Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Main pageEditor of the WeekMembersTemplatesTalk page

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

User talk:71.239.82.39

Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Been thinking of quitting

There is currently a thread at AN/I where all the mud in the world is being thrown at me. This is because I have argued very firmly that the the use of the word "poached" is not neutral. The editor who used the word got sick of my insistence that using the word was wrong, and took me to AN/I, where the usual pile-on of dirt from everyone whose POV pushing I have got in the way of is underway.

To me, it's a simple blue sky, content and POV issue. This editor is blatantly pushing a POV against a sporting code that is challenging his favourite one for audience share and, in this case, players. Well, that's my view obviously. I could be wrong. But I haven't been persuaded yet. I'm not really interested in opinions on the particular issue. What does concern me is that Wikipedia's processes allow a trivial issue like this to go so deep into our appalling justice system, where mud gets thrown with impunity. I don't want personal sympathy. I just wish we had a better way of dealing with matters like this. I was becoming a bit depressed.

So I thought, just walk away. I haven't yet. Of course the pretence for justice at AN/I could stop me in my tracks anyway. If I disappear for a while, you will all know why. It will be one for one of those two reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Be tough & stick around. I'm still here, with no intentions of retiring. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Collaboration.—Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of us face much worse than that on a daily basis, and if you expect justice anywhere on WP then I'm afraid you're destined to be disappointed. Eric Corbett 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that thread does not appear to be going anywhere but civility is something we all need to understand is an editor retention issue. "Justice" may be the wrong idea here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention getting discouraged is something I am going through as well...but there is light at the end of the tunnel.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Which tunnel might that be? Eric Corbett 00:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For me it is the light and not the tunnel that is important. But for me, its the way I see admin reacting to the community lately and the way my last technical issue was quickly and quietly handled. No...not the Arb Com thing involving the Gender Gap issue. I'm glad it is being looked into but that is not light, just an important enough issue to look into, not something I think determines how I feel about Wikipedia/Wikimedia in general. I don't have your page watch listed but I did just look and being one of 18 superb collaborators says a lot about you Eric...for whatever that may mean to you, but it means something to me and a lot of editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48, I would like to think I have some experience with "quitting". I quit for two years back around late 08 to late 10, before coming back and deciding I needed to become an admin, which I did 18 months later. I think about quitting on at least a couple times a year. I don't use the phrase flippantly either, I'm very sincere, and have typed out my "take my admin bit" and previewed, but didn't save, one time. It is a frustrating place. I'm frustrated as hell right now with a great many things, and while I'm swamped in the real world, my frustration is why I spend what little free time I have elsewhere and not here right now. I find I need to take extended wikibreaks at least once or twice a year, to keep from screaming and running out of the room with my hands waving over my head. It is harder to do if you are involved in the processes, like GA, FA or for someone who is an admin like me, because there is always some politics playing out that require you peek in some and sometimes comment. This is one reason I've unwatchat ed all the admin boards and just staying away from as much "process" as possible. Some days, I actually get some editing in, and I like that. My point being that maybe you need to pull back 80%, and switch only to non-controversial article titles for a while. I know its sometimes tough, but for your own sanity (and pleasure), it might be helpful. I've seen you take a beating before, and I've been critical when I felt it was appropriate (and hopefully it wasn't perceived as a beating). You have a blunt way, which I personally don't have a problem working with, but some just don't understand how cutting through the bullshit and being honest isn't the same as being "rude", and most of the time, you aren't rude, just blunt. You can't flip a switch and become something you aren't (nor should you want to), but you can flip a switch and go edit something that is being neglected, and just spend less time here overall, at least for a month or two. You might try that first, if you haven't yet. Put yourself out of the line of fire for a bit, let the wounds heal up. Dennis 2¢ 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way I would ever be allowed to become an Admin. I have upset too many of them; the bigots and POV pushers among the Admin clique. I have also continued to push the line the Admins should always be as willing to block other Admins who behave badly as they are to block other editors. Too many bad Admins have seen me push this line, and have done some public hate talking about me because of it. So, no chance I could ever become an Admin. As for sticking to non-controversial articles, you would hope that sports articles might fit that bill, but it was because of a POV pusher on one of them that I was most recently taken to AN/I. Might look at some gardening topics. Are they safe? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power that cilantro has on people ;) As to sports, I've always found them to be hotbeds of edit warring and arguments. Pre-bit, I did a lot of mediating at MMA discussions, back when it was the worst sewer pit on the wiki, so I actually have some experience with them. At first glance, you would think they would be cut and dry editing, but arguments over GNG, templates, infoboxes, what is trivial and what isn't....sports pages are full of passionate people, and a few worshipping fanboys. Video game articles can be problematic as well. As you know, even when you are right, and when the other guy is an idiot, if you both pull a 4RR, some admin will just instinctively block because of that magic line in the sand. Dennis 2¢ 15:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though I personally resolve to avoid anything more than 1RR, I'm sure somebody can drag a skeleton out of my closet and say "Look - he edit warred with me! Strong oppose!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO HiLo, it depends on one's reputation & who's watchlist one is on. The Pile-on effect can occur anywheres on this project. But again, don't be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hilo asked so many users to fuck off that he is unsurprisingly on too many watchlists.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone! There's a perfect example of a stalking, POV pushing Admin who has me on his Watchlist, because I embarrassed him and he would LOVE to get rid of me. Yes, you can fuck off! HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are lying again. And I had this page on my watchlist long before I learned of your existence. Though, indeed, I would like to see you indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Although when a fellow apparatchik re-grants admin rights to a Commons admin thrown off for stalking another, and when they wheel-war twice with WMF to do so, then you give them your full support within minutes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your point being?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm assumingly on quite a few watchlists, myself. But, that's not going to discourage me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you do not tell to fuck off to everybody you have minor disagreements with.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry ymblanter, but you taking me to AN/I (and losing) because I was getting in the way of your POV pushing, allowing all the usual bullshit that happens in that disaster of a justice system, is NOT a minor disagreement. POV pushers coming to MY Talk page to tell me they don't like me, is NOT a minor disagreement. It's a pain in the ass. And let's make this clear, you tried to get me blocked, and were told you were wrong. As I have pointed out many times, Admins are a protected species here, so you suffered no consequences. But I now I get "Look, HiLo is always being taken to AN/I, so he must be bad", while all the while YOU were the problem. You are a big problem for this project. Now stop stalking me, accept that you were wrong, and fuck off. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think I am POV pushing, which I obvioulsy deny, take me to ANI, prove it, and get me topic-banned, no problem. Until you have accomplished it, pls stop repeating this bullshit. I have ben elected admin last year with more than 100 votes. Try to get elected - and we see how much all your hate talk costs.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the kind of bullying post that only an Admin can make with no fear of negative consequences. You KNOW nothing will happen. I hope others are watching your behaviour here and seeing the obvious problems badly behaved, bullying, POV pushing Admins cause. Thank you for highlighting the problems here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe that you'd be elected again if you stood at RfA today Ymblanter? I think rather few admins would, which is why there's such a resistance to term limits. Eric Corbett 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I would be elected again, but I would not have an difficulties voluntarily resigning if a sizable number of users become seriously upset by my activity as admin. So far, onlr two users have been vocal about it, and both have large amount of sceletons in their cupboards, so that I am not yet prepared to take it as a sign of community discontent.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please describe the skeletons in my cupboard. Note that mentioning being taken to AN/I by you, or any others, where there was no conviction, cannot rationally count. Even some of my convictions have been overturned, and ALL were cases of me responding to POV pushers. Any case where any of the evidence was "Look how many times he's been brought to AN/I" can also obviously not count. So go ahead. Describe my skeletons. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You consistently assume bad faith of the others, and you are consistently incivil by the standards of the vast majority of the editors. This is attested also by your block log. I can even tell you more, if you stop assuming bad faith, and if you start behaving, I would have no issues with you. If you do not believe me and think I am biased, start an RFA and see what others say.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to have a rational discussion with you. I told you that nothing at AN/I could really count, especially when it comes from you. And how can I assume good faith with a Putin hating POV pusher who took me to AN/I because I was getting in the way of his bigotry, and lost? There has to be a limit to assuming good faith with such editors as you. You obviously failed to assume good faith with me. I know you are biased, but because you are an Admin, you are immune from sanction, and an RFA would be pointless. And I know you can't even see the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you asked me a question if you are not prepared to listen to an answer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was to see if you really did have an answer, and you didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I thought you are genuinely interested to know what you problems are and how your behavior is seen by the others, and why you are taken to ANI so often (not even by me). Apparently, you are not interested. It is ok with me. I am not here for the mud throw competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know why I get taken to AN/I. There are two overlapping reasons. Firstly, I get in the way of POV pushers such as you, and they'll do anything to try to silence me. Secondly, I at times use language some here don't like. This language comes fairly naturally to me, but I do at times emphasise it to get the attention of others to the bad behaviour of some editors, again, such as you. It's a long time since I've had a real block. Early on I tried to fight the piling on of abuse and bullshit from uninvolved editors, such as you at my most recent visit there. I learnt that the best approach is to make a clear and simple statement about the bad behaviour I was getting in the way of, then just move on. The bigots usually spout so much crap their complaints go nowhere. One block I had earlier was when some NRA supporting Admins fought over how long I should be blocked for for stating a truth they didn't like. I don't go near NRA discussions any more. Rational thought is dangerous there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm one of the two users who have previously expressed concern regarding Ymblanter, let's make that three. WER is not an appropriate forum to resume a previous interpersonal conflict, and shows lack of maturity and judgement. NE Ent 10:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not. Ok, good, couple of more, and I resign as administrator, no problems. I have other things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't throw f-bombs at anyone. But, I don't mind editors who do throw them. We each have our own style. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we allowed to have our own style? I thought we were all supposed to be Jimbo clones, although if we were, very little would ever get written. Eric Corbett 23:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle :) GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Editor Retention isn't a good place to get in a bare knuckle fight, folks. Dennis 2¢ 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as nobody retires, WP:RETENTION's goal is being met ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought for a while we are discussing really important things here, but apparently we are not. This is a pity, but there is not much I can do beyond stopping responding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We do discuss important things, like retention, in the broadest of senses. If a discussion gets personal or turns into a personal debate, however, we ask people to take it their own talk pages or other appropriate venue. WER isn't a mediation board and we don't pick sides. We have no authority to function in an administrative roll for Wikipedia, nor do we want it. Dennis 2¢ 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I do not generally agree. If we are discussing editor retention for arbitrary editors, we are discussing a spherical cow. For example, if we have (just a hypothetical example, no relation to this thread) a vandal who was blocked for vandalism and he now complains how badly he is treated by administrators, we should not start discussing relation between administrators and non-administrators, with usual parties around. We should tell him to stop vandalizing. And then we can discuss why is is bad to vandalize Wikipedia, and what is the best strategy to stop vandalizing. In this thread, I tried to bring the discussion at a similar level, but, unfortunately, I was extremely unsuccessful, to the point I was told three times to fuck off and told by two users that they do not trust me as administrator. On the second thought, I should not have done it at all, but in my opinion, starting in this thread a discussion about POV-pushing administrators is extremely pointless. It serves no purpose except for implying that I am a POV-pusher. To avoid this in the future, I am going to unwatch WER, simnilarly to how I am slowly unwatching other pages in WP; and WT: namespaces.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first post in this thread does not seem to be trying to discuss the reasons for a specific undesirable behaviour, and the best strategy to try to address these reasons. I believe it would indeed be more productive to isolate why certain actions are bad, why they occur, perhaps in context of actual examples, and discuss how to address these issues, and you (or anyone) are welcome to initiate a conversation in this direction. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I perfectly characterized typical behavior of the topicstarter, but I also feel that discussing the issue will only lead to further throwing mud and not to anything reasonable. Unfortunately. You are welcome to discuss (in a separate thread) whether it is good for editor retention to tell people to fuck off, but I will not join this discussion anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our understanding sounds kind of similar—for better or worse, further discussion of a personal issue is problematic, but going to the next step would be good: as you stated, why is it bad to do X, where X in your example was "vandalize Wikipedia", and what is the best strategy to stop X. I understand if you would prefer to leave the discussion to others; nonetheless, thoughtful contributions from everyone will always be welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, he didn't mention names, and our goal wasn't to agree or disagree with any specific instance, it was to simply say that we all feel that way sometimes. Again, we aren't here to take sides or resolve ANI style problems. Most of the time, we don't even deal with individuals, but if they come here, we are human, and will offer an ear. We offer advice, such as moving away from controversial topics and instead work on simpler stuff that also needs work. You personalized it with your participation, and in particular, the way you expressed yourself. I don't know the Truth® in this particular situation, but it doesn't really matter as (again) we aren't an admin board nor do we dispense justice here.

Is it good for retention for editors to tell each other "fuck off"? That is better as an abstract discussion rather than in the middle of a dispute between the two of you. Or at least not until the dust settles, where it can be discussed in a less emotional way. It wouldn't be the first time that particular discussion has taken place here. Dennis 2¢ 23:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's might be a long time before the dust settles when ymblanter keeps showing his obsession with getting rid of me by popping up in threads that have nothing to do with him and brings up completely irrelevant bullshit. When people do that, with no fear of negative consequence because of their protected status as an Administrator, the temptation to tell them to fuck off is very strong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reopened this from Lightbreather's close because the last thing anybody wants to see when they're disillusions with Wikipedia is their concerns being full heartedly dismissed. In this case, 'hatting' may have that effect. I myself have been disillusioned by WP:ANI and recently too, and the fact that an editor may want to quit and we may be able to help them is appropriate for an open discussion, who's last reply is not that long ago. Tutelary (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's actually quite important to me. I prefer the encyclopedia continue to benefit from HiLo48's contributions, but I'd also like less of the drama his overly blunt to some ears language chronically generates. I prefer the encyclopedia continue to benefit from the thankless scutwork of admins -- it's called a mop for a reason -- but I'd also like them to act in a way as like to deescalate a situation as inflame it further. NE Ent 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (in response to [1]) NE Ent 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do they still issue admins with mops? I thought it was just egos and halos these days.

How many admins do you see doing "mopwork"? How much mopwork actually needs an admin bit anyway? How much instead do we see, "If you disagree with me again, I'll block you, peasant"? There are still a handful of good admins around, many of whom pop up constructively here, but overall it's worse than it ever was: clique-ridden and biased. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see Lightbreather's hat. Thanks for removing it Tutelary. Lightbreather's comment with the hat was "Personal conflict not important to project or related to Wikipedia editor retention in general." Seeing this as a personal conflict is part of the problem here. It might seem only personal, but it's real, and it's a case of an imbalance of power. I will keep on trying to stop anyone's POV pushing whenever I see it and whoever does it. I did not single out ymblanter, and I am not stalking him. I don't watch his edits. I have no idea where he is editing, apart from when he turns up to disagree with and pour shit on me. It's him, an Administrator, who has made this personal by stalking me, and watching MY edits. And perhaps, again, I shouldn't be targeting ymblanter directly here, but the system that gives him free reign to keep doing what he is doing. I am convinced that there is no effective discipline process for Administrators here. A totally protected, but unthreatened and powerful species is not good for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Ent, and on previous occasions opined just that with HiLo48 at ANI. Same with admin. It's why I take breaks, why I listen when others tell me I need a break (you being one of them). People don't realize how stressful it is being admin, but still, if you can't do the job without fanning flames, take a break. We all are going to bump heads from time to time so we have to learn to not go overboard, to cool off before jumping back. It isn't necessary that we like everyone, just that we are able to work near them.

I work in a pressure cooker of a job, and all employees have been there for many years. We WILL tell each other to "fuck off" or worse from time to time, and actually get in an occasional yelling match. Including me. This doesn't happen every every month or every quarter, but once or twice a year. Then we go do our jobs. There, everyone is a type A personality and damn good at what they do, just high strung... similar to here in a way. Is it ideal? It depends on your perspective. 95% of our competitors have gone out of business in the last 5 years, so I tend to think that "excellence" requires a degree of friction. The key is knowing how to move forward and not holding a grudge against the world or an individual. We aren't islands, we need each other even if we bump heads sometimes. It's true at work and at wiki. Dennis 2¢ 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

IF Wikipedia is not a workplace (you've claimed elsewhere on this page that it is not: that it is "supposed to be fun, a hobby, not work"), then sharing this kind of personal experience isn't really relevant. However, if WP is a workplace, there is no reason why it has to be a reflection of your workplace, whatever the heck it is, or HiLo48's, where a woman told him he should curse to fit it. If we want the world to take the encyclopedia seriously (I do), we should take seriously the environment in which we create it, so that it is welcoming to all, and not just to the men and women who thrive (or at least get by) in an aggressive, obscenities-are-perfectly-acceptable place. I actually enjoy work - when I work in a place where civility policies are enforced. Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What it boils down to

Since others felt this discussion needed to be re-opened and hashed out here, then here is my take on HiLo48 (and others') complaint: Some want to be able to "pour shit" (using HiLo's term) on other editors whom they have identified as POV-pushers (or whatever else other content infraction they have identified) rather than follow civility policies and use the proper forums to settle content disputes. This "some" do not like civility policies because it's against their preferred communication style (at least online style) and wastes their time by asking them to use what they see as "drama boards" to settle content disputes. And then, to add insult to injury, some admins actually have the gonads to enforce the policies. However, this "some" needs to take the next step and accept that Wikipedia is now trying to make the project a welcoming place to editors of all styles, and not just those who thrive, or at least get by, in the hostile, it's-ok-to-tell-someone-to-fuck-off environment that it's been for... how many years now? It's a primarily (not completely, but primarily) alpha male way of communicating. It's inappropriate for a diverse community. It needs to be left behind in the frontier that was the early Internet landscape, and a new model needs to be adopted for a more diverse, civilized, professional, and welcoming community. Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• A quote from De Es Schwertberger comes to mind: When two people come together, a strange phenomenon occurs. Each tries to establish superiority over the other. This is either accomplished by growing over the other, or cutting the other down. As a result, each develops defense mechanisms to prevent being cut down as well as improving its own state. Virtually all of human attention is involved in this process. It has become so complex that the original state of human oneness has been quite forgotten. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• When you say that Wikipedia now is only open to people that conform to your particular brand of civility, you are defining a smaller community, you are excluding those that built the place when it was a more rough and tumble place. In general, it is more refined than than, speaking as someone who's been here long enough to remember. No one wants more incivility and no one is endorsing the idea of allowing person attacks, but what you are talking about is changing Wikipedia into an intolerant place, a place where you conform to a Politically Correct definition of "civility" or you leave. And saying that being brusk is an "alpha male" way to communicate is brazenly sexist and doesn't belong here. Dennis 2¢ 17:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How on earth, or better, why, do you leap from "Wikipedia is now trying to make the project a welcoming place to editors of all styles" (what I wrote) to "Wikipedia now is only open to people that conform to your particular brand of civility" (how you "paraphrased"? it)?

I absolutely disagree with your assessment that I or others are trying to change Wikipedia into an "intolerant place." Or a "Politically Correct" place (with the aggressive capital "P" and "C" to try to belittle what I'm talking about). This has been said elsewhere: it's about simple civility rules that you'd find in any diverse workplace. And when you break those rules, you get a warning. You might even get two or three warnings. But after a point, you are expelled from the community. And don't lob that "sexist" bomb at me again. Read the works of experts if you want proof that primarily (not completely, but primarily, as I said above) alpha males behave this way. Here's one for you:

• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fighting For Our Lives". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 3-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Boys Will Be Boys". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 166-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fast Forward: Technologically Enhanced Aggression". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 250-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (section, "Gender on the Internet")

Question: Is this project interested in retaining ALL good editors, or only those who are a good fit with the existing, and yes, sexist, culture? Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• No Lightbreather, it doesn't boil down to that at all. I say that occasionally using language that's in the Lightbreather-defined set of non-approved words is far less uncivil than being a POV pushing, power abusing Administrator who stalks other editors he would like to get rid of, but never uses one of those Lightbreather-defined set of non-approved words. By singling out one (IMHO) ultimately quite harmless form of stronger interpersonal communication, you effectively condone the other, and hence lose some of my respect. It's NOT helping to build a better encyclopaedia when you ignore the POV pushing. And please don't make this is a male vs female thing. It's simply not. It was a female co-worker in a job I was doing around ten years ago who suggested I should swear more in order to fit in better. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a set of approved words. You guys keep hauling out the same weary arguments, but they're non-arguments. Also, define "occasional." Is it like "civility" itself, and cannot be defined, or enforced? How many times have you used "fuck" in one form or another in the past 30 days? And you don't get to decide who's POV-pushing and then "pour shit" on them: judge, jury, and executioner. You use the approved processes - which do not include calling people names or otherwise demeaning them. You give your evidence. They give theirs. If you can't work it out, you start moving up the DR chain. You don't get shortcuts because you've logged "x" edits, or have the approval of Tom-, Dick-, or Harry-Admin who's been rubbing elbows with you on Wikipedia for "x" years. It might be a formula for retaining certain old-school approved editors, but not new, green, and diverse editors. Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, HiLo48, by your own logic, if it's OK for you to single out, harass, and attack those whom you have decided are POV pushing (which there is a policy about), then it's equally OK for others (admins or not) to single out, harass, and attack you for incivility (which there is also a policy about) if those others have decided you are being uncivil. (I don't believe harassing and attacking is ever justified, but it seems to be OK for you and some of your admin and non-admin peers - as long as whomever is doing the harassing and attacking has "x" edits or "x" years of contributions under his belt.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, as long as you want to claim that the problems are "alpha males" and that all the crude language is the fault of these crude men, you aren't going to find much of an audience here. We judge by each other's deads, we don't stereotype people. At Wikipedia, each of us has a contribs history. That is how we judge the contributions of each other. Wikipedia is a meritocracy, and as such, your claims that all men are bad and crude or most of the aggression at Wikipedia is because we are "alpha males" simply don't belong here. It literally fits WP:SYNTH. More importantly, it is sexist, pure and simple, and it is unwanted here. If we start tolerating sexism against men, then we have to tolerate it against women and we already have enough sexism here without you adding yet more. Take it somewhere else, preferably off Wikipedia. Dennis 2¢ 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. I never said "all men are bad or crude" (nor by extension that all women are good and refined). Are you not considering what I am saying, or are you simply trying to shut me down quickly without a legitimate argument? Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right there is a good example, implying I'm shutting you down for some reason other than your arguments are invalid. What reason would you imply? When you blame the problems at Wikipedia based solely on someone's gender, then you aren't part of the solution, you have become part of the problem. It is still sexist, it is just coming from the other direction. So no, we absolutely are not going to get into a "the aggression and swearing at Wikipedia is because of alpha males" discussion. That doesn't address the issue of under-representation of women at Wikipedia, and just drives a wedge into the issue, forcing people to agree with you or be on the "wrong side" of the issue. Dennis 2¢ 19:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Twisting my words, as you've done at least three times in this discussion (the latest by saying that my argument is that Wikipedia's problems are based "solely on someone's gender" - which is not my argument) isn't an argument on your part: it's a straw man. The truth is, you and some others like you don't want to talk about even the possibility that incivility in the form of very common standards like the use of obscenities in mixed company or the workplace is an editor recruitment or retention problem because it threatens the environment that the agonist base is defending. Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to address one little point here that I haven't addressed and my words speak for themselves: If you want to turn the civility policy into something akin to what it would be at work, you have an uphill battle. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be work, and if the civility policy here was the same as the proverbial Fortune 500 company, half the people would leave. This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, not work. As for using "obscenities" in "mixed company", I'm literally dumbfounded, mouth agape. You are saying we must treat one gender differently than another, which is in fact, sexist. How you don't see that, I have no idea. So yes, any policy that says we treat men and women differently, I would be against, and I wouldn't be alone. You never get equality when you are asking for special treatment. More importantly, there is no way to tell gender, or even verify it. You are asking editors to think about gender instead of being "color blind" to it. No, I'm not for that. That isn't something we would promote here either, special treatment for a class of editor, nor changing civility standards to "office expectations". WER is not a political body and not the place to try to promote these things. Dennis 2¢ 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose mixed company may be simplified to mean mixed gender, but I'm talking about more than gender. Gender plays a part because GENERALLY men and women tend to communicate and approach conflict differently. You're hearing treat men and women differently... as the way men treat each other is the norm and to treat women differently is to coddle them or some such. I'm saying that to treat each other in the agonistic way that one encounters on Wikipedia is GENERALLY the way men treat each other and is not necessarily the norm or better than other ways. Lacking any other evidence about whether someone is male, female, black, white - mixed company - we should be more civil with each other, not less. We should not assume that being aggressive and calling names is the norm and treating anyone else differently is coddling. Who made your way of communicating with your (mostly male) peers the norm that others should "live up" to? Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are saying we must treat one gender differently than another: No! I am saying we should treat everyone the same - with a higher standard of civility (such as our policy dictates) and not a lower one (which is what is actually enforced). Your way of treating each other is confrontational, often to obscene levels, and that not does not make for a more welcoming and productive environment. It makes for a hostile environment that only some of those who edit here, or who would like to edit, are able to feel welcome and to be productive in. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In five years I haven't noticed a sexist culture here at all but I don't go looking for it. I have noticed pov pushers, coi editors, editors who can't write a sensible sentence, editors who don't/won't/can't comprehend what they read, overlinkers and triviamongers. Perhaps that is because I usually concentrate on content not talk pages. I find it difficult to tolerate talk-page politicians, long-winded, droning-on arguments about who is and isn't civil or what is and isn't right. I don't much care for dragging up past history or picking over old wounds, settling old scores, snivelling about perceived wrongs, folks who attack others without even noticing they're doing it, pages and pages of rehashing arguments and having the last word. I can/could do/probably have done some/all of those things and more but I am not perfect and am aware when I do it. This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave. As far as attracting new editors I'd steer them right away from talk pages and encourage them towards content. Content beats politics anyday in my book and if the balance swings towards politics that's when I'll look for the exit. J3Mrs (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave: Read the discussion that precedes this "What it all boils down to" section break. Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, AFTER I told you about the woman who recommended that I swear more in the workplace in order to better fit in, you have said silly things like "it's about simple civility rules that you'd find in any diverse workplace" and "incivility in the form of very common standards like the use of obscenities in mixed company or the workplace". Perhaps your standards are not so common after all. (And I'd be interested in how diverse your own experience really is.) You are ignoring others' points. You are not discussing. You are telling us, without considering others' words at all. Who is doing the harassing? HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

One woman told you to swear more at work in order to fit in better, and that's all the evidence you need to believe that all around the English-speaking world, the way people conduct business together in the most collegial way is to swear. Have you read none of the evidence that has been presented at multiple forums indicating that this is NOT true? Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, isn't it interesting how this discussion has turned from you, poor HiLo48, being harassed by an admin, to maybe the problem is not the same tired arguments you guys keep throwing out? If you have a problem with someone in particular - take your evidence to the appropriate forum. If it's about editor retention, I'm suggesting you guys might be neglecting a problem. Not only neglecting, but aggresively pushing it away whenever the possibility is broached. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL would likely be the best place, for this civility topic. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear God... would you not say males are intrinsically and terminally uncivil? What can be done? If God is female will she not severely punish every last one of them? Should we try to punish them all right now, or should we allow her justice to unfold in her own time? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some notes:

• alphabetically Dennis Brown, HiLo48 and Lightbreather are all making true statements; but they're not entirely true.
• Because we are diverse, we have to accept that our experiences are not universal. e.g According to this CNN [2], it is concurrently true that "In some professions cursing is accepted and can even help you fit in to an environment," and "Constantly using foul language, however, can make it difficult to fit into a professional environment," This produces a conundrum for Wikipedia ... how do we accommodate editors from all types of environments?
• I read Tannen's You Just Don't Understand when it came out (24 years ago???) -- great read, and greatly helped my communication skills.
• Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-29/Recent_research#informal informal mechanisms are significantly more important than the formal.

Though "one formal mechanism was found important—the policies" (except, apparently, when it comes to civility?) Lightbreather (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Per [3] ]"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." That's a WP:RS, not synth. And while, of course, a single source does not NPOV article make, the fact that that's published perception of Wikipedia should be cause for concern.
• Many of the adjective used above to describe other discussion participants writing, e.g. "alpha male," "sexist," "tired," "politically correct," "twisted" and more. Since this is supposed to be editor retention, not another drama and/or dispute resolution board, can we focus on trying to find what points we agree on, and work on building common ground -- that is, a win-win. Or is hopeless, and we can have either one segment of the potential editing population, or the other, but not both? NE Ent 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • When someone comes here in frustration, and others jump in with blame, that is what you get. Pointing fingers, either at individuals or genders, is outside of what we do here. In the meantime, I was getting real Editor Retention work done via email, not so ironically, with an established yet unhappy female editor. That isn't jabbering about theory, that is actual practice. Dennis 2¢ 02:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The message I am getting from Lightbreather: Men are bad. Some words are bad. POV pushing, bullying Admins don't matter. I'm getting frustrated again, and when I get frustrated I sometimes tell people to fuck off. I won't this time. But I'm still frustrated. I cannot agree with someone who thinks words she disapproves of are a bigger problem than badly behaved Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: "The message I am getting from Lightbreather: Men are bad. Some words are bad. POV pushing, bullying Admins don't matter." HiLo48, what you are hearing is NOT what I have said or am saying. Please don't make me out to be saying things that I'm not, or "pushing" something that I'm not. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The message I am getting is clear- some contributers to this page are trying to address the serious issue of editor retention and others are trying to pour petrol on flames. I have always viewed CIVILITY as an extreme POV that wierdly Wikipedia chooses to support not to ban. I tolerate editors who change my spelling and remove 'u' where my dictionary tells me they are needed. I cannot understand why anyone would not tolerate me using a 'u'. I accept their language code, and they accept mine. Some of the terms that upset the contributers here are used as terms of endearment in places I have worked. You are not going to retain editors if you put your POV before the project and insist that a large portion of the world are untouchables because there language code is different from yours.

I concede that it can be a bit astonishing when you find that the language your mother would not let you use- is common parlance in a new social environment, but if you aren't familiar with those contexts (Linguistic insecurity)- then you sit back, listen and learn- you don't make a fool of yourself by revealing you ignorance. There is an interest C- class article Register (sociolinguistics) that partially explains the phenonoma but it still requires work. I personally come from a socio-economic group that would look stupid writing raw anglo-saxon four-letter words- and a little surprised to find ex-Etonian Government ministers using it comfortably and un-threateningly with senior civil servants- and to hear it used between silks in the Inns of court. They changed register when addressing the public. I had to address my POV of what was normal to take on board this new fact.

So can we read the links I have provided, examine our POVs and see if the Civility page needs to be altered. Then get this thread back on focus and articles created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I last posted here I have visited a country pub here in Australia. Males and females were present in roughly equal numbers. It wasn't a down market gathering. One mature aged gentleman walked and said to another "How are ya, ya silly old cunt?". Many heard it. Nobody was offended. Words don't hurt. It's the meaning that matters. POV pushing, badly behaved, bullying Admins, however, are another matter. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Try the word in my presence bucko, it won't go as smoothly as your experience. Dreadstar ☥ 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand why Australian rules football is only played in Australia. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, by all means! If it's OK for Australians at a country pub, then it's certainly appropriate among English speakers from all over the world who are trying to discuss and agree upon often contentious encyclopedic content without the benefit of body language, eye contact, shepherd's pies and pints. Lightbreather (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty tolerant when it comes to strong language, but that is a word we need to avoid at almost all costs. I understand that in the UK and Australia, the word is offensive to many, but not as much as the US, but still, it needs to be avoided at Wikipedia. To me, that isn't even about gender (although from my experience, women do take being called a cunt with a more violent reaction here state-side). I see the word from time to time and strongly discourage it, as a simple sensitivity to the huge number of people it DOES offend. Where I grew up, "cunt" was much, much worse a word than "fuck", and it still is to me. If for no other reason than it has been used as a weapon against women and is so offensive to so many. Kind of like how a black man might call another black man "nigga", but we don't do that here. If it slips out, I can accept a heart felt apology and just move on without a blown up drama-fest, but seriously, it needs to be avoided. Even if it isn't an insult in your home town, at some point you have to compromise a bit and avoid things that you *know* really hit the bone with other users in other countries, just out of respect. Dennis 2¢ 21:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  America is a strange place, a mystery to many of us. I have never seen or heard a woman being called a cunt; if that's something you routinely do in the US then you should indeed stop it. Just as WP should stop calling men dicks. Or is there some kind of double standard in play? If you can provide me with a rational explanation of why it's OK to call someone a dick but not a cunt then you'll win a coconut. Eric Corbett 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  Although I love coconut, I probably won't be winning one today. The best I can offer you is "tradition". That is what decided "shit" was a bad word and "feces" was a good one. I'm very aware that word acceptability is dynamic, just as calling someone "retarded" or "negro" was at one time acceptable. American's take the word "fuck" much more seriously (and nip slips on TV as well, collectively we are prudes, are we not?). The terms "dick" and "cunt" are not on par in the US, I'm just not smart enough to say why. I do know that as a child, calling someone a "dick" would have gotten my mouth slapped, but even uttering "cunt" would have drawn the kind of retribution that they put parents in jail for nowadays: I literally would have been beaten. It is just a cultural thing, just as all curse/swear words are cultural things, and on this side of the pond, most of the 330 million consider "cunt" as #1 on the list. I'm offering an opinion on the wisdom of it, just saying that really is how it is, nationwide, for the majority of people. That doesn't justify a drama-fest, hanging, banning or even groveling, just a sincere "I'm sorry if you were offended" will suffice, and preferably, avoidance of the term simply out of respect because you know it offends most yanks, and in particular, female yanks. I won't be a hard ass about it, I'm just saying it really should be avoided. I understand it might slip from time to time, but we are all wordsmithy enough to find better alternatives the rest of the time. I don't want a policy around it and it doesn't require you agree with the logic behind it, just understand that it really does upset a number of female yanks, many of which have been on the receiving end of that word by piece of shit man. It is used by some as a hammer against women here. Dennis 2¢ 22:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  Well it isn't used as a hammer against women here in the UK, in Australia, or in any other English-speaking countries that I'm aware of. It's just a word. Eric Corbett 22:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)That's why it's one of the three words that the BBC will not print without mandatory referral to a reviewer. And why Eric Corbett keeps going on and on about it, in one forum after another. Because you see, it's just a word. —Neotarf (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not one of those who keep running from forum to forum to complain about anything. Do the facts mean nothing to you? Eric Corbett 23:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Listen. I'm quitting you guys. So carry on, pip pip and cheerio, or whatever. Maybe a smarter woman than I will come along and explain this in a way that you can "get." Or maybe a smarter man will figure out how to make the importance of this to recruiting and retaining a diverse group of editors. But as long as you're happy with 85% to 90% men, and a style of "discussing" that these men (and 10% to 15% of women) are OK with, who cares, right? Just so long as you don't have to change anything about your own behavior. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to quit then quit, if you don't, then don't make a song and dance about it. And above all don't assume that you're in any way smarter than those who disagree with you, because I can assure you that you're not. Not by a long way. Eric Corbett 23:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If HiLo is entitled to sing and dance about thinking about quitting, then I sure as hell am not going to feel bad about doing or saying whatever I want on my way out the door. Besides, I am sooo looking forward to your comments while I'm about it. They should be entertaining for everyone who follows along, including my little-ol' dumb self. Lightbreather (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you confuse civility with politeness. Out of politeness, if your feminist colleagues don't cite you in support of their position against me then I will have nothing further to say about you. Eric Corbett 23:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So "don't make a song and dance about it"? We have just had an innocently wide-eyed question, asked over and over again on Jimbo's talk pageabout that very question: "Could you please provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by Eric Corbett. I have not seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Wikipedia by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. Yours in perpetual hope" Is no one interested in the answer? —Neotarf (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The question was asked of Jimbo Wales. What was his answer? Eric Corbett 23:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Eric was a bit new to this thread, not sure how you are linking him to someone wanting to leave here. I wouldn't blame HiLo either. Eric and I (and HiLo) disagree with the use of the word, so what, it is just two perspectives. Neither is forcing their opinion on the other, just expressing it. Disagreeing is part and parcel of working at Wikipedia. No one is getting rude or out of hand here, quite the opposite. I would rather use example and persuasion rather than blunt force and threats to get my points across as I've found it more effective with most people. Again, finger pointing is no substitute for conversation. If people want to discuss how that affects retention, we can do that, but we will disagree. That's fine, as long as we actually try to at least understand the other's point of view. Dennis 2¢ 23:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  May I be allowed push my politeness theme? Some years ago I was teaching a course in the Netherlands, and at one point I said something like "well, of course you could do something like that, but it wouldn't be fair". Which to my astonishment led to me having to explain what "fair" meant, a word that apparently has no equivalent in Dutch. Or so I was told at the time, although no doubt Drmies will be along to correct me. But to me civility and politeness are two very different ideas, and politeness is by far the more important, even though it's unrecognised here on WP. To give just one example, I was recently banned from posting on Jimbo Wales' talk page, but he and others kept discussing me on there, without allowing me the right of reply. That's impolite. If I called you, Dennis, an arse-licking son-of-a-bitch that would be uncivil. But if you think about it, which of those two trangressions is the more undermining? Eric Corbett 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  It was a member of your clique who posted the question. —Neotarf (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have a "clique". But are you really putting that forward as the reason why Jimbo ignored the question? Is he unable to speak for himself? Eric Corbett 00:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  I suspect Jimbo ignored the question because he's tired of that stuff appearing over and over and over, and does not want to give it oxygen. But not to worry, I'm sure there are plenty more enablers around. —Neotarf (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I speak for happened on Jimmy's page. I quit going there and find myself happier for it. And yes, being talked about without being able to opine is not cricket. It's his talk page, so I guess that is his right, but still. I'm more concerned about the saccharine coated comments that sound polite (no cussing), but are actually more destructive than calling someone an arse. Undermining comments, "I wouldn't expect you to understand, you aren't a doctor" or "you're new, you have no idea how it really works" or similar condescending flavored comments. I've gotten plenty of those over the years, and frankly, I would rather have been called an arse than talked down like I was an idiot. Dennis 2¢ 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"[I'm] not sure how you are linking [Eric] to someone wanting to leave here." Dennis Brown, Eric is the one who suggested that an editor could "act like a cunt" [4] (though, of course, he did not suggest that I am or that anyone else is a cunt, the darling prodigy), after I asked at WP:AN how to go about creating a civility board. Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at this discussion, where you said you wanted to leave, not all discussions all over the wiki. Again, I've already made my opinion clear that I don't like the use of the word. I don't want to hang someone for using it, but I would (and have) consistently discouraged it. Dennis 2¢ 01:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Argh, jeez. Got a little off track here.

The origin of this thread was "Been thinking of quitting" (the title). The editor is depressed and seeks advice. Well that's what we're here for. Advice to follow.

So, first of all... while I don't know about the merits of "poached" thing in particular, in looking at the larger picture I see that the editor has been blocked four times. The editor has been dragged to about ten WP:ANI threads. The editor defends his right to use what a lot of people (wrongly or rightly) consider to be foul and insulting language. These are facts.

Here's my take in it, also informed by your posts directly above: you're abrasive. That's not necessarily a deal-killer, depending on other factors such as what else you bring to the table and other things. However, presence of other factors doesn't make this fact not a fact: you're abrasive.

I realize you don't get this probably. It's OK not to get this. You don't feel inside that you're abrasive. This happens. It's OK not get this emotionally, but it's not OK not to hear this and understand this on an intellectual level.

We all have had to do this from time to time in life. Bosses, spouses, friends, neighbors... they all have to tell us from time to time "Hey, did you realize you're doing X and that's not functional?" and we need to be able to hear this and adjust accordingly. It's like if someone tells you you've got a piece of food on your chin, you (hopefully) don't go "Me? I'm not a slob. There's no food on my chin". That would not be functional. Addressing the problem with a napkin is functional. Same deal here.

OK. You're abrasive. It's not the end of of the world. Steve Jobs was abrasive and he did OK, and so forth. You came here asking advice and my advice follows.

What I would recommend is stop being abrasive. This is win-win because its helpful to others as well. For goodness' sakes don't edit in areas where you are emotionally involved. That'd be like hanging around in bars if you're a recovering alcoholic. Instead, pick some area that you're not that invested in -- there are literally millions of subject areas here. Very very many national sports areas that are underserved if sports is your interest. Find out about them and fill out those articles. And be collegial rather than abrasive while doing it. I guarantee that your block problems and ANI problems will melt away like magic.

But if you don't want to do that or can't, you could be like "OK, I'm abrasive. That's how I roll and I like myself that way. I'm gonna get blocked sometimes, I'm gonna get dragged to ANI a lot, and I'm gonna have people say bad things to me sometimes, and that comes with the territory of being me". Own it. Don't whine. It's unbecoming. we can't expect everyone to like us, you know. You need to be OK with that.

So pick one, editor. Cowboy up. You can't have it both ways. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're seeing this in isolation. NOTHING happens on Wikipedia in isolation. Being nice to POV pushers simply encourages them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't have a block problem. I don't actually break the rules, so I have developed a strategy these days that usually gets the complainer into more trouble than me. Unless they are an Admin, of course. No negative consequences for POV pushing Admins. And I WAS at a sports page. I dared to suggest, nicely at first, because it was so completely obvious to me, that "poached" was not a neutral word. Then it all went bad. So this is not about blocks. It's about being taken to AN/I by POV pushers, who use the fact that I have been taken to AN/I so often (by POV pushers) as proof that I am bad. It stinks. AN/I sucks. Admins suck, becasue they won't punish other Admins. This place stinks. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re "I don't actually break the rules, so I have developed a strategy these days that usually gets the complainer into more trouble than me." No, you're not understanding what we're trying to do here. "Getting people into trouble" is not one of goals here. You do break the rules, otherwise you would not have your history of blocks and ANI discussions and so forth. You break the civility rules quite a bit: not agreeing with a rule is not the same as not breaking the rule.

But OK, this is not something that you agree with. I understand. We are not all gifted with good self-assessment skills, and I'm sure you have other compensating merits.

So let me try another tack. Have you noticed generally in life that you have problems? Have you had trouble at work or school, been disciplined or suspended or fired a few times? Do you generally have trouble getting along with schoolmates, co-workers, teachers, and bosses? I'm not asking if this occurs due to any fault of yours, just if it occurs. It may be simply that you have some ineffable and unchangeable quality that causes people to pick on you for no rational reason, or it may be that others are jealous of your gifts, or you may just be unlucky, or whatever you wish to ascribe this to.

If this is a pattern generally, perhaps you should consider modifying your behavior even though the other party is always at fault or if it seems that way to you, simply as a practical method for being happier. The details of how you might modify behavior I leave to your intelligence and imagination, or I or others would be willing to give you pointers. This is good advice that will work on the Wikipedia and can carry over into everyday life also, and will also make other people happier, so win-win.

If you don't have these problems and generally get along fine outside of Wikipedia, perhaps you should consider that Wikipedia is the problem. It may be that there is something about creating an encyclopedia that attracts blackguards. In that case the functional and healthy thing to do would be find another avocation. Don't worry about us -- we'll manage. Find some place in this world that makes you happy, which doesn't seem to be happening here.

But no, I would not go with the "getting other people in trouble" strategy. It's wrong, is not likely to end well, and is not likely to make you happy in the long term... and if it does make you happy, then we are dealing with an entirely different problem here. 19:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Main page, Why do editors leave? question

I'm new to the project. I've been reading the main page. I'd like to do a few things.

1. I'd like to add dates to the WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia items.
2. If possible, I'd like to add a brief reason why those editors left. All voluntarily? Were any blocked or banned first, which led to their leaving?
3. Question: That page is called "Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia"; what does "discovered" mean in this context?
4. The WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors questionnaire page: It begins, It has been suggested that we contact specific individual editors who have retired as to what circumstances contributed to their leaving the project. Did the suggestion come about as a result of a project discussion? (A link maybe?)
5. Which "specific individual editors" are or were contacted? All editors with more than "x" edits who were not identified as puppets or vandals?
6. Is there or has there ever been any focus on retaining women editors? If not, I'd like to propose that, and I'd be happy to spearhead such an effort, though I may need help implementing my ideas.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to check the archives, much of that is outdated. As for "why someone leaves", we seldom get a clean, simple answer, and we have tried contacting people. It is too subjective. That is one reason most of that is outdated. For the most part, the focus here is on general issues, not individuals. If an individual lands here, we try to help, but we don't actively seek individuals as a Project. That said, many (including myself) actively watch a number of editors who contribute a great deal and who are at risk, and mentor or offer support. That isn't exactly a Project project, just something a lot of us do on our own.
• As to women, check the archives, as there has been some discussion. Again, that is more an individual thing than Project thing, but a number of us go out of our way to attract women for adminship in particular. Our Editor of the Week program has helped us find a few admin, half of them women. The big problem with women and Wikipedia isn't retention as much as getting women to start editing here to begin with. That is beyond the scope of WER, and the responsibility of the Foundation to attract more women. Culturally speaking, this isn't simple. This is compounded by the fact that not everyone volunteers their gender, so we really don't know everyone's gender, and to assume that women are more or less likely to volunteer their gender isn't supported by any evidence. So many of us do put more effort with retaining women editors, but as individuals. As a Project, we try to stay neutral and focus on policy changes and tools for everyone. Dennis 2¢ 17:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since I started the WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia page, let me respond to your first 3 questions. The page came about because of a discussion back in mid 2012 about why editors leave. By chance I had been saving some because I thought that the reasons editors gave on their way out the door were important. The When Who and What were not Important. Only the Why! The "discovered" only means that in my travels in WikiWorld I discovered and saved them. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1#Reasons Editors Leave (There are two sections with the same title)and other pertinent discussions there. WER, from the beginning, has been concerned with editors that leave. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that is good. Would you mind putting a date of some sort on the reasons? I do think it's important because what's going on in the community (from Wikipedia on up to WMF) does (or can) impact the individual editor's working environment. Who? No, of course anonymity is important. However, if an editor identifies primarily as a female, that could be useful when studying the reasons editors leave. Why? That is important. Whether someone left voluntarily, or if a ban/block preceded their leaving are important! Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, we don't list blocked editors. Or shouldn't be. That isn't the same as voluntarily leaving the project. Blocked editors would be outside the scope of what we can do. Dennis 2¢ 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your memory serves you well. Every effort was made to exclude editors that were blocked or banned when they left. I'm not sure if any were added since I last stopped there but I don't think so. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe any were added. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of a date. In anticipation of an argument that the responses are intended to be anonymous and the date would help someone identify the editor, I suggest inclusion of the year only, not the month and day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That is probably the best compromise, year only, and that is plenty of information for our purposes. Dennis 2¢ 16:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeardates added.  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not thinking about it... I AM quitting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'll take a day or two to wrap up some things I'd like to do before I turn off the lights and lock up, so to speak, but I AM quitting. No more thinking about, as I have dozens of times in the past. Among the things I'd like to do: add something to the "Discovered" reasons for leaving Wikipedia. I hope it'll be allowed to stay, but since it will focus on civility, I'm curious to see if it will be allowed to stay. I may drop by here over the next couple of days as I'm wrapping up elsewhere. That's all for now. Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

An interesting read: Simonite, Tom (22 October 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review.. And an interesting quote from that read. (My husband shared the article with me last year. Kind of a foreshadowing, I guess.)

The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather that you didn't retire. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had this page watchlisted for a long time, and this is the first time I ever noticed that "discovered" section. Do us a favor @Lightbreather and put it in your own file, so everyone can find it, maybe User:Lightbreather/Reasons for leaving Wikipedia, with a link to it on your user page. Put in a lot of diffs, so everyone can see who twisted the knife. —Neotarf (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You realize you just posted the same quote I did yesterday [5]? Anyway, if you make your comments general (don't mention specific editors), it will mostly like be left alone. NE Ent 23:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct Ent, as long as it appropriate to the page and non-personal, it should stay. Personally, I don't want to see Lightbreather leave, but I don't understand their reasoning yet. Above might seem heated, but no one is calling names or getting rude, they are just expressing opinions. This is a topic we've been debating for years, you have to expect we won't solve it in a few paragraphs. The art of compromise is finding a solution that no one likes, and I get the feeling that eventually that will be the case. Until then, all we can do is discuss and seek to understand each other. That seems to be where we all are getting hung up, listening and empathizing with each other Dennis 2¢ 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So "no one is calling names"? I count 8 occurrences of the c-word on this page. If someone posted the n-word that much, I would say they were getting off on it. —Neotarf (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the possibility that editors such as yourself, who basically get off on telling lies, might be a significant problem here? You claim that the word most hated in the American vocabulary has been used here eight times, but how many times was it used as an insult against a specific individual? None? Eric Corbett 00:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You accuse me of lying? Diffs. —Neotarf (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No one has directed the word towards anyone that I can see. If we can't use the word to discuss the use OF the word in the abstract, then we have bigger problems than just the use. Dennis 2¢ 00:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah the old "not directed at anyone" excuse. Again. [6] —Neotarf (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the workplace, and we are having an academic discussion ABOUT the word. I've even come out against using it against some one. Sorry, but I'm not for striking any word, concept or idea and making the mere mention of it in a policy related discussion a "violation" of anything. I am against using it against someone, but I already made that perfectly clear and explained exactly why. Dennis 2¢ 01:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If this isn't a work place, what is it? Would you invite Mr. Corbett into your living room, your place of worship, your children's schools, to have this discussion and repeat this word over and over and over again? By the way, how do you feel about the n-word? If you want to have a meta-discussion about usage, why are you not using this as your [purely abstract] example? —Neotarf (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If you mean "nigga" for instance, I did above in a direct example. It's a word I hate in popular culture, it is used all over the place, and it is inappropriate to refer to someone in this way here. But again, in a discussion about improper words, I'm not so PC that I can't say the actual word I'm referring to. And yes I would invite Eric into my living room. I don't worship or have kids, so I can't answer that, although I suspect I would as Eric understands when it is appropriate to use a word. I've also seen Eddie Murphy "RAW", but I wouldn't be afraid to have him over either. The debate isn't his ability to not say certain words, it is whether Wikipedia is that place. I actually agree that we shouldn't here. Dennis 2¢ 01:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Eric has an open invite to join me any evening anytime- I would love to have his input into our after dinner conversation, (email me off wiki- Eric). Similarly if Lightbreather or yourself wishes to discover more about this corner of England and the our sociolinguistic norms - then get in touch. It really would help if some of you guys got along to some of our face to face Wiki-meetups so you are not working in isolation.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The word "cunt" was no-where on this page as far as I can see until I posted here yesterday about the civility problem on WP driving away editors.[7] About 24 hours later, HiLo48 - who knows that I and hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of other people find this word offensive - decides that it's time to talk about it again,[8] though it has been discussed over and over again elsewhere. It's not an academic discussion: it's virtual chest-thumping. Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

These are the same editors who want to block a female editor for linking to "circle jerk". I am taking this page off my watch list. I would suggest everyone else do the same. —Neotarf (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's dumb, if a woman or indeed anyone needs to link to "circle jerk" it shouldn't be blockable unless it's a clear personal attack. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Retirement of any editor is undesirable :( GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you completely misunderstood my reason for using the word that so offends you, just as you have misunderstood much here. I am part of a smaller minority than women here. I am Australian. I am not American. Wikipedia is dominated by American cultural norms. Is that good? I tried to (again) get you and others to see that there are differences in English usage around the world. Some of us hear (and some even use) the word you find so hurtful quite often, and many Australians are OK people. (Even if you think I stink.) It doesn't damage us. I wasn't planning to use the word against anyone. In fact, I showed a way that it is used that is quite positive. Do you understand this? So please be careful insisting that one set of cultural norms should completely dominate and rule here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Other meanings or uses of the word "cunt" have been discussed here [9] and here [10] and here [11], among other places I'm sure. (In fact, that first discussion includes you sharing a variation on your "How are ya', ya' silly old cunt" example.[12]) However, even before those discussions, others (myself included) have been aware that in some parts of the globe it is less offensive or used playfully. That does not mean that it's OK to use in mixed company. (And by mixed, here on WP at least, I mean gender, color, age, ethnicity, religion - everyone.)

There are homes and bars in the U.S. where you can go and hear African-Americans call each other "nigger" or Native Americans call each other "Injun" (playfully and otherwise), but that doesn't make the words OK to use in discussions on Wikipedia.

Or let's try this from another angle. Eric Corbett wondered above if I and others don't get the difference between civility and being polite. Though "polite" is a synonym for "civil," and one meaning of "civil" is "courteous and polite," I'll differentiate à la Eric (who will probably follow up with a correction): If you think it's debatable that "cunt" is uncivil, it should certainly be clear that it's impolite to keep using the word once you've learned that it's offensive to the group you're currently dialoguing with (a global group, not a regional pub). Do you understand this? So please be careful insisting that (you think) I am insisting that one set of cultural norms should completely dominate and rule here. I think that words that are considered to be truly offensive in any English speaking culture should be avoided in a workplace populated by English speakers from around the world. I think people should get warnings - one, two, maybe even three times - but if someone keeps using such language after warnings, they should be prepared to face the consequences. This is simple civility, or politeness, depending on how you look at it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If one is offended/annoyed by what another editor posts? one need only to ignore that editor. Unlike the real world, one can ignore another at Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The trouble with that approach is that it ignores an editor, but it doesn't disconnect from an article. In some cases, the reason one might want to disengage with an editor is because of their behaviour in one or more articles. We would after all hope that the editors were trying to keep are those who care about article quality.

Biased monomaniac editors are some of the most annoying but, by their nature, also the most persistent. Who wants to walk away from an article where the inevitable result is a whitewash of the politically corrupt, a blanket removal of justified NFC or EL, or just a conversion from metres to furlongs. It's not productive to the encyclopedia (even if better for the individual) to say "just walk away" in all such cases.

A while ago, it was possible to raise editor behaviour at some of the noticeboards and say "These edits concern me, will others please keep an eye on them". Doing so today is just an invitation for a tribal conflict. Who has the more vocal friends? Who recently transgressed some unrelated policy that can be used to whip up another howling lynchmob? We have lost the open source virtue of a community with shared goals. The only "goals" left with any effectiveness are the imposition of petty bureaucracy and personal grievances amongst cliques. This is not supposed to be a badly run high school, but that's where we seem to be.

We have policies (Commons appears to be suffering particularly badly from this at present) and these are deliberately objective. All editors, including admins, are subject to them: sometimes things as simple as not blanking contentious talk page comments to silence other editors. Let alone the subjectivity of the classic "cooldown civility block". WP recognised years ago that some behaviours were unconstructively toxic and so weren't permitted to any editor, admins or content wizard. We've lost that. Enforcement is now entirely at the whim of the corrupt and their friends, with right being decided firmly by might, admin bits and friend count. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's very difficult to curtail any editors conduct, when that editor has a big support base. Thus, a Gandhi wiki-approach is best, to stare down perceived obnoxious behaviour & to take his/her bite away. It's less dramatic, then dragging an editor off to ANI, Rfc/U, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's a fascinating idea you have there (If one is offended/annoyed by what another editor posts? one need only to ignore that editor.), but if you are serious about it, then let's see you propose that solution directly to Lightbreather, to get her response, so we can have some direct clash with your idea, to explore its workability on the WP, or its unworkability. (Sound reasonable?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that it's advice for all editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? If your advice is taken, what is the purpose of WP:CIV policy? (As mere suggestion/encouragement? I'm OK with that, but, seems to me it is also used as basis for handing out blocks/sanctions/bans. The two ideas don't seem logically compatible. And if you are willing to give your advice to 'all editors', then what is your objection to giving it specifically to Lightbrather in this discussion thread?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking for; GoodDay's post to which you responded was a direct reply to Lightbreather. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

His advice was generalized, not direct to Lightbreather for her consideration/response. (My Qs were clear enough, and directed to GoodDay, not you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My advice was for Lightbrather & every other editor. The calm approach is best, always. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem suggesting to her directly to ignore, rather than to object and to complain. (Aren't you interested in her response about your advice? Then ask for it, rather than philosophizing!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As this isn't a policy page, my advise goes only as far as it's abided. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Also I'm curious for your respone to my above query you weren't responsive to: So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? If your advice is taken, what is the purpose of WP:CIV policy? (As mere suggestion/encouragement? I'm OK with that, but, seems to me it is also used as basis for handing out blocks/sanctions/bans. The two ideas don't seem logically compatible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bans, blocks & sanctions should (if possible) be avoided. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you or are you not advocating reducing WP:CIV policy to status of essay (based on the recommendation that all editors ignore offenses/annoyances)? Or do you like to keep WP:CIV around "just in case we need to block, sanction, and ban someone"?? (I asked you where you draw the line, you didn't respond, this is the third time I'm asking!). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any changes to WP:CIVIL. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Re your advice to ignore offenses, and avoid blocks/bans based on WP:CIV "if possible": So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? (Fourth time asking!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For myself? I ignore anything I don't like & therefore choose not to report anyone for anything I don't like. Others will have to draw their own lines. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not for yourself. (I thought this was clear.) Your advice was to 'all editors' to ignore offenses/annoyances. But you also think there are times it is unavoidable to block/sanction/ban based on WP:CIV. I asked where you draw the line. (If your answer is that each editor should draw their own line, then you're suggesting/advising that "all editors ignore offenses/annoyances, unless it exceeds your line". So you're advising all editors, on the one hand, to ignore [all] offenses/annoyances, and on the other hand, to go ahead and pursue not ignoring them based on the individual editor's standard of 'excessive'. [Sorry, but your idea seems confused because internally inconsistent/contradictory.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If my advise is ignored for any reason (including confusion), then so be it. Afterall, this isn't a policy page. GoodDay (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a discussion of ideas on this project Talk page, right? GoodDay had (what I think is) a fascinating idea. Lightbreather, GoodDay is suggesting/advising that you just ignore what you are offended/annoyed by, rather than objecting and complaining about it. (Will you responsd to him?) Thanks for your consideration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, with all the advice and comments, I ignored him less than I forgot to reply. It's simple really: I've received the same advice and had the same discussion with others. I don't feel like discussing it again, that's all. One gets tired of arguing the same points over and over again. That's part of why I'm going. May I go now? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, wikipedia is dominated by a very specific subset of cultural norms often ascribed to Americans but by no means unique to them. Blaming every issue here on supposed American cultural norms is one of the things that makes me question my involvement on a regular basis. And I'd rather deal with someone using one of the words that shall not be named than wall of text POV pushers and policy OWNers. But I suspect that I'm in a small minority. In terms of people staying or leaving, if you want to leave...leave. If you really don't want to leave, then don't. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Quitting is not an option- unless you resolve your problem- it will fester and you will be reminded of it everytime you Google. You are very bruised at being criticised but that was of your own making, so you do need to analyse why your approach was so offensive. I have posted links to sociolinguistics, and explained about register. Other editors were offended when you criticised them because their use of language was way outside you register. It is worth doing a little research to discover how language is used elsewhere in the English speaking world. You are respected for taking on all those revolting jobs that admins do- the ones that take them away from article creation. The medium of blogging forces people to simplify and abbreviate their arguments which leads to them expressing terms at the boundaries of their register- rather than the more moderate terms at the centre- please reflect on that. By quitting you are leaving something you love. By quitting you are damaging you own self-esteem. Stalk this page but concentrate on some article creation or the myriad of other things that need doing in our world. What I am saying, is make a conscious decision to walk away from this debate, walk away from the areas where your POV has conflicted with a significant number of experienced editors and then in 5 years come back strongly. That gives you a resolution- that can add to your enjoyment of the project. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Feeling like an agony aunt.

"Now look here Clem, / Hey Clem! / Hold on, Clem!" Here's a small linguistic point for you about local English usage you may find of interest. Did you know that your name was commonly used among kids in Ohio, to indicate that someone was taking things too far? It came as a shock on a Wikipedia tour of the US National Archives to discover that there was a historic person from Ohio named "Clem", who took things to the limit by signing up to fight as a drummer boy and refusing to quit.

So, "Wait a minute there, Clem!" No way am I taking the advice to "Just take a break, then go back to work as a prolific content contributor." Much less advice to "Be a good girl, move on, you brought it on yourself!"

As you have so insightfully noted, we have reached a point where we are the Hotel Wikipedia-- you can check in anytime you want, but you can never leave. Unless you can avoid the Internet altogether. And if we're making a Hotel Wikipedia that is traumatic for women, it's a statement about what we want the Internet to be.

It is important to start pitching in on the efforts to do something about the crummy atmosphere for women on the Internet, and especially on this site, because it is so prominent. I can't speak for men, but have been told by many that they would prefer a more hospitable atmosphere also. -- Djembayz (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We all should've kept our gender identities secret. Best approach? -consider all Wikipedians gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the anecdote- I hadn't come across it before. Incidently, I am not related to any of the Rutter families in Ohio- though may be related to Catherine Rutter one of the very early Quakers.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ClemRutter, I read the links you gave to "Linguistic insecurity" and "Register (sociolinguistics)." Before that, I read, and shared links to a book by sociolinguist Deborah Tannen, which is a little more accessible to a nonspecialist. I've been studying the use of language here on Wikipedia for over a year now. Rather than suggest that I should research this stuff, I think it would be a better use of your time trying to get other editors to do so - especially the ones who insist that there is no language problem here. Lightbreather (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Time is always precious- but I think that a few minutes spent having a serious discussion is worth it, if it helps you change your mind. I was discussing similar issues elsewhere thirty years ago- and last night over the dinner table, this time in French, German and Spanish. 'Leaving' just stops you from contributing. If you want to see a successful politician- look at Angela Merckel (who policies I oppose), and a loser look at David Cameron (whos policies if he had one, I'd oppose). One twists and turns, forms and breaks alliances and gets her way- the other stands on his macho hindlegs huffs and puffs and consistently fails. It isn't just language- its about a method of working. This debate is a dead end: engaging editors who have a record of generosity with newbies and multiple kindness, using a policy that is a regarded by many as a POV is not going to establish the alliances needed to progress the project. Angela would already have another front opened. You wouldn't have got this far if you didn't care. So, too use a slogan from the eighties- Don't get mad, get even. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

From my User page: "Ever noticed how the niceness police often demand that those whose language offends their precious sensibilities must swear less, but those who are their targets never demand that the civility police swear more?" It's a diverse world. Deal with it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And how, exactly, does swearing at editors when policing the site convince them to stay? I don't get it. Djembayz (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting quote, HiLo, though it makes expecting civility sound like covert ops. Here's one of my favorites:

"Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present." - George Washington

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• We aren't going to agree here, but that is fine, as the entire premise of "consensus" is based on that idea, and simply finding the most central view between the many sides. I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me, and all of us should be able to just accept it when we are in the minority. This isn't a policy changing page, nor a decision making page, it is a discussion page. Sometimes, a little heated venting can be helpful to clear the air, but all need to lick our wounds and get back to articles afterwards, and not just leave. The entire project was born with the idea that everyone should have a voice, even if they are in the minority. That doesn't mean we beat that drum to death, or that "hearing" is the same as "agreeing". No matter how educated or "sourced" an opinion is, others may have very valid reasons for disagreeing, and we all have to accept that. At this point, it is my opinion we have worn this topic out. I don't want to see anyone leave, and I hope LB takes a few days off and reconsiders. Dennis 2¢ 15:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've received the same advice and had the same discussion with others. I don't feel like discussing it again, that's all. One gets tired of arguing the same points over and over again. That's part of why I'm going. May I go now? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Over forty words to deliver a non-answer, when two would have sufficed to deliver an answer: "Already answered [_diff_]." (But it wasn't just a non-answer, an additional new "reason" was added that explains Lightbreather's decision to depart WP -- i.e. being tired of repeating the same argument -- and, I don't think my effort here to get real feedback to GoodDay's "ignore" idea warrants rolling me in to part of the blame she attributes to her decision to leave. [In fact, I very much don't appreciate that at all -- disingenuous false blame. It's not only disingenuous it was uncivil.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans

Would topic bans being lifted automatically, if a topic-banned editor didn't violate his/her topic ban for 6 months, be an acceptable proposal for keeping (top banned) editors from retiring? It's a retention idea of mine. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Many topic bans are already done that way, and generally the type I prefer, whereas someone is banned for a fixed time only and doesn't have to grovel to the community to get it lifted. I've proposed such topic bans myself, with fixed expiration dates. I don't think you can get the banning policy to automatically do that to any bans, but you can suggest that the community only do topic bans that have fixed terms for first time offenders. To be honest, most of the topic bans I've seen are put on people who ONLY edit in one area and are causing problems in that area. Many are POV warriors. The topic ban is used as an alternative to indef blocking them, that is to say, to give them a second chance by allowing them to edit only in one area. I can't speak for ALL editors, but I do know that many who would be topic banned from one area, say Palestine / Isreal, they don't edit anywhere else and they don't care about anything but injecting one POV into those articles. They might put up a "retired" banner, but it is really meaningless as their intent is ONLY to inject POV into those articles, and if they can't do that, they won't do anything. In those cases, retention isn't a goal as they aren't here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to insure one perspective is dominant in these articles. They are here to break NPOV or undermine consensus. This includes I/P, infoboxes, IPA, etc.

For editors that edit in multiple areas, topic bans are extremely rare, and if one is done, they just can edit in other areas and ride it out. These are the editors we want to retain: they are here to build an encyclopedia, they just got too emotionally invested in an area. Rare, but it happens, and they usually stick around. I haven't seen any retirements from these more rounded editors, only from editors that only edit in one narrow area. Perhaps they exist and I just haven't seen it, which is entirely possible. That said, if you have an example, I would love to take a look and personally investigate. Dennis 2¢ 18:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been topic banned from taking part in any threaded discussions at RfA for about four years now I think. Eric Corbett 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wowsers, the American Civil War didn't even last that long. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you have to beg and grovel to have topic bans removed, something I'm genetically incapable of doing. Eric Corbett 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an overly pleasurable experience, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's one I've never had and never will have. Eric Corbett 19:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As is true in most cases, Eric is the exception to the rule. That was also an Arb ban, not a community ban. I was limiting my response to the run of the mill topic bans dished out at ANI. I do think those should have expiration dates of 1 year or less. Dennis 2¢ 19:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because I'm exceptional. NYB recently encouraged me to think about appealing the topic ban. As if, I'd rather die. Eric Corbett 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's idea I've been considering. I'm planning on presenting it to the community in May 2015. Wouldn't mind if you or anybody else could make adjustments to it. Sorta hoping at the least, it might lower any tensions on the project:) Right now, I'm just sticking my toe into the water. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Many topic bans are already done that way" seems to be a bit mistaken. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, except for some exception here and there, all topic bans are of indefinite duration. As for appeals, consider User:Cirt. He had a topic ban with a case started 3 years ago. Check his contributions at User:Cirt/Contributions: 16 featured articles, 113 good articles, 152 DYK articles, and a lot of other recognized content (more than most other users can reasonably expect to achieve). His archived appeal is here: he does not get anything. In fact, the answers received are not actionable: "no because no" arguments, "it is too soon" arguments (after 3 years), "there are other articles", "who would watch him?", "his good work elsewhere is worthless in this discussion", and so on. Someone is forced to wonder, if Cirt's work is not enough, if 3 years are a very short time (in the real world, you can do almost half a major in that time), then what does it really takes to have a topic ban lifted? Can a topic ban be actually lifted at all, or does the chance just exist on paper? Cambalachero (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cambalachero, for your most kind comments about my recent Quality improvement projects listed at User:Cirt/Contributions. Your words are truly most appreciated and inspirational. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes you can get them lifted, I've voted to lift a number of them. Yes, you can propose a limited time period for topic ban. Most are not because most of the time, it is someone who feels "wronged" making the proposal and they have no incentive to limit the scope. I've proposed limited time bans and had them pass. The issue is participation at ANI. If you counter propose to limit a ban to one year instead and that passes, then it will only be one year. Arb bans are never going to be limited time, that is just how they work. Don't confuse Arb bans with Community bans, they are two completely different animals. My experience has been that the community at WP:AN tends to be pretty forgiving after a year. Arb, less so. You have to be careful to differentiate what it is you are talking about when discussion these kinds of bans. Dennis 2¢ 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me correct myself: Arb can do time limited bans, and used to frequently. Most are now indef. Whether that is a good thing or not, I will leave to you to decide. Dennis 2¢ 14:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Indefs TBans tend to come across as punitive, rather then preventative measures. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see why they might, particularly from Arb, which is more difficult to get removed. Sometimes (at least from the community) it is simply saying "We have no idea when it would be a good time to let you edit there again, lets see how you do for 6 months or so." Getting a tban removed at WP:AN isn't easy, but its a lot easier than with Arb. Dennis 2¢ 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for community input on IEG proposal: editor interaction data sets and visualizations

As you may have heard, Editor Interaction Data Extraction and Visualization is an individual engagement grant proposal. I am working on this proposal with volunteer assistance and advice from Aaron Halfaker (WMF), Haitham Shammaa (WMF), and Fabian Flöck (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology).

We would greatly appreciate your comments on whether you support or oppose the general concept of this project, and any suggestions about how to refine the proposal.

Additionally, we would like to hear from you about which sets of editor interaction data, and what visualizations of editor interaction data, would be most relevant to your interests. We intend to prioritize our outputs with your comments in mind.

Please comment on the proposal talk page. Questions and feedback, both positive and critical, are helpful to us as the proposers, and also help the Individual Engagement Grants Committee [1] to assess the proposal.

Regards, --Pine^✉ 18:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] I am a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee. I am recusing from reviewing proposals in this funding round.

• Thanks for the heads up. I've left one comment there and may leave others. This is an interesting idea that has some merit, and would be of use to us at WER if the data can be properly extracted. Doing so reliably and getting data that has meaning is no small feat. Dennis 2¢ 19:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network

We submitted a request for an IEG grant at Grants:IEG/"Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network.". It concerns a systematic assessment of the (essential) formal policies to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network and of all informal practices of stakeholders to support or subvert this. Your thoughts and comments would be very much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.180.33 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014

Research article: Emotions under Discussion

Iosub, Daniela; Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Morell, Mayo Fuster; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas (August 20, 2014). "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration". PLoS ONE. 9 (8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104880.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Conclusions/Significance

Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If I may ask... Who are/were you? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on editor retention and women

Reposting here a revised version of what came to mind in the course of another discussion, in response to an example of promoting a "foul mouthed boys club" atmosphere.

Perhaps causing offense and distress is the intention here-- that's certainly been part of my experience as a female editor. Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", assume good faith, develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work.

But hey, I'm a woman, and I've already been told that if I think it's too rude here I should leave. Sometimes all this in-your-face sexual content and aggressive, sexualized interaction style is just tedious and wearisome. There's a difference between viewing this sort of stuff when you're looking for it, and having to see it when you're really not in the mood, or when a co-worker is looking over your shoulder, or when you are seeking legitimate redress of grievances through the community's established dispute resolution processes. When sexual content is no longer optional, it stops being fun. When I'm asked repeatedly, "you can participate, what do you think? Join Wikipedia! and this is the kind of discussion that is here, I feel like I am being cynically exploited by volunteering on this site. Come for the culture, stay for the swear words, and if you get pushback in real life for running with such a crew of barbarians, well hey, shut up and write more articles about women scientists, the cool girls like to swear and say sex stuff, if you don't, clear out!

When I tell male editors in person about some of my experiences here, they wince uncomfortably, and say they're really sorry. Yet, no matter how nice people are in person, this uncivilized atmosphere keeps coming up again and again online. We might as well be honest about what it can be like to be a female volunteer on this website. Many women have had a much worse time of it here than I have; I'm not the only one who's gotten to the point where there are better things to do with my time than persist with this unpleasantness. The more I'm told to "just ignore it and go back to work", the less I feel like editing. -- Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Be stubborn & don't back down from anything, including 'bad' language. Never consider retirement an option. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the main problem with Wikipedia culture is necessarily one you can blame on gender. It's the toxic and confrontational atmosphere in general that's ruining this project for women, and it doesn't matter if the aggressive editor is male or female. This place can be overly contentious, and that's what drives most females away. The ones who stay either enjoy the drama or they find a way to avoid the drama; or perhaps they find a "healthy" balance of both, but make no mistake, until the vibe around here is more congenial, we won't see any significant improvement regarding the retention of female editors. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand the complaint that swearing is a problem for women but not for men. Which women? All women? Which men? All men? HiLo48 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• In my many years here, I've interacted a number of times with editors who found the occasional coarse language here to be intolerable. Much of the time, their gender wasn't obvious, but the times it was, it was overwhelmingly men who complained, not unlike the ratios of men to women that the Foundation claims exist here. This leads me to believe that the minority of editors who find fault in the "rough and tumble" atmosphere here do so not because of their gender, but because of their individual sensitivity, which may be because of religious beliefs, upbringing, or just their unique nature. I think we should not be declaring that women in general are less capable of tolerating the occasional swear word, as it is a stereotype that is unproven, unflattering and portrays women as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity. Instead we must accept that some humans are more sensitive than others, just as some humans are more prone to use those words. Making it about gender only perpetuates the type of stereotypes that women have been fighting for generations. It also assumes that if you are a male, your tolerance should be higher, which is equally problematic. Dennis - 2¢ 18:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A wise response there Dennis. HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(Further response to Djembayz) There's no such thing as a male editor or female editor. The sooner the community adopts that concept, the better. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure. Talking about editor retention, more men than women seem to be in the group of actually leaving, some more than once. Some courageous men and women made me stay by their oppose, Eric first, - do you know a single women in the (much larger) support group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be surprised if a site with somewhere between 85% and 92% males amongst the regulars didn't lose a lot more of the male editors than the female ones. The real question is whether gender has an influence on retention, especially after you take other factors such as age and marital status into account. ϢereSpielChequers 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Rampant incivility will, in the long-term, decrease retention amongst editors of both genders. I think the issue here is really more about which genders are more likely to excuse and defend the use of derogatory terminology, such as: "twat", "cunt", "dick", "fuck", "idiot", and "moron". My guess is, few females will support the use of these epithets, even if they, in principle, support the editors who use them. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

My advantage is that, as not a native speaker of English, I knew only two of the terms ;) - I can't repeat enough that it's not words that constitute incivility but attitude, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, I agree with you; context is everything. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I meant. I spoke about the soil, meaning the basic attitude. How can someone request civility (or "enforce" it, - a contradiction in terms, imho) who thinks of other people as, - well let's not repeat it)? - Back to my little example: I can't speak for all of Wikipedia, just what I observe where I look. Math: in a certain minority group, we have 13% women. None of the four left the project. (I admit that I was tempted several times, never because of civility, always because of the loss of a user.) Of the 29 men, 10 left (some more than once), 2 of those are gone. We women have to do the work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ps: look at the last linked longish thread for "Without a hard heart, you can't survive here." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that rampant incivility will run people off, just as intolerance or overzealous policing of civility will. The solution is not and never will be the use of admin tools, it will only be by the use of serious and calm discussion. What I have found is that if we are overzealous in policing civility, the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident. If someone drags another to ANI because they said "Fuck" one time, I can promise you that the word "fuck" will be said 50 times in that discussion. I've counted it, I'm not exaggerating. Even the best intentions can have absurd results. And I'm so sure that women would be less tolerant of the seven dirty words. My mom cussed 10x more than my dad, who seldom did. Anecdotal, but applicable. Our culture in the US is still lacking in the US, and likely elsewhere, when it comes to equality and women. Personally, I find Wikipedia to be rather liberating. You can be a woman, or a man, or neither. Gender can be as irrelevant as you choose it to be when you choose an account. Female, male, black, white, Hindu, Muslim, we all look alike when we type. While it isn't perfect, it is a little island where (on average) people are generally judged by the merits of their editing, not their gender or race. Dennis - 2¢ 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident, only as long as the prevailing culture ignores WP:CIVILITY. We don't need a philosophical debate to enforce it; it's already a pillar. A warning followed by a short block followed by a longer block is not disruptive to the community. You do it all the time for other reasons. You also picked the least contentious of my examples, which is a self-serving cherry-pick. If I was a new editor who registered a few days ago, and I called you a cunt you would block me. If I came back several days later and called you a twat you would re-block me, and if I did it again you would indef me. I don't see why "popular" editors should get a pass, when loners do not. The current level of discourse regarding this subject is disappointingly low. Unless she is currently a Wikipedia editor, the anecdote about your Mom is irrelevant here, and it's also a logical fallacy. If you want to take up the anti-civility torch, you would do better to present sound arguments and compelling evidence, instead of personal anecdotes. E.g., my Mother never swore, but my father did when she wasn't around, so I guess we're even ... lol. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't know me very well :) I've been called the same more than a few times, never blocked or asked for a block. I'm not a good example, it doesn't bother me if a stranger does a drive by and calls me a name. In mediation, a goodly portion of times when I have been called a nazi or jackass or whatever, I've continued the discussion as if they didn't call me a name, and it got hammered out. This is typically with new users. And at the end, I would tell them "btw, you don't want to do that. most admin would have blocked you". In the end, I try (I'm not perfect) but I try to focus on the merits first, and cover civility later. Telling someone who is pissed off "Don't call me a jackass" is, well, going to be fruitless. It is better to tolerate single instances and deal with the merits, then say something later. What is unhelpful is when the discussion is changed from being one about content of the article, to "is ok to say jackass?", then everyone jumps in with their opinions, and none of that improves the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean it is ok to call someone a jackass (and if you make a habit of it, yes, I will block you), it means there are too many people who get obsessed with civility and hold it up higher than content. They are both important, but content is still why were are here. There is the perception that civility has "gone off the rails!!! OMG!" by some here. That isn't exactly the whole story. Drama due to incivility has gone off the rails, but that is due in part to rampant intolerance of anyone who disagrees with anyone. To me, the intolerance poses a greater risk than civility, but we should be addressing both at the same time. Any attempt to fix one without the other will fail. I started here back in 2006. The place is more civil now if you are measuring the instances of being told to "fuck off" and such. It was under the radar for the most part then. Now we worry about even the smallest infraction with a debate, the pendulum has swung too far. We need balance. Dennis - 2¢ 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that as your personal style, but I'm not at all sure why this should be the accepted and applied standard for all Wikipedians, especially when one of the five pillars directly contradicts your position numerous times and in several different ways (please don't ask me to futilely quote WP:CIVILITY to prove the assertion. It's there for all to see.). If you want to throw away all expectations of civility, you should work in a transparent way to amend the relevant policy so that you aren't in absolute contradiction with it, but in the meantime you shouldn't try to mold this project to your liking, which is coincidentally exactly as you would make it, but not as it is currently formulated (read the policy nutshell, and then justify occasionally calling people idiots or cunts). Rationalobserver (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. My style just shows there is more than one way to view the problem, more than one solution. I'm not trying to change our view of civility. I'm trying to open people's minds about how to manage it, how to get the maximum amount of it. The block tool doesn't make people civil, it just makes them go away for a short time. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. Sometimes, it actually helps. But it is folly to think we can block our way to a more civil Wikipedia. WP:BIAS is also worth a read. What may be innocent enough to you, might be very offensive to someone from India, or Iraq, or Niger. The big words are easy to define, but the real incivility doesn't use swear words, and is often saccharine sweet. Dennis - 2¢ 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. You actively champion an especially relaxed standard of civility at several venues, but none of which are Wikipedia talk:Civility, where this discussion should happen. Why are you the "go-to guy" when it comes to defending incivility but you've never made a single edit to the Civility policy or its corresponding talk page? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm not interested in changing the wording of a policy, I'm interesting in making Wikipedia a more tolerant place and a more civil place. You seldom see me on policy pages, you often find me in the trenches. If you only notice my discussions on tolerance, then you aren't looking hard enough. If I'm championing anything, it is for us to take a balanced approach in enforcement. Dennis - 2¢ 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)