of worldviews. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A concern

Due to end of ramadan, i was surfing though the different language versions of articles about Muhammad. When I saw the German wikipedia entry, I was flabbergasted. They use Christian symbols to mark Muhammad's birth and death date. It is of course up to the German speaking community, but I guess, if that goes the round, it might elicit outrage. See de:Mohammed. Muslims will feel disturbed to see a Christian cross in a Muhammad article. --Countryfanningexpert (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. See Dagger (typography). "The dagger (†) should not be confused with the Christian cross (✝, U+271D), the character "box drawings light vertical and horizontal" (┼, U+253C), or other cross symbols." Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But you have to admit, it still looks like a cross like that of the Christian symbol. You can tell what you want, but it still will offend Muslims just because the dagger sign has strong reminiscent of the cross. --Countryfanningexpert (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be any different than a Christian (or Athiest) choosing to be offended because calendar makers use a "Muslim" crescent moon symbol to denote the phases of the lunar cycle. Any offence taken in either case is irrational. We're not going to remove the actual images of Muhammad from his article. I doubt any manufactured outrage over the use of the dagger symbol by the German community is likely to be any more persuasive. Resolute 03:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a cross it's a dagger (or obelisk), and it's not related to the cross. The use of the dagger was popularized in the 1st millennium BCE, hundreds of years before Christianity. Considering the great respect shown to Isa Ibn Maryam by Muslims, one is forced to wonder how it could offend Muslims. And considering the tradition of scholarship in the Muslim world, I will speculate that the use of the obelisk by Muslim scholars is probably quite common. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is actually the conventional symbol used in German genealogies etc. for "died". There was a discussion back in 2005 on the German WP as to whether to continue to use it or not and it was decided to continue [25].Smeat75 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What Can the WMF Do (about incivility and other problems)

Jimbo Wales requested that we comment on what the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) (the Foundation) can do. He was initially asking that question about the increasing level of incivility in the English Wikipedia. His specific suggestion as to what the Foundation can do is to provide a few professional mediators to address conflicts. I will expand my comments to include not only incivility, but also conflicts between the Foundation and the English Wikipedia community (currently the subject of an ArbCom proceeding), and the slowness of the arbitration process. I think that mediation will be of little use with respect to incivility, but will address its effectiveness in other contexts.

Incivility

Civility is one of the traditional five pillars of Wikipedia, but it is essentially a vacant pillar. It has not been effectively enforced for many years, and its absence is becoming toxic.

I am not sure, but I think that, at this point, the combination of the systematic failure to enforce it and a small but prominent number of persistently uncivil editors is resulting in meta-incivility, an attempt to make the culture of Wikipedia a culture that is seen as uncivil by most would-be editors. While presumably the large majority of editors agree that a civil culture is a comfortable culture, and that an uncivil environment is a hostile (work) environment, a small number of editors feel quite the opposite, that civility is uncomfortable, and that they would prefer a crude "boys’ clubbish" environment in offensive language is simply the way it is. The longer regular incivility is ignored, the greater the opportunity they have to make Wikipedia comfortable for themselves and uncomfortable for everyone else. If that happens, they will “win” something not worth winning, and Wikipedia will lose.

BrownHairedGirl identifies four areas of incivility. The first occurs where a generally civil editor has a bad day. The second occurs where a dispute causes tempers to rise. The third occurs when editors fail to consider the cross-cultural impact of their language. The fourth is the case of habitually uncivil editors. I think that the English Wikipedia does a good job of handling the first case, and a reasonably good job of handling the second case, content disputes that bring out conduct issues. Occasionally WMF mediation might work for content disputes, but usually the community, including its own mediation processes, either are satisfactory, or are unresolvable due to conduct issues that go and must go to ArbCom. Also, WMF mediators should understand that, with regard to habitually rude, aggressive, or abusive editors, their job is not to mediate, but to support taking those editors to ArbCom.

For the fourth, mediation is a genuinely terrible idea. See Argument to moderation. It concedes ground that must not be conceded. Mediation between civility and incivility will be a compromise, not only over how much incivility is tolerated, but over to what extent to establish a culture whose incivility makes it comfortable only for uncivil editors. Only the third situation, cross-cultural differences, is a good case where mediation should be used.

A situation in which mediation might be useful would be while a necessary but controversial block is in effect. A mediator may be able to help the blocked editor, the blocking admin, and would-be unblocking admins to communicate. Unfortunately, what too often happens is that one admin chooses to unblock, and then further discussion is not useful, because a reblock would be punitive and would risk wheel warring. WMF could strongly discourage admins from unilateral unblocks in order to encourage discussion of the terms of unblock.

What the Foundation can do about habitually uncivil editors (some of whom are proud of their incivility, viewing it as being “genuine” or “earthy” rather than “refined”) is to work with those administrators who are willing to make difficult civility blocks and to encourage administrators to enforce civility.

It would be extremely useful for the Foundation to emphasize strongly that civility is essential, and to reiterate that incivility is not mere noise but is blockable. Mediation would be useful to encourage exploring the issues behind civility blocks, especially if admins were strongly discouraged from unilateral unblocks as fait accompli. With respect to editors who have a pattern of aggressive, rude, or abusive behavior, mediation must be avoided.

This is well thought out, however I would add a fifth category to BHG's list: Editors who are deliberately uncivil for the purposes as diverse as proving a point, revenge, provocation, attracting attention, etc. In these cases, it may also be habitual, but it is by no means unintentional.- MrX 16:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts between WMF staff and the community

There is currently an ArbCom case open resulting from a dispute between the English Wikipedia community and the WMF staff over the use of particular software (the Media Viewer) that the English Wikipedia community chose to make the non-default. Mediation might have mitigated this dispute, at least if the mediation team understood that it did not represent staff or the developers and was charged with reducing tension rather than enforcing the will of the WMF.

The slowness of ArbCom

In 2006 through 2008, ArbCom was able to handle a hundred or more cases in a year. Now it often handles about a dozen cases in a year, and those often take two months to resolve (during which time the name-calling often continues on ArbCom talk pages). I would ask the WMF first to ask the ArbCom whether any WMF-supported assistance, such as paid clerks or special software, would help. If ArbCom does not ask for assistance, then I would suggest that WMF audit the processes of the ArbCom to see whether business process re-engineering, or other assistance such as paid clerks or special software, would help. This issue overlaps somewhat with incivility because the ArbCom is the only body that can actually deal with habitually uncivil editors. The community cannot deal with them, because they have entourages who can block “consensus” (supermajority) at the noticeboards.

The WMF can recognize that ArbCom is backlogged, and can look into what can be done to facilitate reducing that backlog.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a great number of important workloads that could be handled by paid editors/mediators hired by the Foundation, but a lot of resistance to the possibility of them pushing for / representing WMF's interests, which may conflict with the community's from time to time. Robert McClenon said "if the mediation team understood that it did not represent staff or the developers". It seems like a good way to advance the discussion would be to explore models that would give mediators independence from the Foundation, such as sponsored mediators through grants or a separate non-profit. CorporateM (Talk) 04:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Current uproar aside, why do you think that "Its (civility's) absence is becoming toxic"? I am a bit concerned that the current drama (and in this case, the epithet is deserved) that is really centered on a few editors, is generating a perception that all of WP is moving toward a crisis. So.. why do you think there is a growing tide of incivility? I work on pretty controversial topics and have seen them go through waves of ugliness and relative peace (again, usually driven by the arrival and departure of difficult editors). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Those topics are only controversial because you make it your job to push a singular POV that eliminates opposing viewpoints. I'm curious what a woman like Gandydancer would have to say about your characterization of this problem, Jytdog, as many of these so-called "difficult" editors you refer to happen to be women. And yes, I've personally made it a point to show up to those articles and help them out, so I'm happy to be characterized as "difficult" because I refuse to let you drown out their voices. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)\

Those topics are only controversial because you make it your job to push a singular POV that eliminates opposing viewpoints. That's a rather hearty and overt accusation, and I think it's a bit ironic considering we're talking about how incivility at the moment. Nonetheless, speaking as a woman, and having been editing in some controversial areas, my experience has mostly been gender blind. Rarely, if ever at all has my gender been mentioned beyond using my first name (which I sort of invited by using my first name on my user page) or using my pronouns. Many times editors who encounter me use male pronouns--and I sort of chuckle at that. The only thing which I can say I've encountered 'misogyny' was when my user page was vandalized by some vandals, which was in itself an isolated incident. Tutelary (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

and with that remark from Viriditas, I choose to exit, as I have before in discussions where V shows up in this manner. There are places to work and discuss things that are not toxic. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see here for some thoughts from one arbitrator on the reasons the Committee's caseload has declined. With regard to delays in resolving individual cases earlier this year, they resulted primarily from availability issues that affected particular arbitrators at particular times, rather than any more systematic problem. I don't think there are any software issues that would help resolve arbitration cases, nor do I think more clerical assistance is the answer. There are some tasks that have been assigned to ArbCom that most of us do think would be better handled elsewhere, but they don't include deciding the actual arbitration cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Some ideas

I don't think the WMF is needed to solve issues of sex bias, but for that to be true we as a community should show we are able to do something about it. I would suggest...

• Affirmative action. While this is (literally) an open question (ideas welcome!), my suspicion is that universities broke the boys-club model through a period of affirmative action to recruit women, which has since become obsolete since they are now the majority of students. Now in society at large the government has been able to compel people to hire or admit women for affirmative action, but not to promote them, but in Wikipedia we have less control over the former and potentially more over the latter. These steps include:

• Jury system. I have previously suggested we adopt a jury system for settling disputes, so that combatants aren't voting on whether each other is the target of administrative sanctions. This system could be modified to provide a two-fold or three-fold higher chance for editors who formally identify as female in preferences, in recognition of the troubles they sometimes face and those driven off by them who cannot participate.
• No big deal adminship. We should consider having a similar random pool of people who indicate themselves as up for adminship who are generally in good standing. Before and/or after joining the pool they should have to earn various "merit badges" for stuff like acting as third party mediators, nominating DYKs and ITNs and elevating GAs and evaluating AN issues, to make sure they have a rough understanding of the site, but rather than facing a high vote threshold they should merely not get in trouble and be picked randomly from the pool. Once again, the random pick allows us a chance to apply an affirmative-action factor.

• Sex-neutral language. Currently we are in a catch-22 where if you look up whether an editor is male or female you are likely to treat him or her differently; but if you don't and use the standard English generic "he", you're accused of assuming all editors are male. And saying "him or her" gets tiresome, and still seems a bit sex-obsessed if you ask me. 99.999% of the time I couldn't care if an editor is the proud owner of a cat or a backyard rooster, nor what sex he or she is. So maybe it's time to invent some language to encourage on a social basis, whether it is simply acronyms like HOS and HOH, or (my preference) inventing pronouns to fit (I personally like the idea of using xe/xes/xer for he/his/him and she/her/her, with xe pronounced like ge in gerente, or kse if you can't manage, and "e" replaceable by any other vowel for different persons to permit simultaneous pronoun references).

I should add that I really do believe the usual instinct here - civility enforcement, policy proliferation, administrative drama - that's worse than useless. It's what failed before and it will fail again because you can't know what people intend and you can't be neutral when deciding about it. So it's important to pursue other ideas of some sort per the usual "definition of insanity" rule. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've since written WP:xe with a fuller description of the language idea, and I might be tempted to try using it and see if it catches on. (Hey, I can always dream...) Wnt (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• As to your last point, I recommend the Singular they. No need to invent any new words or anything. Even comes with a handy userbox {{User singular they:Yes}} to show your support. Basically the universal pronoun, covers males, females, persons of a third gender, persons who don't identify with a gender, robots, or anyone/thing else that wants to edit. Monty₈₄₅ 17:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I recently remarked on Talk:Genesis P-Orridge, inventing new words that layman readers don't understand is a terrible idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The only person I've ever seen using xe/xem etc anywhere was Qwyrxian on WP. Despite him (it *is* a him) editing a wide range of pages, it obviously didn't catch on. He's been inactive for some months now for reasons that I cannot divulge but which, in all honesty, are a far more serious problem for people editing in some topic areas than mere usage of a few allegedly uncivil words. The chances of him coming back are practically zero. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Google's Impact Challenge

Jimbo, good job volunteering for the Google "Impact Challenge". However, are you aware that someone who said they have worked with employees of Google may have been violating the WMF's Terms of Use recently, when they added this content to Google.org without disclosing that they are paid by Google (if we can assume they are paid by Google, which is hardly a stretch)?

In 2013, Google.org created [http://g.co/globalimpactchallenge Google Impact Challenges]—a grant competition for nonprofits using technology. The public votes for winners on the Google Impact Challenge website. Google has held Impact Challenges in the UK, India, Bay Area, Brazil and Australia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://google.org/global-impact-awards/challenge/}}</ref>

Fortunately, a bot quickly reverted User:Emilykettering's spammy links, so Wikipedia's integrity was protected. But, as long as you're at the Impact Challenge now, maybe mention to Jacquelline Fuller that it's not appropriate for Google employees to directly edit Google.org (or for that matter, the articles about Andy Rubin, Susan Wojcicki, Cynthia Kenyon, or Hal V. Barron, who are all employed by Google or subsidiaries). We know your track record on this is untarnished, that you'll advise anyone and everyone about the Bright Line Rule, regardless of your personal or professional affiliations. Keep up the good work! - Spotting ToU (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. 2001.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to know my IPv6 address, so we must assume you ran a CheckUser without going through the proper channels. AN/I for you! (Just kidding.) You're welcome, by the way. Maybe the WMF should hire a former paid editor to exclusively ferret out undisclosed conflict-of-interest editing being done by any vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates of the Wikimedia Foundation. It could be a 10-hour-per-week contractor role, for 1/8th the salary of Lila Tretikov ($60 an hour, approximately). Think about it. - Spotting ToU (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I support the foundation hiring someone (but I see no reason to think that former paid editors have the right skills for this) to assist the community in combatting all kinds of spam - of course including any done by vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates. And you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)