User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Rebooted discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Back to Jimbo Wale's original proposal which was: "imagine if the WMF hired community managers and gave them mediation training and asked them to help the community deal with civility problems. The idea here is to say: look, here is a problem worth solving, and resources to give good people time (a full time job in fact) to help solve it can be useful."

What if it was far more limited: WMF hires mediators to do mediation and to train and monitor volunteer mediators. Mediation would be voluntary but it is likely Admins and Arbitrators would not look well on those who refused to engage in mediation or obviously did not take it seriously once they agreed to it.

I was in one mediation around 2007-8 on a really controversial topic. The mediator was inexperienced and had to start over at one point; but it still was extremely effective and greatly diminished edit warring among a few editors over several articles. However after that I couldn't find mediators for a one or two issues that had been accepted for mediation because no moderators were available, so I didn't try again for a few years. When I did four people wanted it; two refused on questionable grounds. The issue went to arbitration but Arbitrators didn't take the mediation issue seriously, perhaps because it was known that there aren't many mediators or they aren't effective.

In short, I don't think people could find fault with such a limited mediation proposal, but it could be extremely effective in chilling people out, making them think rationally and keeping them involved in editing instead of just going away mad and disgusted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• The BBC is paid for by the (compulsory) licence fee and its programmes have message boards. That includes, 10 national TV stations (including BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament), 10 national radio stations, 40+ regional radio stations, BBC Worldwide etc. They employ professional moderators and they have levels of moderation and - deep breaths everyone, I'm going to put it out there - pre-moderation (a delay between posting and the message appearing while it is moderated). There are levels to moderation and areas where moderation is more concentrated, a message board for a gardening programme would receive little attention, BBC news which will have threads about the current conflict between Israel and Palestine would receive considerably more attention. Individual accounts which have been problematic in the past may become subject to pre-moderation on everything they post. Excessive swearing is edited out (with a note to say the post has been edited).

What's interesting is the reason the BBC gives in its FAQs to the question "Why must we have moderation on BBC boards?" Answer ".... Moderation is necessary so all users can participate in discussions without fear of intimidation by other users or being subjected to offensive content. Also, people may intentionally or unintentionally post content that is unlawful, putting themselves as well as the BBC at risk of legal action. Moderation helps avoid expensive legal action that could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence-fee payers' money...." I was surprised when I read it I was expecting something more along the lines of it being the right thing to do, or at least the money argument coupled with a statement that its the right thing to do.

I'm not sure if this BBC-link to the moderation board full FAQs will work outside the UK but anyway... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Early response from BHG & LB

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

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

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

(Others may identify a longer list)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carrite, you are falsely assuming that attending a concert = being a fan, rather than attending = being a fan or being friends with a fan. Looking at your numbers, I'd assume that two-thirds of the women present at your concerts were there because their boyfriends wanted to attend. (Presumably the next weekend, they'd both be at a concert that the girlfriend wanted to attend.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing — Well, that's an interesting theory, and it might explain some small part of it. But it was more than that, since it wasn't usually one male and one female coming to a show together, but three females and a male here, and four males there, and three females there, and so on. They were not there out of obligation, they were punk rock kids at a show. The mailing list's gender mix was simply not shaped even closely to the fan gender mix. To your point, maybe a little bit, probably 90% of the people IN bands were male, and there were doubtlessly a few present out of duty to boyfriends in bands. But that's only a minor part of the phenomenon. The bottom line is this: more males than females are record collectors, by a huge margin, and creating an "inclusive environment" isn't going to to change that fact, then or now. And, I would argue, for a set of reasons — some of which are not yet fully identified or understood — more males than females are driven to participate in the Wikipedia process and creating an "inclusive environment" is not apt to move the needle much in this regard. (To wit: All of Sue Gardner's efforts didn't do much to close the gender gap, empirically speaking, did they?) Carrite (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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

What are the correct conclusions to be drawn from that Khazar2 situation? DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite: you claim that I express an axiomatic belief that the gender imbalance is a direct result of the failure to create of an inclusive environment. Not actually so. My evidence-based belief is that change in this area is a necessary but insufficient step in closing the gender gap.
Plentiful research which shows that the women are less likely to participate in collaborative activities (whether employment, voluntary projects or social gatherings) where aggressive and.or sexist behaviour is tolerated. More specifically, studies of Wikipedia have shown many factors behind the gender imbalance among Wikipedia's editors, but one factor is that some women find that the levels of aggression and sexism exceed their tolerance levels. Women learn how to live with that sort of conduct in many aspects of our lives, but when there are many ways of spending free time, women tend to prefer to do so clear of such behaviour.
The studies are v clear that there is no single solution to increasing the participation of women. My point is that one crucial part of the solution is tackling the aggression and sexism which flourishes in some corners of Wikipedia, and which is repeatedly sanctioned at ANI.
We have just had another instance of a wholly inappropriate behaviour being not approved, but actively cheered on even by administrators. Male administrators have pronounced at great length and in extraordinary numbers about their right to make such personal attacks, and to use gratuitous obscenities. An extraordinary number have gathered to denounce requests for an end to aggression and obscenity as "censorship" or as a demand for "special privilege". I have now gathered diffs on at least half-a-dozen cases of male editors engaging the classic patronising put-downs of women who object to inappropriate behaviour, denouncing the complainant as "emotional", "irrational", etc ... and we even have an administrator who openly advised those who don't like these systemic breaches of policy to leave en.wp.
One piece by former WMF ED Sue Gardner identified Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia. And elsewhere (I can't find the ref right now), she expressed concern that recruiting more women editors was not a great idea if they were then driven away by the community's social dysfunctionalities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. You seem to imply some sort of semi-organized mass reaction as a mechanism for preserving some sort of gender-based privilege. That is off. Actually the issue is not one of gender at all, it is one of civility. Those who frame it as a gender war and rail against "male" editors not only miss the point, but they draw battle lines. Nor have you even considered the free speech implications of an external "civility" authority. In my humble opinion, that is what is driving about 75% of the defense of the current consensus on the Civility Question. As for the gender gap, it is almost definitely the byproduct of a whole array of contributing factors, many or most of which remain to be identified. An essay by Sue Gardner is no more authoritative than the post on the topic I just put up on WPO. We do not agree on much. There is news percolating of serious academic study of the question this week; that's what is needed. That also has little to do with the current brouhaha. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Carrite: I have no idea whether the reaction is organised or simply a group of people with a similar outlook and interests; my guess is most likely the latter.

I stand by my point that this is in part a gender issue. Conduct such as that displayed earlier this week is much more likely to be offputting to women than to men, and I repeat that many chunks of it followed a classic pattern of sexism and misogyny. The belittling of women's objections; the trumpeting of obscenities; the depictions of calls for more woman-friendly conduct as "special privileges" (as if male patterns behaviour was the human norm). I am not drawing the battle lines; I am pointing to the battle lines which have been drawn by those who practice and support sexist and misogynist conduct.

I am bemused that you claim to know that I have "even considered the free speech implications". A more constructive approach would be to ask my views on that. Since you merely presumed rather than asking, I will spell out my views.

Wikipedia is not and never has been a free speech zone, nor has it ever claimed to be. Some editors appear to believe that it should be, and some may even have persuaded themselves that it is such a place; but encyclopedia-building is not usenet. Wikipedia is a collaborative project with many boundaries, and there are many many restrictions on what may be said. Unrestrained speech lets the loudest and most aggressive voices drive out the others, as happened to usenet.

As a general rule, I prefer the notion of a self-managing community, tho not strongly so; it is self-managing only in a rather illusory way, as it operates with externally-set limits. However, those who want to maximise self-management and fear intervention need to ensure that it operates with the broad support of the community rather than privileging the voices of the most aggressive men. Otherwise, self-regulation loses the confidence of the wider body of editors (90% of whom stray well clear of ANI), and creates a self-reinforcing community in the image of its vocal bullies. (The more that aggression and sexism are tolerated, the less likely that those who prefer better conduct will participate, which strengthens the position of the aggressors).

So the community has a choice: clean up its own act, or face external intervention.

If it wants to keep these matters internal, the community needs to start enforcing the civility policy, clampdown on gratuitous obscenity, and tear up the free passes of the big beasts. It can devise a mechanism whereby exclusionary problems like sexism and racism are examined by people who have at least some basic training in inclusivity and non-discrimination, rather than by gangs of angry white men who make a loud noise at ANI. If it succeeds, then there will no case for external intervention.

OTOH, it the community continue as now it will reach a point where external intervention very quickly becomes unavoidable. The UK has just been through a prolonged exercise of this type with its media: decades of pleas for self-regulation were destroyed by a cascade of evidence of systematic criminality within the media. Result: Leveson Inquiry and statutory regulation.

Something similar could very easily happen here. All it takes is for a few prominent write-ups about Wikipedia as the place which praises editors who uses the c-word when talking to women and denounces those who object or try to restrain them, and the Foundation suddenly has a serious credibility crisis forcing it to make a rapid intervention to reassure its donor base that their money is being spent on building an encyclopedia rather than running a Bro Code festival or a usenet refugee camp. I hope that the Foundation will not wait for such a crisis to break, and will try to act pre-emptively.

I believe that community-only-regulation of civility is sustainable only with major reform. Those in the community who abhor external regulation need to understand that the choice is not between the status quo and big brother: it is between reform or a ceding of some control. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As some one who could be really uncivil and insulting in the Wild West of various anarchist and libertarian email lists over 17 years, I had to learn to chill it here at Wikipedia. However, a lot of male editors here are a heck of a lot more sensitive to uppity female snipes than guys on anarchist and libertarian email lists and will go yelling "WP:NPA" at the slightest hint of an insult, even if it's just their imagination. (Maybe it's the idea that some female - or anybody else for that matter - actually can rewrite or delete their work. On email one only can criticize.) I'm ambivalent about having learned to bite my tongue here and be more diplomatic. I respect diplomacy and consider it more effective than flaming. On the other hand, if the guys are allowed to have all that fun of insulting and flaming, those women who want to act like jerks and do it too should be allowed to. So please decide which way you want it guys, no double standards. Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander male gander is good for the female goose. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe a respectable established editor here would write "However, a lot of male editors here are a heck of a lot more sensitive to uppity female snipes than guys on anarchist and libertarian email lists and will go yelling "WP:NPA" at the slightest hint of an insult, even if it's just their imagination", with no example, no diffs, no evidence whatsoever against any or all of those male editors who're in the habit of yelling "WP:NPA" at the uppity female editors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carolmooredc, please don't just toss out extraordinary accusations to relieve your feelings, if that's what you did, because it's precisely such polarization that drives wedges between groups and makes the "civility wars" so toxic. As User:Seraphimblade said at the current request for an omnibus civility arbitration case, "being uncivil doesn't require the use of foul language". No, it doesn't. Your omnibus accusations are highly uncivil and can only further inflame the discussion climate. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen - People see what they want to see sometimes. My own impressionistic impression is that the number of male Wikipedians actually obsessed about "uppity female snipes" is tiny. But there are some who see the world through the lense of "gender war struggle" and they are apt to naturally interpret behavior through that prism. Similarly, just to illustrate my point, my background is in radical politics and left wing economics, and I am apt to see the world through that prism, as a struggle for primacy between self-interested castes or classes. That doesn't make anybody wrong or right, it's just that every person has a framework for conceptualizing the world, and these frameworks are going to shape perceptions. Your fundamental point is on-target, however, that espousal of what some Marxists might call "vulgar reductionism" — all men think A, all women think B; or, all capitalists think X; all workers think Y — does little more than dig trenches from which to fight a war. Carrite (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems most people are writing here in terms of their own personal experience. It’s not an article. I wrote “ a lot of" about male wikipeida editors, not all. Depending on personal experience “a lot of” can mean 5 if they seem to always bother oneself. Or 100 out of 100,000 if those 100 seem intent on bothering women in a high profile way. In my case “a lot of” means I have worked in more controversial areas where editors in general are uncivil against those who they disagree with, and more so if they are that single woman editing on the article. If feels like from my personal experience that they focus on attacking the women as if to say to the guys, “why do you editors agree with this stupid female? Are you stupid too? MAN UP!!” Or maybe that's just the way they get their jollies. I don't know. But this is just “from my personal experience” and trying to figure out what is going on and how to deal with it, the purpose of this whole big thread.

One thing that is clear is that incivility against editors, when it doesn't just drive them off, tends to shut down rational thinking, leading to long meandering discussions mired in defensiveness, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, etc. It totally disrupts the project. Figuring out the causes of incivility and showing how bogus they are will help get rid of it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WMF arbitrator for incivility cases

Regarding the idea of the WMF getting involved, I suggest having a WMF arbitrator with enhanced administrator powers, that editors can go to for help when they encounter an uncivil editor. The decision of the arbitrator could not be reversed by administrators or other editors, although an administrator could appeal to the arbitrator to change a decision. After a case is closed, the involved editors (plaintiff, defendant, and possibly a regular administrator) have the option of giving a brief review of the arbitrator. WMF management could periodically look at the editor reviews and case histories, and discuss with the arbitrator as needed.
This arbitration system for cases of incivility could be done on a trial basis for 6 months. Near the end of the trial, the Wikipedia community would have the opportunity to comment on whether it should be continued. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable suggestion, K31416. An alternate possibility would be a threshold for escalating to ArbCom - for example, if three or more administrators disagree with the decision of another administrator, then the issue at hand is automatically moved to Arbcom. That might help reduce the divisiveness of some of these issues. --129.94.102.201 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've found much incivility arises from content issues, in which case good mediation can be helpful. When it's an individual who just constantly uses clearly insulting words/phrases - especially clear slurs and curse words - admins just have to be strong and deal with it. But as I can see from the recent ANI thread "Conduct unbecoming of an administrator" discussed here, when all sorts of personal relationships/histories/etc. get involved it can be hard to have a neutral individual figure it all out. Maybe hired mediators also could have private conversations with individuals to try to figure out what the problem is. Hopefully they would not have developed various allegiances and the knowledge that a real person might talk to you some day (in a sympathetic and rational fashion) might be enough for people to control themselves a bit. The human touch, and all that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I posted some comments about the BBC's message boards, which have paid moderators, in the opening of this discussion (just ahead of the sub-section Early response from BHG & LB), which may be useful. It seems to me that there are - broadly - two ideologies, the 'toughen up' ideology and the 'duty of care' ideology. What I don't hear from the 'toughen-ups' is what we do about hearing the voice of the vulnerable, for instance those with mental health issues or those who have suffered from abuse in the past, who have valuable contributions to make. In the future, more and more developing nations are gaining access to the internet, many live in places where survival of the fittest and issues such as gender-disparity and discriminatory laws are matters of life and death / persecution etc. Shouldn't Wikipedia provide a light in the dark for them with a 'duty of care' attitude, rather than just more darkness? If not here then where? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask the women?

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

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

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

On editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could this be addressed?

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

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

Sue Rangell. I'd love to hear your tips on how to edit without being subjected to the variety of problems listed above, including wikihounding, harassment and being subjected to double standards. And how to deal with them should they occur. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force wants to generate some good essays on that topic and your insights probably could be valuable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do Carolmooredc, and very happy to help out any way I can. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of my own suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NPA discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entrenched sexism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Don't ask, don't tell" only would work if a) people weren't allowed to use names that indicated gender and b) those who had done so before be allowed to change their user names and start editing from scratch with just a note that they had a previous editing history and were an editor in good standing, with maybe a "stamp of approval" or something. But what a step backward in human consciousness that would be, eh? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of WikiLove and WikiPeace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refocus indeed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators specializing in civility issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re "Do you want a compromise negotiator or a dissident crusher?" — Neither. I want the admin/arbitrator to look at the diffs presented by the plaintiff, get the views of the plaintiff and defendant, and determine whether there has been incivility. If the admin/arbitrator determines there has been incivility, the admin/arbitrator would remove it. If the defendant restores it, then the defendant will be blocked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bob K31416 - (redacting, I didn't read well enough...) In other words, no examination of the underlying editorial dispute which caused the outburst, no examination of the questions of past history, or stalking, or provocation... Just a couple diffs (out of any context) followed by a quick ruling as to whether on the face of it the comments were "uncivil" and "blockable"... A bright line, like 3RR, that shall not be crossed for any reason? I can't imagine a hardline mandate like that gaining widespread support even among the administrative caste. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Carrite redacted after noting the part, "get the views of the plaintiff and defendant". Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

A modest proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't the problem Hasteur, it is the solution. The proposed board would no more need administrators imposing sanctions that the DRN. DRN, as part of its guideline for volunteers, tells us that we are to assist in recommending the proper venue and if that be administrative action, it would be directed to AN or ANI. We even toyed around a bit be literally transferring threads over to other notice boards when it was just a content disputes or RS to the RS Noticeboard. Conflict is no different...it can be handled without the board needing an admin to do anything. None of the boards really work that way.

I know a lot of people don't want "yet another board", but some think this is needed...but I would not call it the civility board. I would model it after DRN because that has worked, but in a simpler form and call it the Conflict resolution noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think that habitually uncivil editors are going to suddenly shape up and become paragons of civility just because an editor at a noticeboard told them to behave, I've got some nice oceanfront property in the middle of Kansas that I'd love to sell you. At this point the rot is so pervasive that we need sanctions application/enforcement that sticks much the same way that ArbCom sanctions stick. Hasteur (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "yet another board": As I mentioned when I first asked about the existence of a civility board, I commented on how many other boards there are. Why have separate COI and paid advocacy boards? Or separate sockpuppet, username and vandalism boards? Those first two could be merged, as could the other three. Since we have civility policies, room ought to be made for a Civility board - to address civility policies only. (Make people take disruptive and tendentious editing, and other guideline or essay based conduct) to ANI or ArbCom, just as they do now, because those are harder to prove.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, It appears that your suggestion is to teach editors to be civil. How would you do that, especially if an editor isn't receptive to being taught? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

First thing I would do is improve and streamline new editor recruitment and retention by developing a slick registration process that explains the importance and necessity of civility, and explains where to go if you run into problems and how to deal with issues. Right now, we've basically got children telling adults how to do this, which is backasswards. So to summarize, the introduction for new editors should encapsulate this process. Second thing you do is spend 30 days analyzing the dispute resolution process and how to improve it and make it more efficient and more importantly, more effective. This means, essentially, that anyone who is interested in DR or goes through it, should come away with improved DR skills. For me, this is the heart of the problem. Users aren't learning how to be better editors; the site is more focused on "fighting" vandalism and reporting trouble. This is a huge waste of time for everyone. As for editors who aren't receptive to being taught, I've run into this several times, and for the most part these editors were highly educated and intelligent, but intentionally stood in the way of progress and behavior change. In at least one incident, the editor was indefinitely blocked and continued socking; in another, the editor abandoned their account and started a new one, but continues their bad behavior at this time. Putting aside the obvious mental health and competency problems that may arise, I believe that most editors are capable of being taught. Humans are, after all, learning machines. Although I am by no means familiar with educational technology or teaching in general, in my own experience, several factors can prevent learning, including a) bad habits, and b) poor listening (or reading) skills. If you can address both of those, then I'm sure we can make progress on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding new editors and civility, I've had similar thoughts. The basic idea is that trying to change the behavior of experienced uncivil Wikipedians may be impossible in most cases because they are set in their ways, but new editors would be more possible to influence before they join the uncivil combative subculture. However, I think that a large majority of new editors are civil and remain civil during their Wikipedia editing, so that it may be inappropriate to stress civility with all new editors, relative to the other four of the five pillars.
• Regarding DR, it takes a special temperament and aptitude to engage in that, somewhat like a lawyer litigating for oneself. It may be hard to get around that. However, if there were volunteer Wikipedians who were willing to advocate in DR for editors who don't have the temperament or aptitude to do so themselves, that might level the playing field. I think almost everyone who comes to Wikipedia wants to work on articles, rather than to get into conflicts. The conflicts may be a very unpleasant surprise for new editors. It may start with the first of their edits that is abruptly or rudely reverted.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We're definitely on the same page. What's the next step? Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that your idea of teaching editors to be civil and the two bulleted items in my last message might be addressed by the same method, i.e. volunteer advocates who are skilled in DR and civil in their style. An editor (new or experienced) who encounters a problem editor could request help from such an advocate. New editors (and maybe experienced editors too) might learn how to approach problems with problem editors by the example of the advocate who is civil in style. The editors who are helped might eventually be able to handle future encounters with uncivil editors without becoming uncivil themselves. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Chillum, I am not suggesting doing away with wikipedia blocking people but at the very least the current admin system, with its 2 classes of wikipedians and endless power disputes, needs utterly overhauling so of course it is a serious suggestion, what does this comment of yours say about your openness to other and perhaps radical solutions? Can't even take them seriously, sigh! We need to look seriously at other solutions and IMO unless this voluntary work place starts to become less and not more authoritarian it certainly wont attract women and minority groups to participate more♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The admin class should be eliminated completely, and the various tools granted on an individual basis the way rollback, reviewer, etc., are done. In this way most Wikipedians will have the tools they need for those areas of the project that they work on, without anyone being able to feel that they are better or lesser than anyone else. Besides, the admin request process is a horrible horrible procedure that I wouldn't wish on anybody. It is broken and needs to be replaced with something better. Manytimes the requests are denied when the user really only wanted one or two of the tools. For example some have wanted the ability to lock pages as part of their anti vandalism duties, and have no interest in blocking or unblocking anyone, but they can't have it because they have to become an admin to get the one tool and simply don't want to go through that grueling process... --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Chillum (talk · contribs): We don't need the anarchy that is the current admin system. It is a major part of Wikipedia's problems. This huge body of loose cannon legacy admins, appointed for life, act on individual whim with no centralised control and not even a mission statement or constitution to guide them. Additionally, these admins have assigned for their own exclusive use nearly ALL of the additional tools that should have been distributed to the experienced users who need them. Most admins are not equipped for, and should not be given the ability to block long term productive content builders. Further, the views of incumbent admins should carry little weight in discussions on this matter, since they are too highly invested in the status quo. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Sue Rangell (talk · contribs): I entirely agree with your sensible comments. However these matters have been thrashed out many times before, and never get anywhere because the huge body of legacy admins, together with their retinues, always have the controlling edge when these matters are put to the vote. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Why is Wikipedia Sexist"

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

The lede reads:

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

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

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

@Smallbones - Well, that's a swell POV headline. Here's how Yale Sociology professor Dr. Julia Adams, one of the grant recipients, describes the project on her own university page:

"In 2013, Adams was awarded a two-year National Science Foundation grant for collaborative research with Hannah Brueckner (Associate Dean of Social Science, NYU-Abu Dhabi) on “Wikipedia and the Democratization of Academic Knowledge.” The investigators are exploring gender-specific patterns of representation of scholars and scholarship. One of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Wikipedia." LINK.

Very reasonable. Then again, we could all get worked into a tizzy about a headline in the Washington Free Beacon, I suppose... Carrite (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

  I could argue with equal validity that it seems pretty obvious to most people except a small, very loud group among us, that there is no problem. Eric Corbett 19:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Leaving this off-topic discussion of Marxism, Phillip Larkin, and so on here but closed so that we can get back on track discussing the main issue.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The real "reactionary" view is that people still think that sex and gender exist. They don't. They're just tools created by the capitalist classes to divide the people, pure products of biological essentialism and social darwinism. Humanity must stand united in the face of capitalist classes. Anyone that believes that there is such a thing as a "man" or "woman" apart from the simple "human" is a fool. This discussion that's been going on is sheer proof that the capitalist classes are succeeding in their misdirection of the masses. RGloucester — ☎ 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Serious? Are you saying that sexes did not exist before the capitalist class arose? How do you know it is your analysis, that does not suffer from a false consciousness? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) See The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884) by Engles. But actually, as far as Glouster's main thesis - I'll have to ask my wife :-) Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC) ... and then they invented sex in 1963? - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC) . . . Perhaps? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC) The English were a bit slow. In Ireland it was invented when we got television, which was on 31 December 1961. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Hail me as human, and so shall I hail you. Hail me as woman, and how can I hail you but as man? Such is the efficacy of semiotic division. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Sex and gender have existed since before Homo sapiens and will continue to exist, until the end of time. They may become equal, bu differences will always be present beyond simple anatomy. KonveyorBelt 21:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Sorry, mine was an attempt at humour - Larkin's Annus Mirabilis says (approx) "sexual intercourse was invented in 1963, just too late for me". His This Be The Verse has long been a standard text in UK schools etc and, curiously given the present contretemps, contains a certain word in its opening line. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Sadly, I don't think This Be The Verse has ever been standard in UK schools. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC) For anyone who didn't follow the link, so was mine. The anti-semitic, fascist-sympathising politician Oliver J. Flanagan claimed that "there was no sex in Ireland before television". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC) I followed the link and had a bit of a giggle, thanks - that guy had passed me by. With all the recent kerfuffles, a bit of witty banter etc should be allowed even if we ain't a social network ;) Can we all lighten up a bit for, say, 10 minutes at least? - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC) @Sitush: Christmas 1914 :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Gloucester may be right. The Soviets didn't have sex until 1985, with the advent of Perestroika, learning about it from Phil Donohue. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

...ah the classic put down "please do not be so dramatic." That there is a severe problem in the editing experience for women is not under debate, as studies are underway to find out why the problem exists. As for the "discussion" regarding BHG's reversal, it will be drawn out until it is judged stale, and tabled per standard practice here, and (to SqueakBox) the comment about "more authoritarian" is inaccurate inasmuch as I advocate dumping the entire admin corps, replacing them with selected volunteers and WMF-paid facilitators with a gender balanced makeup. We need to fix Wikipedia or lose it, and continuing on as we have been is no longer an option. Jusdafax 19:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jusdafax says I advocate dumping the entire admin corps, replacing them with selected volunteers and WMF-paid facilitators with a gender balanced makeup.

The admin corps already are selected volunteers. And the gender make-up of admins has a larger female percentage than the gender make-up of editors.

As to WMF-paid facilitators, this would indeed (potentially) be a good use of WMF funds, however a lower bar might be set by getting WMF to fund some proper facilitator, mediator and arbitrator training.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

User:Jusdafax, I agree about getting rid of admins entirely with some paid WMF members to perhaps do any blocking that is vital to the well-being of the encyclopedia and hopefully done in a way to minimize authoritarian attitudes which are never pleasant in a voluntary working environment♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's so clear cut that there's a severe problem then why has nobody yet been able to provide any evidence? Eric Corbett 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it a classic put down? You're being dramatic, making fictional claims and overegging the pudding. What is worse is that you have not addressed my challenge of two of the dramatic points you raised and you've dodged round the third. Would you prefer that I strike "so dramatic" and replace with "such a liar"? - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: I suggest that you invest in a dictionary or consult a free online one. Merriam Webster defines "impunity" as "exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss". The editor who used the c-word and dismissed the complaint as irrational and brainless was indeed exempted from punishment at ANI, as were those who supported his conduct. Yet you choose to apply the label "liar" to the editor who used the word "impunity". Are you trying to outdo Eric as a poster-child for community's failure to restrain even the most blatant incivility? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: there is a widely documented phenomenon that women who complain about inappropriate male behaviour are put down by being accused of over-reaction, hyper-sensitivity, being emotional, or (in its most extreme form) as "hysterical". I do not intend to post a pile of references here: go do some homework.

@Eric: your repeated demands for "evidence" are at best disingenuous. There have been plenty of studies in plenty of contexts demonstrating that women are less likely than men to engage in environments which include aggression, profanity and abusiveness. There are studies specifically of Wikipedia which document how women are put off by the behaviour of some editors. You choose either to ignore all that evidence, or leave your self unfamiliar with it. An editor who is capable of writing featured articles is quite capable of doing the mininmal research required to familiarise yourself with this, but you choose not to do so.

Eric and his defenders have been demanding specific evidence that their abusiveness has driven away identifiable editors. Eric's test requires that people who give up editing or decide not to start editing take the time to explain their reasons in some location easily accessible to Wikipedia editors. It takes very little imagination to understand why that does not often happen.

More fundamentally, Eric and his enablers are engaged in a FUD exercise of trying to invert the burden of proof. The repeated use of intentionally obscene and offensive sexist terminology is not tolerated in most workplaces or in most social settings, nor is blatant personal insult such as accusing other people of being both irrational and brainless. The onus lies on Eric and his enablers to justify their desire to behave on Wikipedia in a manner which would not be tolerated in other environments, and which in many would count as gross misconduct.

Despite being a skilled writer who repeatedly demonstrates his ability express himself clearly, Eric repeatedly chooses to express himself aggressively and/or obscenely, in blatant contravention both of Wikipedia's civility policies and the WMF's terms of service.

I have had enough of playing the game according to the rules set by Eric and his small but vocal band of enablers. The WMF has clear terms of service which explicitly require editors to support a civil environment, and it has a non discrimination policy which commits the foundation across all its projects to the principle of equal opportunity. Eric and his enablers are engaged in an entrenched pattern of action which breaches both the terms of service and the non-discrimination policy, and community processes have failed to uphold these policies even in the case of a flagrant and repeated breach.

The WMF has traditionally relied on the community itself to uphold Foundation policy, and that approach largely works well with BLPs, legal threats, privacy etc. However it fails with civility, and I could flood the page with diffs of editors (including admins) who explicitly insist that civility policy should not be enforced. That's why I want the WMF to find new ways of ensuring that its policies are upheld. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: ok, I see. In that case, for "dramatic" please feel free to substitute "such a liar", pending some informed suggestion of an alternate description. The claims made were false in one aspect, misrepresentative in another and unproven in the third. It's unfortunate that bluntness has to be substituted due to a completely unfounded characterisation of my intent. The only way to be sure of avoiding upsetting people here would seem to be to say nothing. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: As I noted above where you first chose describe another editor as a "liar", I suggest that you invest in a dictionary or consult a free online one. Merriam Webster defines "impunity" as "exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss". The editor who used the c-word and dismissed the complaint as irrational and brainless was indeed exempted from punishment at ANI, as were those who supported his conduct. Yet you choose to apply the label "liar" to the editor who used the word "impunity". Are you trying to outdo Eric as a poster-child for the community's failure to restrain even the most blatant incivility? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I came here to comment on Jimmy's page to Jimmy. The subsequent rhetorical hostility is exactly what I and others, including those now studying Wikipedia's editing climate, are referring to. Jusdafax 20:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Or maybe it is just that the bluff in your rantings has been called? I know that there isn't a requirement to provide evidence here but, really, when you come out with the sort of statements that you have done it probably would assist your case if you did. And you haven't, at least in part because they're plain misrepresentations. If you think that I'm going to get a thesaurus and a "dictionary of misogynistic words" out every time I write something, just in case I would otherwise unwittingly offend you, then you have another think coming. Feel free to suggest an alternative, accurate word for "dramatic", though. And to amend your use of "corruption". You've gone way too far, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Sitush: words which cause offence degrade communication and impede resolution of the substantive topics under consideration. That's one of the reasons why they are banned in all forms of parliamentary proceedings and in most offices. A person who strives for effective communication does so in many ways, and one component in any context is to try to develop an understanding of what terminology causes offence, and avoid it. It is your choice whether you do that by studying lists of words or by learning as you go, but in a massively diverse environment like Wikipedia great care is needed. There will be plenty of occasions where terminology inadvertently causes offence, and those situations are very easily avoided: apologise, withdraw the remark, and move on. That is what a normal, functioning adult does in any society ... but sadly Wikipedia has a small but vocal core of editors who intentionally flout those basic social conventions. When challenged they complain of being persecuted or censored, and in some cases set out to wilfully repeat the offence -- as we saw with the editors who repeated the c-word.

One of the most notable things about all of this is that the editors concerned to take great care avoid those type of offensive terminology which the community does support sanctions against, for example racist or anti-semitic language. The fact that editors such as Sitush openly refuse to exercise the same self-restraint in respect of misogynistic terminology is very revealing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what it reveals is that some people are hypersensitive and perhaps even delusional. They are seeing things that are not there. For example, ANI is often referred to as a "drama board" - are there really so many female editors contributing to the drama there? I would have used the same word if Jimbo had posted that comment. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There's another diff for the collection. We are discussing the gratuitous and repeated use of a word widely defined as obscene, extremely vulgar and misogynistic ... and you choose to respond in classic misogynist fashion by accusing the complainants of being "hypersensitive and perhaps even delusional".

You brilliantly illustrate the case for WMF intervention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yuk. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Sitush to behave better or stay off my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why Sitush? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that just after your warning to Sitush, one of our best admins, Boing! said Zebedee, has blocked himself indefinitely with the parting comment "I don't want to be part of this community any more". --Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I would like to ask why Sitush as well, there doesn't seem to be a clear reasoning for singling out a single editor in this can-of-warms discussion. There are far better people who would deserve the warning, but even if there were, I wouldn't want you to do that in any case. Asking one party to stay away from the discussion they're involved in seems a bit out of place to me. Tutelary (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It rains. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• The vague "sexist" headline conflates two different issues: imbalance among editors, and imbalance in coverage. I don't argue about the former, although the picture is much more even when you look at heavy content-creators (which it would be nice if these people could study), but I'm much less certain about the other. Before and after being Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society (the UK's National academy of science) I've been involved in events based around Women in Science, which tend to be a good deal more successful than such events on other themes. There is a lot of loose talk about Wikipedia's coverage underrepresenting women in science, but if this was ever the case it ceased to be so a good while ago. I set out the only hard evidence I know on the subject in my WMUK/WMF blogpost a couple of months ago. I'd be interested to see if they produce any other evidence-based studies, for example on the American academy. I'm sure there is imbalance in other content areas - fashion is very poorly covered, and I am (bizarrely to anyone who has met me) one of the more active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion. Though I've always thought Noam Cohen's Sopranos vs Sex in the City comparison completely useless - the former ran twice as long per episode, with about 8 times as many characters, all of whom had complicated back-stories, usually involving them or their relatives murdering the relatives of other characters, all of which needs some explaining. User:Wiki at Royal Society John/ Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo, Sitush has asked what you meant by "conduct yourself with more honor".[23] I would like to know too. When you use your heft against an ordinary user with such phrasing, it would seem honorable to be prepared to explain what it means. To justify it, if you like. People ask others to stay away from their talkpage all the time, often with scant respect for the natural justice of letting people answer allegations against them; that's not such a big deal. But saying that a user is behaving dishonorably is different. Please explain. Sitush will leave a big hole in one of the most unmanageable parts of the encyclopedia if you drive him off. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

• Jimbo, if anything Bish puts it mildly. If you drive him off, if your post is the proverbial straw, you have no idea how big a hole it will leave in an important area of Wikipedia. Those of us who work there know just how painfully difficult it is to maintain many of the articles with even a semblance of neutrality and verifiability. You should be thanking him for all his good work. You certainly should have made yourself aware of it, including the problems we are having with an organisation that claims to have thousands of accounts, before criticising him. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. The rush to defend Sitush is interesting. Seems very clear from reading Sitush’s above exchange with BHG what Jimbo was referring to….yet people are acting incredulous, demanding an explanation, and are acting super concerned that Sitush might be “driven off”. This is actually even more interesting in the context of a discussion regarding women editors being driven off in mass by the exact sort of conduct that Sitush engages in above and in the section Why not ask the women to the point that we have such an extreme gender gap on Wikipedia (approximately 90% male editors). I can't comment on Sitush's good work elsewhere because my contact with him is actually limited to the above exchanges and to his popping in on the gender gap task force page, not to address the serious issue of the gender gap, but instead to engage in off-topic insults and criticism of a task force member. [24] It’s interesting that people are so concerned with Sitush being "driven off" while the behavior he is being admonished for appears to be the exact sort of thing that often drives female editors off and Jimbo corrected Sitush in a more polite and civil way than it appears Sitush uses with others (at least with respect to above exchanges and his contributions on gender gap task force). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@User:BoboMeowCat: Huh what? I wasn't defending Sitush, I was criticising Jimbo. There was nothing polite and civil about his "correction" of Sitush, it was insulting and pompous. Correction is an interesting choice of word by you btw — shades of Victorian governesses and old-time heavy fathers. Is that the kind of authority figure you see Jimbo as, and pay deference to? But you're right to emphasise how little you know of the matter. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I was actually responding to multiple comments made regarding Sitush and not just you personally, but either way it seems Jimbo can ask people to behave better or stay off his talk page without it being related to "shades of Victorian governesses and old-time heavy fathers". This is his talk page. Personally, I didn't find what Jimbo wrote pompous and insulting, while I did find what Sitush wrote to BHG and in the sections I linked above to be pompous and insulting. I have no problem emphasizing that I don't know much about Sitush in general, as my interaction with him is limited to this talk page and to the gender gap task force talk page, but I think it’s notable that Sitush has publicly expressed interest in seeing the Gender gap task force disbanded [25]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree to a certain extent with his position on civility, but Sitush's general conduct on caste-related articles has been extremely civil; that is, he's consistently able to tell people why their proposals won't go without belittling them and quite matter-of-factly. All this in the face of sustained and deeply unpleasant attacks. Throwing the book at him does not suggest whatever's going on here will be very fruitful. Choess (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Choess is absolutely right - Sitush conducts himself with honor and civility in the fact of continued personal attacks, false accusations of criminal activities and even death hreats. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I understand the annoyance at realizing that "conduct yourself with more honor" means "stop saying things Jimbo doesn't agree with", and that "civility from thee but not from me" is a deeply ingrained Wikipedian philosophy, but really, Jimbo is doing Sitush a favor. It is never a good use of time to post to this page. Ever. (Well, except for me right now.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well let's take a look. Sitush said some fairly silly and unhelpful things (""BHG was not reversed with impunity" when of course she was (discussions rumbling on are not a punishment) and furthermore Judasfax is "such a liar" for saying this true thing, and some other things) but also some pretty offensive things. "I think your feminist bias is showing" for instance, and "a fork for feminist Wikipedia might really be your only option" (he doesn't think it would work well, because, you know: women).

Well I don't know. Sure, you can criticize feminism at the margins. Andrea Dworkin and whatnot. You can argue about what feminism really means, at the level of details. But Sitush's not doing that. The basic core of mainstream feminism, I guess, is along the lines of "Women have equal rights, and equal standing with men as human beings, and rate equal consideration as human beings" and this is what Sitush is criticizing. I mean that's what I gather. If he's got another point he could have made that, but he didn't. He's not saying "so-called feminism which is not really feminism" or like that; he's saying "feminist" and he sure as heck seems to mean "feminist" (actually I think it's a lot worse and in context he seems to mean just "womanly" but let's give him a break).

Where I come from (I come from the European Enlightenment as manifested in the present day; I recommend a visit) "I think your feminist bias is showing" in the context Sitush said it is roughly equivalent to "I think your race-mixing bias is showing" and so on, so these are fairly inflammatory sentiments, yes.

I dunno. "You're obviously a feminist, so I discount your arguments" is awfully close in essence and sentiment in this context to "you're obviously a woman, so I discount your arguments". Is that an OK argument to make? Hmmm. I do think that Sitush's arguments have their place. The problem is, their place is 1957. It's hard to get there from here. Things change. It's hard to keep up but you got to keep up, you know? You got to.

This is a serious issue and a serious problem, so Sitush should get serious if he wants to engage. Maybe there's no easy solution to this problem. Maybe there's no solution at all. Maybe any solution would introduce other problems (most solutions do) and maybe these problems would be worse than the original problem, and so on. All of these are reasonable and helpful things to think and say. Denying that there's a problem is not reasonable or helpful, particularly when it's done with egregious offensiveness. So let's not do that. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus. Way to chuck the gasoline on there by failing to WP:AGF. Everybody loves popcorn, right? Carrite (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but it is quite "dishonorable" to continue badmouthing someone on a page they are no longer allowed to post on. Somehow I doubt Jimbo is going to ban Herostratus, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not overstate the situation. Sitush is still allowed to post on this page and I don't see that anybody's been banned.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I banned Situs from my talk page for repeated unpleasant comments months ago, so I have to sympathize with the user page owner. Of course Sitush keeps posting there anyway and insulting me for banning him[26]. Sigh... But I'm an optimist and maybe he'll take to heart Mr. Wales' comment here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That being said, Sitush was never banned from this page and it feels like propagating an urban myth to imply that he was. Floquenbeam described this as "a page they are no longer allowed to post on" which isn't true. An understandable mistake, but saying Herostratus was talking about someone who couldn't respond isn't fair comment regarding what actually happened. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, unless I missed something, Sitush seems confused about being accused of uploading kiddie porn. Doing a quick search of WP:ANI archives I saw July 29 an individual from Indians against Corruption (as in India) reported at ANI that the group had gone to WikiFoundation to complain about Sitush's allegedly libelous editing on their groups article. Something the Foundation obviously won't do anything about though the group could always pursue action against an individual editor. Then, in the next sentence of the same paragraph, the individual mentioned an entirely separate issue, which was the group's complaint to Indian authorities about child pornography on Wikimedia and Wikipedia India sites. The guy was banned for reporting/advocating(?) that and, I believe, for allegedly being a sock puppet of someone else who'd made legal threats. But in the thread Sitush sounded as if this was the first time he had heard this accusation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Harping on about possible claims that a named editor is associated with child porn is an extreme personal attack by smear. However, it is easy to understand Sitush's response on reading what he was responding to: "Notice has been issued to both WM Foundation and Sitush by the Govt of India to defend the allegations that they have uploaded these child pornography images on an organised and systematic scale." (diff) Anyone can examine commons:Special:Contributions/Sitush and verify that the claim is a complete fabrication and nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My post made the point amply clear that it was not an accusation against him and that the accusation was against Wikimedia in India. Thus he misunderstood. If he keeps telling people he was accused, some might think there's something to it and he actually is hurting himself. Understand now? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My message was short—how could you miss "and Sitush"? Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Since your message started with a false accusation, I didn't read it carefully after the first sentence since it seemed like "here we go again." Originally, the material was removed from the thread and it can be hard to track such things down. Or maybe because I didn't notice that the linked complaint to Indian govt mentioned "Sitush". In any case the statement sounds more like the accusor was just tying to freak Sitush out.

If Sitush is going to complain about a serious accusation that is going to make him quit the project, especially on this page, and in the middle of a hot debate on other issues, it's probably helpful to provide enough details to make it clear why an accusation is false to avoid future misunderstandings of all kinds. And not to scare other editors that in the future someone can make such false accusations that can hurt them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexism on Wikipedia

Doubt I'll be commenting here - maybe, but it looks like I may be busy for awhile elsewhere. Since there were numerous calls for evidence of sexism on Wikipedia... The one by Lam et al. is about the gender gap/imbalance, which is related, IMO, and the others are worth a read:

• Bort, Julie (February 15, 2014). "A Growing Army Of Women Are Taking On Wikipedia's Sexism Problem". Business Insider. Retrieved August 1, 2014.
• Filipacchi, Amanda (April 30, 2103). "Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor'". Atlantic. Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved August 1, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM. Retrieved July 30, 2014. RQ3: Gender-Conflict hint at a culture that may be resistant to female participation.
• Leonard, Andrew (April 29, 2013). "Wikipedia's shame Sexism isn't the problem at the online encyclopedia. The real corruption is the lust for revenge". Salon Media Group. Retrieved August 1, 2014. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |title= at position 18 (help)
• Zandt, Deanna (April 26, 2013). "Yes, Wikipedia is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You". Forbes. Retrieved August 1, 2014.
• Zevallos, Zuleyka (June 8, 2014). "Sexism on Wikipedia: Why the #YesAllWomen Edits Matter". othersociologist.com (blog). Zuleyka Zevallos. Retrieved August 1, 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, I've been working on a big list for a separate resources page on WP:GGTF. Maybe we should just start it now and start putting the material in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

One of those articles argues that the creation of Category:American women novelists was a sign of sexism. I was always under the impression that feminists themselves preferred to edit women's articles and make categories for them (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History), like outside Wikipedia there is a feminist academic subject women's history that separates womens' historiography from men's too. So, you probably have a more queer-oriented feminist calling a more traditional one sexist. The Forbes article claims "vandalism of women's pages" is a sign of sexism, but it's not like only women's pages are vandalized. For such a claim, you would have to study the frequency of vandalism on different pages and directly identify a pattern of sexist vandalism. Besides, vandals are usually anonymous, non-frequent IP editors that in my mind atleast are not considered part of the Wikipedia community. Apparently it's very easy to construct this narrative of "we have a problem, yes we do!" with disregard to rational analysis. It all has a very shallow American activist feel to it.--Pudeo' 13:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue may be near and dear to many -- including those who keep mute for fear of retribution -- so unless someone can substantiate that the issue is "shallow", I'd say to avoid referring to it in that way. I'm also unclear why this has an "American activist" feel to it, but I haven't tried to figure out who lives where. Yes, Lightbreather's examples appear to be written by Americans, but in my mind, the issue isn't American-centric at all. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If you need a key example of the sexist culture of Wikipedia, check out the discussions on Talk:2014 Isla Vista massacre, where a contingent of editors are refusing to categorise it as misogynist violence because "men died too", in contravention to the vast majority of reliable sources… Sceptre ^(talk) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see any great failing with the lead of the piece as it sits at this moment. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Lam et al. piece is actually an academic study, as opposed to the mainstream media echo chamber with sexy headlines assuming "sexism," so let's look at that, shall we? I found this interesting: "Females are now more likely than males to participate in some social media sites such as Facebook or MySpace [footnote 28]. In addition, females are more likely to tweet (10% of females, 7% of males), and teenage girls are more likely to blog (25% of girls, 15% of boys) [footnotes 23, 15]." (Lam pg. 2) That's clearly a "gender gap" in blogging, but opposite of Wikipedia's. Lemme see, what does that work out to? Assuming equal gender populations (i.e. slightly underestimating the female percentage) that would be a male-to-female ratio of 37.5 to 62.5 — in contrast to WP's gender gap of roughly 85:15 the other direction. Interesting, yes?

There is also identified a gender gap in WP readership, more males than females reading (56% v. 50% of internet users by gender, respectively). (Lam, pg. 2.) So our expected editorial parity level would not be 50:50, it would be more like, by my math with the same proviso as above, something like 53:47 male:female. Also interesting. It probably implies a higher perceived usefulness of WP to males than females, just guessing.

In any event, the mainstream media's use of the words 'Wikipedia" and "sexism" in a headline mean zero. If people are interested in really understanding the gender gap, there's plenty of research and theorization remaining to be done... Carrite (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of some editors' opinions, mainstream media is a reliable source. There was a call for evidence, not proof. There is evidence. If it's not enough for some, they can wait for more evidence, or proof, or whatever it is that might convince them. Lightbreather (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Academic study by Antin et al. "Gender Differences in Wikipedia Editing." The study is based on the stats of the first 3 weeks of a new user's account. Perhaps the most significant finding is that male editors tend to make an edit followed by revisions to that edit, whereas women tend to make single, larger edits and less revisions (perhaps suggesting they work on the edit elsewhere and add it when they feel it is good enough / ready). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you referring to the article by Amanda Filipacchi for The Atlantic as one of those from the mainstream media echo chamber with sexy headlines assuming "sexism,"? The article debunks the social media echo chamber myth that her experience was the work of a single editor, she goes on to provide gave a full list of edits. If she were taking part in this debate and gave a list of diffs would her words carry more weight with you? If it is just the word "sexism" in the headline that you find objectionable what headline would you put on the article? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP "Gender Gap" as an aspect of normalcy

The underlying assumption in analyzing the gender gap at Wikipedia is that since the population as a whole is 51% female, and the number of female editors is 15% (in very rough figures, bumping up a little to account for natural underreporting), then obviously there is some massive entrenched sexist cultural dynamic that is driving this disparity. If only we were more civil and welcoming and reach out to women as a group, the theory goes, this disparity will vanish in short order. WMF's target is for a 25% female editor count by 2015, obviously they think that quick cultural shift and targeted recruiting can make short work of the gap...

I grabbed this week's issue of that bulwark of the mainstream media, Time magazine, yesterday. Inside, a piece by Eliana Dockterman, "Cracking the Girl Code: Tech Giants Bet on Summer Camps to Close Their Gender Gap" (US edition, v. 184, n. 6, pp. 44-46). Apropos, yes? A couple lines jumped out at me. "In June [2014], after revealing that only 17% of its engineers were women, Google launched a site called Made With Code that features free programming projects for girls. The company pledge $50 million [i.e. about equal to WMF's entire annual budget] to programs like Girls Who Code." (pg. 46). And also: "At present, only 12% of computer science degrees go to women." (Ibid.)

Rather than seeing WP's 85:15 split as something uniquely wrong with the culture of the project, I argue that it is part of a larger general malaise. Wikipedia is not an atypical "sexist" place so much as it is a reflection of the state of the tech industry today, I believe. This gap is only going to gradually fade over a decade or a generation, as there are big issues in the educational process which are driving it.

One other interesting line that caught my eye is this. Speaking about Maria Klawe of Harvey Mudd College in California and her efforts to get her school's percentage of female computer science graduates from 10% up to about 40% in 7 years:

"Klawe implemented some of he strategies that Girls Who Code now emulates: both programs emphasize problem-solving real-world issues because girls tend to want to help their communities. The programs also assign group projects because research shows that girls flourish when they collaborate with others." (Ibid.)

I pass this along for what it's worth without comment. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that we don't necessarily need to worry about the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, because it is something that affects all forms of software engineering, broadly speaking. The trouble with this analysis, though, is that editing Wikipedia is not in essence a form of software engineering. Formerip (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The gender disparity is a problem with the tech field as a whole, not just software. KonveyorBelt 17:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is true, although it probably depends on what you mean by "the tech field as a whole". In any case, there's no reason to think that what happens on Wikipedia should reflect what happens in "the tech field". Formerip (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Women and girls all over the world are encouraged to contribute to their own household, where the public sphere is left to the men. Since a large portion of Wikipedia editors are in the US, you would think this wouldn't be an issue. However, the US women in public roles are encouraged to put a lot of emphasis on how they look as opposed to what they accomplish. I'm referring to women in powerful positions who end up on the news, with a story about their hair and what they were wearing. Very rarely does society treat men this way. It takes a lot more time and effort for a woman to make it out the door and into public space because she has to take care of her family, take care of herself, do a lot of unnecessary hair removal and other unnecessary cosmetic changes that other people don't have to worry about, then she has to waste a lot of energy defending her right to even be out in public. By the time you do all that, and make a living, that leaves very little time to devote to the improvement of public space in real life, much less a virtual public space out in the digital world. Women are exhausted. Or at least I am. USchick (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@FormerIP - You don't see any similarity between writing wiki markup language and writing code? You haven't noticed the high percentage of very active Wikipedians that are software industry people? Carrite (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that similarity and I notice the high percentage (even if I don't know exactly what that percentage is). But I think both of those things are beside the point. A narrative that says we don't need to worry because Google has the same problem recruiting coders is basically junk, because the two things do not make a good comparison. Formerip (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is a really similar phenomenon. I think the query asked of JW below might be telling — if Wikia is a 50:50 gender split, my theory is stuffed. But I'll bet you it's in the same general ballpark as WP. Do you have one american dollar to wager on the proposition? I'd offer an over/under of 20% female on Wikia and feel safe betting the under, want that action? Carrite (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't exactly go to bed contented knowing that we are doing better than Wikia (I'd be surprised if we are not). I'd be interested in the answer, but not in the bet. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales - Here's a good question for you: what's the gender gap at Wikia??? Carrite (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this source, [27] less than 15% are women. Compare that to 20% of US women in government. [28] Compare that to 39% of women in Canadian government and 46% in Burundi. lol I think I prefer having more women in government. USchick (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That article talks about Wikipedia, not Wikia. BethNaught (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Wikipedia already is ahead of the curve. The Foundation wants the project to be 25% in the next few years[29]; the media thinks it's a great idea; I'm sure most women thinks it's a good idea; the Wikimedia foundation is funding related projects, Wikimedia has a Gender gap project; En.Wikipedia has a Gender gap task force; other projects and task forces have them. These efforts are the new normal. Get use to it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So there's a gender gap consistent with the gender gaps found elsewhere in online communities, so what? What problems are being caused by this gender gap? What content are we missing that we might otherwise have? And I have to say that I find your claim to be speaking for "most women" to be breathtaking. The issue of equal employment opportunities is of course an important one for companies such as Google to address, but I'm certainly not being paid here. Are you? Eric Corbett 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So there's a gender gap consistent with the gender gaps found elsewhere in online communities

This statement seems to me to be unsupported by evidence. What we can say is that there's a gender gap. Formerip (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to look at the evidence, both for the claimed gender gap and for it being an unusual Internet phenomenon even if it were true. Which I very much doubt. Eric Corbett 20:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No rush though. As long as I have looked at the evidence before I start making claims about how WP compares to other online communities, everything should be OK. Formerip (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc - Per the source you cite and elsewhere, the WMF gender target has been and is 25% female by 2015, not "in the next few years." The needle has moved not at all in this regard, as far as I'm aware, best efforts and targeted funding notwithstanding. I believe that the reason for this failure is not because of the random obnoxiousness of a few Wikipedians, but rather due to bigger issues that involve the entire tech industry and probably also fundamental and lasting differences between the internet interests and activities of males and females. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I also find the previous comment speaking on behalf of all women and the hostile tone "breathtaking" and not at all representative of women anywhere. I'd like to attempt to answer the question about what content is missing. In history, the conqueror lives to tell his story as history, erasing any previous version, and destroying the monuments and history of any previous culture. When it comes to women, when half of the population is silenced, everyone suffers. There's detailed history about all kinds of wars, but very little history about cultural customs and traditions (mostly passed on by women from one generation to another as oral history). When ancient battles were fought, men were killed and women were taken as wives by the victors. So women were valuable property, but their histories were wiped out. That's why we have no idea what ancient civilizations did or why it was important. That's how someone lost the recipe for cement for 500 years after it was invented and then it had to be reinvented again. There's a lot of quiet wisdom floating around, but we don't seem to hear it. USchick (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree regarding "breathtaking" but I'm not surprised by the person who said it. Subaltern studies and similar movements have attempted to fill some of the gaps caused by the almost-inevitable fact that history is the story of famous men etc: the stories of the unrecorded are, erm, not recorded. However, unless we abandon WP:V, WP:RS etc and allow passed-down oral history (!), we're not going to advance things any quicker than such historiographic movements do. By the way, there are 100% gender gaps in various knitting, embroidery and quilting groups to which my mother belongs but I have never heard anyone call them "sexist" although, for example, I had an uncle who was an accomplished knitter. There is a difference between a gender gap and sexism. It just suits some people to conflate them. - 90.220.218.154 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Very good points! We still have no idea how the Pyramids were built, (even if they were aliens) so it's not just women, silencing any group of people has dire consequences for all of us. To claim that nothing is missing from an encyclopedia, while most of the wold's population is excluded...... well........ USchick (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting I'm claiming that nothing is missing, as nothing could be further from the truth. But let's look at the facts. To take just one example, Enid Blyton is one of the world's most prolific authors ever, male or female, but it was @Dr. Blofeld: and I who took it to FA, not the feminist militants. And we didn't do that for any gender-based reasons, but because she is an important literary figure. This alleged gender imbalance is not, or at least ought not to be, a battleground. Eric Corbett 20:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. (Your original comment was: "What content are we missing that we might otherwise have?") And thank you for your effort on a topic that you think is important. Militant attitudes of any gender have a tendency to drive away people who don't like conflict, so there's no gender imbalance at all in that sense. I have personally tried to talk a new male editor "off the cliff" when he literally freaked out at the hostility directed toward him, but he quit anyway. In my experience, Wikipedia is very much a reflection of society. Some people want to tell you their biases upfront, and some people assume a more anonymous persona, but our individual quirks come out anyway. A long time ago, one of my first interactions on Wikipedia, someone kindly reminded me that not everyone who speaks English is American. I was so surprised, I almost fell out of my chair! And I'm supposed to be educated! LOL USchick (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a topic that only I think is important, it's a topic that any educated person ought to think is important. And may I suggest that you try to resist the urge to talk down to me simply because I'm not a female?. I don't talk down to you because you're missing a penis after all. Or if I do, it's got absolutely nothing to do with your lack of wedding tackle. Eric Corbett 23:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm so flattered that you took offense at my comment where no offense was directed at you. Out of all that, you took one portion of a comment and chose to over react in a hysterical manner. :) And you chose to ignore your direct quote where you contradicted yourself. Then you made it a man/woman issue. Isn't that what women are accused of doing? So you edited an article that you found interesting. How am I talking down to you? I'm truly interested because I don't know. Or are you simply deflecting attention away from the fact that you made a contradictory statement? It's ok, you explained it. No one is blaming you for anything. wow USchick (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in Eric's response that indicates he has taken offense, and there is nothing hysterical (although there was no need to mention anatomical features). Re talking down: if it's not that, it's just misguided to characterize taking the article on an important author to FA as "important to you" as if Eric chose the article randomly and might have picked Plumbers Don't Wear Ties. What "contradictory statement"? Rather than poking Eric it would be better to identify some content that is missing due to a gender gap. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The contradictory statement where he was asking "What problems are being caused by this gender gap? What content are we missing that we might otherwise have?" and the contradiction that followed "I hope you're not suggesting I'm claiming that nothing is missing, as nothing could be further from the truth." And then he got his feathers ruffled when I thanked him for taking an article that interested him to FA. Who else should do that? People with no interest? For someone who claims this "ought not to be a battleground" I totally agree. USchick (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been a gender gap on Wikipedia since its inception and it has actually narrowed over time rather than broadened. I do not know if Carrite is right about the precise reason, however, there are various gender gaps in play with regards to the Internet that predispose Wikipedia to having a gender gap. Nowadays, people have this bizarre notion that everything should be distributed on a completely proportionate basis and anything else means there is a problem, but disparities are unavoidable and there is no evidence of this notion that there is endemic sexism driving away potential female contributors. Rather than debating over how to fix something that may very well not be in our position to fix, we should just focus on how we lessen any potential ill effects of existing disparities.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Testify, fellow human... Carrite (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate has it right. Women are generally right brain dominant, men are generally left brain dominant, and those differences are all that's needed to account for many of these "alarming" imbalances. There are areas where men are greatly underrepresented, and somehow that doesn't concern me much. We should be embracing and valuing our gender differences more, and trying to correct them less. Vive la différence! Lest I be misunderstood, this is not an argument against taking steps to ensure that women—and men—are treated with respect at Wikipedia, but only that the 85/15 split is not in itself a sign of a problem.   Mandruss |talk  22:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's some reading for you. 81.171.52.12 (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have replied to this but my 'gender differences' led to a sudden need to clean, sew, make house, bake and OMG!!! squee at kittehs!!! rather than get involved in discussions at manly ol' Wikipedia. </END SARCASM TAG> AnonNep (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I object to the notion that only women feel a need to "squee at kittehs" 81.171.52.12 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was not going for some notion of biological difference, but just the fact that there are significant statistical differences between male and female activities that would be more sufficient in explaining the gender gap than some claim that there is too much sexism on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I missed the "Internet" part (which might benefit from a little elaboration). I have stricken my first sentence accordingly.   Mandruss |talk  22:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a reference, but the formula for establishing a ratio of men/women on the internet goes something like this. Total number of men in technology - (the number of men not in IT who only use the internet for porn + the number of men also not in IT who only use the internet for playing video games) + (the number of women who use the internet for social media + the number of women who use the internet to play that stupid farm game) = {{4/3π r³}} USchick (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Incivility

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be extremely useful for the Foundation to emphasize strongly that civility is essential, and to reiterate that incivility is not mere noise but is blockable. Mediation would be useful to encourage exploring the issues behind civility blocks, especially if admins were strongly discouraged from unilateral unblocks as fait accompli. With respect to editors who have a pattern of aggressive, rude, or abusive behavior, mediation must be avoided. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes. Some editors are uncivil for a deliberate purpose. Again, as with editors who are simply rude, aggressive, or abusive, mediation directly with the uncivil editor is dangerous. It would reward the uncivil editor because the mediation would focus on compromising on the extent of incivility. Any mediation should be between the blocking admin and an unblocking admin, except that by the time mediation would take, another admin chooses to unblock, at which point further discussion is useless, because an unblock, even a wrong unblock, is final. (A reblock would be either punitive rather than preventive, or wheel warring, or both.) Mediation over current blocks will only be feasible if admins who want to unblock can wait to work with the mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree in principle. As a community we should require people to behave like intelligent adults here, with a low level of tolerance. In practice, it seems to me that incivility is easy to recognize and virtually impossible to define, a la Potter Stewart and obscenity. And a precise and unambiguous definition would be necessary, I think. Have you given any thought to that? Is it as simple as a list of taboo words? Even if it were as simple as that---and I suspect it's not---I think we could debate until the end of time what words to include.   Mandruss |talk  23:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the part of the discussion that is most likely to bear fruit, so I hope it doesn't get lost amid all the rambling. It's a significant problem on WP that we have too high a level of tolerance for incivility because, somewhat paradoxically, we are often too polite to shout down a minority who support it (either because they think it is actually healthy or, as Rober McClenon suggests, because it is "just noise"). The hoo-hah over Chelsea Manning is good example of where Wikipedia gave the impression of being basically an out-of-control primary school classroom.

In terms of an ambiguous definition, I would suggest that any **reasonably persistent** behaviour which appears aimed at causing offence of getting a rise out of other editors should be subject to an on-the-spot 30-day topic ban. I can foresee the objection that this would be open to abuse, but it seems to me comparable to how discretionary sanctions operate, and they have been a clear net positive for the project. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts between WMF staff and the community

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

The slowness of ArbCom

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

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

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

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

Off topic Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Current uproar aside, why do you think that "Its (civility's) absence is becoming toxic"? I am a bit concerned that the current drama (and in this case, the epithet is deserved) that is really centered on a few editors, is generating a perception that all of WP is moving toward a crisis. So.. why do you think there is a growing tide of incivility? I work on pretty controversial topics and have seen them go through waves of ugliness and relative peace (again, usually driven by the arrival and departure of difficult editors). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Those topics are only controversial because you make it your job to push a singular POV that eliminates opposing viewpoints. I'm curious what a woman like Gandydancer would have to say about your characterization of this problem, Jytdog, as many of these so-called "difficult" editors you refer to happen to be women. And yes, I've personally made it a point to show up to those articles and help them out, so I'm happy to be characterized as "difficult" because I refuse to let you drown out their voices. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I can't read minds so I don't know if Jtydog is referring to me or not, though I doubt it. I will say that although Jtydog and I generally don't agree on content, he is an excellent editor and has never, ever, in our exchanges showed any gender bias. He has always been willing to discuss areas of disagreement in a respectful manner. I do, however, question the suggestion that women, or "the ladies" if you will, seem to need some sort of special support, which suggests that they are unable to stand their ground on their own. Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC) \ He's not referring to you (and I don't know why you thought that). There is absolutely no suggestion that women need special support, there's a suggestion that one component of gender bias on Wikipedia involves editorial interaction between males and females, with women disliking combative environments. While you might interpret this as women being "unable to stand their ground on their own", that's not what it means. It means women are less prone to stick around in the kind of articles that Jytdog describes because of the constant conflicts and reverts. You are welcome to disagree, but the evidence says otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion with an editor that appears to be only interested in twisting my statements and then going about explaining to me why I'm wrong. I spoke up in this thread because I disliked the hypocrisy of your statements about Jtydog. He left rather than get into a discussion with you and now I'm going to do the same. Although Jtydog and I are in frequent content arguments, I've never seen him engage in this sort of talk page behavior. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) How unusual! You twisted my words abut the well-publicized and published gender gap hypothesis ("Female Wikipedia editors are less likely to contribute to Wikipedia due to the high level of conflict involved in the editing, debating, and defending process"[30]) to instead mean "[women] are unable to stand their ground on their own" and then accused me of twisting words? You are a funny person! Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Viriditas you deployed gender politics above to try to settle some anger you have at me. You called Gandy by name, even pinged her, when you wrote "I'm curious what a woman like Gandydancer would have to say..." So she shows up and has something to say and instead of listening to her and to how she heard what you wrote, you ignore her and cite literature at her. Isn't this just the kind of "guy" behavior you have been railing against? anyway, this gender politics stuff is so twisty. please just stop already. please just say "i hear you gandy but we disagree, i really think jytdog is a sexist dick" and move on. please. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Those topics are only controversial because you make it your job to push a singular POV that eliminates opposing viewpoints. That's a rather hearty and overt accusation, and I think it's a bit ironic considering we're talking about how incivility at the moment. Nonetheless, speaking as a woman, and having been editing in some controversial areas, my experience has mostly been gender blind. Rarely, if ever at all has my gender been mentioned beyond using my first name (which I sort of invited by using my first name on my user page) or using my pronouns. Many times editors who encounter me use male pronouns--and I sort of chuckle at that. The only thing which I can say I've encountered 'misogyny' was when my user page was vandalized by some vandals, which was in itself an isolated incident. Tutelary (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC) and with that remark from Viriditas, I choose to exit, as I have before in discussions where V shows up in this manner. There are places to work and discuss things that are not toxic. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Arbcom is not a venue that lends itself well to solving these issues, mainly because ArbCom cannot pick its issues, but has to wait until the community makes a request. By the time Arbcom gets involved, it can be several years after the initial disruption has been noted, and the whole Arbcom process can take an additional month or more. The Arbcom can be very useful in clarifying and articulating long-term issues. But a disruption on a talk page is immediate; a series of such disruptions can drive away serious editors long before Arbcom can have a chance to get involved, if it ever does reach that point at all. Disruptive situations need to be dealt with immediately, and stay dealt with. —Neotarf (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous tasks assigned to ArbCom

User:Newyorkbrad refers to tasks that are assigned to the ArbCom that the ArbCom thinks could be better handled elsewhere. I understand that part of the problem is that the ArbCom is "trusted"/cleared and so is handed duties involving access to private information (CheckUser, actual identities). Can these responsibilities in the English Wikipedia be shifted to other cleared personnel, such as cleared WMF staff assigned to the English Wikipedia, or to stewards who are primarily editors of the English Wikipedia? Can the tasks of the ArbCom be reallocated so that they have more time to work on cases, the primary function of the ArbCom, rather than being co-opted to essentially clerical duties involving trusted access to private information? Is there some way that the WMF can free up ArbCom time to do real arbitration? What are the tedious duties and can the WMF help? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Some ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem I have with singular they is that it's spectacularly unclear. Never is this more true than in Wikipedia internal discussions; I have chased my tail over that usage a number of times. With "xe" you can look it up once and grok the idea, but with "they" you have to try to figure out if more than one person is being spoken of every single time, for the rest of your life. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Some of us like "xe", some of us like "they", some of us like "s/he", some of us like "one", some of us like "some of us"...Jim-Siduri (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I should apologize about the misunderstanding here - I am speaking of using this in our own conversation, not presenting them in articles where jargon of all kinds is best avoided. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like singular "they" (and I prefer it), a more formal copyediting option is "s/he". It may also be possible to use "one" or to reword a sentence completely. —Neotarf (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I don't see the relevance of that (and I also don't see any block notice on that user's page). There was actually some support for an actual article Xe which existed as of 2006 [31] with a few editors supporting the idea on its talk page. Nonetheless, it was determined to be original research, so I'm not thinking that that usage is something I have to stick with (their proposed forms like "xyrs" were different than what I have in mind, as is their pronunciation). Basically: the English language is our language. I don't think that we should have to have an advanced degree or (more likely) an advertising contract with some big corporation to be allowed to change it. I think that if we right here were to decide to try this idea out, we might just set off a new phenomenon that spreads not just through Wikipedia but the world at large. It should be up to us, and we should not be afraid to use our power if we can agree among ourselves that a few new words are desirable. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you may need to manage expectations. Expecting people to communicate in a professional manner is a fine goal. If though you think to spur some wave of utopian genderless language through use on WP talk pages you should probably brace yourself for disapointment.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should I discard the idea as utopian when there are so many people above looking to impose a utopian "civility" language throughout WP talk pages? I mean, my idea is voluntary and simple while theirs is complex and requires constant forcible interventions. Wnt (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly not one of those you speak of above. I think there's a range of ideas above, some doomed to fail, some destructive. On your idea, I'm not going to stop you. I just don't think it'll spread like wildfire through society.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't see the relevance of what? And who mentioned a block? You said that you might try using the xe notation and see if it catches on. I'm saying that a reasonably high-profile admin, with whom I got on well, has been using it for years and it didn't. Times may change, of course, but I for one will not adopt that notation. We're an encyclopaedia, first and foremost, not some socio-linguistic experiment or trailblazer.

I'm not going into detail re: Q's inactivity but take my situation as being analogous: death threats and wildly libellous accusations both on- and off-wiki that have a very real, very nasty impact on my life, as well as a tirade of abuse that has absolutely nothing to do with gender and everything to do with trying to maintain an extremely messy area of Wikipedia. One which, I must say, has become more messy since Sue Gardner's ill-advised "push" in India and some of which seems indubitably to be directly connected to that effort. I don't ask for special treatment and I don't get it. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know about any of this and definitely not your particular interaction, but with Sue Gardner I assume you're referring to [32] [33]. But Sue's ideas there sound good to me, and it seems difficult to avoid a certain amount of threats (however much we abhor them) when dealing with India and Pakistan due to the amount of censorship that, unfortunately, continues to go on in the region. I waded into such an issue a while ago at Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The problem is, when people can be arrested or attacked for what they say in a society as a whole, how easily can they be ideally disinterested Wikipedia editors? But the solution is not to discard the country but to uphold our ideals until they ooze out the far end of the social pipeline. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and am not Indian, Pakistani etc but am allegedly under criminal investigation of some sort in India (distribution of child porn seems to be the gist of it) due to a fracas involving me upholding English Wikipedia's policies. The issues apparent in the Indic sphere of Wikipedia, and in particular those relating to me personally, usually have nothing to do with censorship in the subcontinent. But we're drifting way off-topic now: my point was, there are very real, very damaging issues resulting from participation in Wikipedia that are more life-impacting those being raised all over the shop at the moment regarding language. FWIW, I disagree entirely with your solution: that, again, seems to presuppose that Wikipedia is some sort of engine for social change. If it was, it would be a bad one. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's an engine for social change. The whole idea of the sum of the world's knowledge being available to anyone, regardless of wealth, caste, or ideology, is vastly radical. Just like personal computing, BBSes and the Internet, Wikipedia is the lineal descendant of Yippie ideas like Steal This Book. I don't know how to interpret your comment about your situation - you say it doesn't have to do with censorship, yet that you are under attack by a censorship law which, hardly a surprise, is being stretched in some very partisan way. It sounds like whatever has happened to you is an important issue for all of us to know about so that we can show solidarity. Wnt (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's discussed in the literature as a medium for the democratization of knowledge, not an engine for social change. I think comparing it to Yippie antecedents is a bit off. If you haven't read John_Markoff's What the Dormouse Said, Fred Turner's From Counterculture to Cyberculture, Jaron Lanier's You Are Not a Gadget, or Nicholas Carr's The Shallows, then it might be a good time to take a look-see. Access to information is not the same as social change. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You've named some interesting books, but I don't see how they disprove what I suggested. After all, didn't Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs start out by selling blue boxes, which you might say was toeing the Youth International Party Line?^[34] Weren't early BBSes and networks a hotbed of radical politics? And in general, doesn't the role of sites like Wikipedia in providing information to the public follow in the footsteps of all those before them who sought to make information less secret to the general public? It is true, of course, that merely knowing about economic inequality doesn't make people equal. But being able to look up the list of free software makes you a lot more equal than someone who is unaware of some of the free options and has to buy software for a certain function or do without. This is just one of thousands of examples where we put the poor and the rich on at least a somewhat more even playing field. Social constructs have deprived people of so many of their birthrights, from the right to work the land to the right to broadcast in radio. But Wikipedia is an effort to partially roll back the idea that the poor should be deprived even of their right to learn, receiving only as much knowledge as they can scrape together the money to buy. Wnt (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read E. M. Forster's The Machine Stops? You can have access to all of the information in the world, and still have a stagnant society with no social change. And in a surveillance society, access to information can be used to control and prevent change. In terms of technology, there's really only one kind of engine of social change, and it's called a molecular assembler. Plug one of those puppies in and all working social concepts are obsolete overnight. Trek called them replicators. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good story, and it was a long time since last I read it. But fiction is not actually evidence. I should emphasize, however, that even in that story, a robust Wiki faithfully documenting the explorations of the people who escape by strange paths and try breathing the outer air would have been transformative. Its premise was a censorship that required face-to-face communication to evade, and after all, the digression from which this one sprang concerned opposition to that. In the real world many people do not worry that Wiki and Internet are irrelevant - they fear flash mobs, coordinated protests, people learning how to make bombs or drugs, and so forth, and constantly call for the sort of censorship that the Machine-dwellers of the story might find comforting. Wikipedia can scarcely be accused of coordinating a world-wide surveillance - the NSA builds their own software and their own machines - rather it provides some small counterbalance, a weak technical sousveillance, a pool of knowledge from which the ordinary people can drink. But the ultimate agents of social change are the marks of Beast and Lamb, the former nearly a mature technology to substitute the human soul with something more causal and pliable, the latter I fear utterly a mystery to me. Wnt (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I refer my honourable friend to the short story Business As Usual, During Alterations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Wnt, I must respectfully take issue with your statement that "fiction is not actually evidence". That statement reflects an older paradigm that I believe has been superseded by newer theories about literature and language. There are many types of evidence, and fiction can conceivably be classified as a form of speculative analogical evidence like a model or simulation. More to the point, fiction can act as a model or simulation that can both predict and explain.[35] Let me give you a relevant example. In the above, you refer to the use of cognitive prosthesis technology. The use of such a device has been modeled and simulated extensively in science fiction, such as in the 1995 episode of Life Support (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). But back to my example. In 1909, Forster was able to model, simulate, and predict how the development of Internet technology would influence society.[36] George Orwell and Philip K. Dick did the same thing with surveillance societies. As it turns out, there is solid evidence that fictional works can act as an engine for social change, as these simulations "[train] us to extend our understanding toward other people, to embody (to some extent) and understand their beliefs and emotions, and ultimately to understand ourselves."[37] Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

True, fiction can predict, rather interestingly at times. And the point the paper makes about communicating empathy is fairly persuasive. But fiction often falls far short of the mark. Orwell may have "predicted" the long-ongoing state surveillance of his era, but his anti-Communist viewpoint definitely missed the idea of an invasive capitalism that declares information as property and redefines the consumer's relationship to a product into mere "licensing", so that everything that the consumer still naively regards as his property is constantly working to spy on him. And, so far, cognitive prosthesis in fiction largely misses the specific practical aspects of the prosthetic hippocampus -- why will a wealthy elite consent to subsidize 20 years of education for people who could be fitted with far more effective prerecorded skill memories in an afternoon? why would they pay for 20 years of imprisonment with no practical benefit when they can write over someone's ethical programming? But to well and truly digress, I think the true horror of the device goes much deeper; I would consider the origin of free will and "actual" conscious sensation in the causality violation produced by the well-restricted precognition of the immutable future, the human being as boundary condition from which the mathematical solution of the cosmos is drawn. In other words, so long as paranormal events (first and foremost among them consciousness itself) are not understood, I don't think the replacement of memory can avoid destroying the essence of the human being. The victim of the procedure might look and act human, even access the records of past memories and make convincing emotional appeals... yet be no more a person than a video recording. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Jury System

Wnt refers above to various proposals to implement some sort of jury system for user conduct cases. I will note that this is another answer to Jimbo's question of: "What can the WMF do?" The governance of the English Wikipedia is based on the policies of the English Wikipedia, determined by consensus, subject to the ultimate authority of the WMF. However, the English Wikipedia is so large and divided that it is extremely unlikely that any changes to its policies will be enacted voluntarily. Any changes at this point to the governance of the English Wikipedia can only be handed down to it from the WMF. If the WMF agrees with some editors, including me, that the breakdown of civility, and the breakdown of civility enforcement in its admin corps, are becoming toxic, then the WMF must act on its own. The WMF has been rightly reluctant to enforce its will on the normally self-governing English Wikipedia except by necessity. The rewrite and tightening of BLP policy was a legal necessity. If the WMF agrees that civility is both necessary for the English Wikipedia and being ignored, then some sort of intervention, whether or not a jury system, is a necessity. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What we need isn't really force from the WMF, just people who are interested. Get enough people willing to administer the jury picks, and we can be bold and go ahead and start spamming a fairly large pool of candidate random editors in order to get the smaller number who are actually interested. We need merely set up the pages and call them in and make it happen, and provided there's some impetus behind it, nobody's going to stop us. But if we don't have that pool of interested people, no decree from on high is going to make the system work. Unfortunately, I don't have the feeling for organizing people that is needed to make things like this catch on. Wnt (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No. We do need force from the WMF (unless Wnt has some idea that I am not aware of). A jury system will be a governance change to the English Wikipedia. The current governance of the English Wikipedia is by consensus, a form of direct democracy, with the exception of the ArbCom, which is a representative democracy but was handed to them by the founder of the WMF. Any change to that governance can come only either from the English Wikipedia community itself, by consensus, or from the higher authority of the WMF, who has essentially given a self-governing charter to the English Wikipedia community. At the same time, the English Wikipedia community, due to its size, diversity, and fractious nature, is unlikely to approve a change in its governance. It is unlikely to approve any change in its policies. It has been having difficulty in approving any change in its policies on commercial editing, even though the WMF has modified the Terms of Use with regards to commercial editing. Since many members of the English Wikipedia community think that civility should not be required, it is unreasonable to think that the English Wikipedia will, voluntarily, change its governance from a dysfunctional direct democracy to a working government with a jury system. I support the introduction of a jury system for conduct issues. The current system of dealing with conduct is no system at all with regard to conduct issues by experienced editors. Any administrator can unblock any block, and then further discussion is pre-empted, both because blocks are preventive, not punitive, and so a reversed block is in the past, and because of the rule against wheel warring. A jury system would be a good idea. However, it will only be brought about by intervention by the WMF. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, participation in a Wikipedia jury system should, unlike participation in the US jury system, be voluntary. In the United States, jury duty is just that, a duty, a requirement of citizenship; it is not voluntary. In Wikipedia, any requirement to serve on juries would strongly discourage unregistered editors from registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think you're over-rating the WMF. In the past year we've had 1 WMF member lose his local adminship for gross incivility. 1 Lose his local adminship for sock puppetry. And a third currently at arbcom for threat making. I'll pass on these being our overlords.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

They are our overlords for better and for worse. They have granted the English Wikipedia a charter of self-government by direct democracy for better and for worse, subject to their overlordship for better and for worse. Any change to our governance will be made only by them, because it is clear that we cannot change our governance or major policies. If you are satisfied with an atmosphere that rewards incivility, or if you believe that that is the least bad of all possible worlds, you are entitled to that opinion, and to leave them alone. If change is desired, it comes only from the WMF, for better and for worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, they're not our "overlords." They are the owners of the trademark, the operators of the servers, and the developers of the software tools for use of the volunteer community. Nothing more. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert, can you clarify the nature of this totalitarian future you seem to be advocating for Wikipedia. Did you really mean it when you said above that we "need force from the WMF", or was that just a typo. It seems a very strange idea, given opinions that have already been expressed by employees of the WMF, that the WMF would have the faintest idea of how best to proceed. Are you really advocating blind totalitarian force --Epipelagic (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I used to be a member of Trigger Street Labs, a website founded by Kevin Spacey and his business partner Dana Brunetti where people get feedback for screenplays, short stories and short fims. There is a credit process - review another member's work and you earn a credit, attach the credits to your own piece of work to make it rise to the top of the pile of scripts. There is also a jury system to prevent people gaming the system, an obvious way of earning a lot of credits is to make up a load of generic comments like, "the characters in this screenplay are very interesting", request another assignment, copy and paste, earn credit, and repeat. The site had a Hall Of Justice for members who think the review that they received was unfair. There is a criteria for the reviews including: not cutting and pasting from other reviews, (if you think it has happened then the ref. no. from the other review is submitted as evidence), reviews should be constructive and non-abusive, a decent word length (I think the minimum was 100 words), there should also be evidence in the review that the reviewer definitely read / watched the submission. If a member thinks they have been unfairly treated then they send a review to the HOJ. Other members - let's call them arbitrators - with a high enough participation level (like having 'enough' edits in your edit history) can request a - randomly generated - docket, read the review, read the details of the complaint (e.g. "I think this review is a cut & past of ref. # 'x' ...."). The arbitrator who received the docket for review then has a choice of Y/N check-boxes relating to the docket (e.g. "The reviewer has cut and pasted their review from another review") and a comment form, for anything else that they might like to add. The same docket goes to a number of different random arbitrators in the same way. (Note: there is a limit to how many dockets a single member can request in 24 hrs.) If the majority think it should go further, it is passed on to the jury. The key thing about it is, in the first instance it is other members with a basic account that make the decision, a similar system could possibly work for disputes on Wikipedia. Ironically the message boards were a mess with one of them called the "Free for all" message board. I also mentioned, at the top of this talk page (just prior to the section Early response from BHG & LB), how BBC message boards are moderated - so it never escalates to that point of needing arbitration in the first place. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

I believe there is a direction that we could take, one I have attempted to bring up before and modeled after Steven Zhang's Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Building off the suggestion of Konveyor Belt I would like to discuss a Conflict resolution noticeboard.

I while back Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution was begun and got a good number of member quickly. This seems to indicated that there is some interest[38] in understanding how we, as editors can try to resolve more than just content disputes.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as what the difference between the dispute resolution and the conflict resolution board would be? And what do you think of the idea of just changing Wales' initial suggestion to hire people to make those people only mediators who would engage in voluntary mediation and teach it to volunteers. Detailed here. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A dispute is content based and does not deal with behavior. Personal conflict between editors is not as easily addressed as a content disputes, so my suggestion is to assist in that with a conflict resolution notice board where volunteers can at least decide if a situation can be improved with some mediation.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender disparity

There is a documented gender disparity both in the editor corps and in Wikipedia coverage.

Unfortunately beyond this it is difficult to go. Sweeping assumptions are made about "locker room" mentality, editing environment and so forth. Research shows that, if anything, the "bad" editing environment is more conducive to males leaving than females. Obviously we should still be aiming at a collegial rather than combative environment, but we should not expect that that would fix the gender gap (though it may assist with editor retention).

Similarly there is evidence that "women's films" have shorter (by about 20% if I recollect correctly) articles than "men's films". This is the most robust research I know of that demonstrates a content gender gap. Yet even here we have vast areas of ignorance - possibly "men's films" are more action and plot driven, and hence amenable to creation of longer articles from the primary document, where "women's films" are more emotion and character driven and require secondary sources (compare "Jo shoots Bob with the whaling gun" and "Jo, by this time already angry at Bob") - there may even be less subtle differences like cast size.

Consequently more research must be welcomed, both into gender disparity and other forms of demographic disparity (age, sexuality, geography and disability all spring to mind).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Or WP:RS just don't bother to cover women's films as much, or a lot of other things women create, or their activities, unless they are young and sexy or so fucking brilliant they blow competing males away. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Continue these great Wikimania workshops

Wikimania 2014 in London has five workshops related to the gender gap during the August 8-10 programme.

• Creative_Ways_to_Alienate_Women_Online:_A_How-to_Guide_for_Wikipedians
• Systemic Bias Workshop Development
• Internet Skills and the Gender gap
• Diversity Workshop: Gender gap strategy into action
• Gender and Beyond: Building diversity in the digital space
• And if you are a woman, sign up for the Wikiwomen's lunch
  

Women, get your passports out. Not too late to sign up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now if you want to talk about creating bias, how about leaving discussion of important issues like this to those who can travel to expensive cities in the Global North to discuss them at closed workshops and come up with the solutions for the rest of us? Even if we had to dribble verbal communication at each other, can't we teach each other how to make videos and post them online? Wnt (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Mediaviewer

First, here's one really great thing about the MediaViewer. Yesterday I was able to tweet about a graph in an article and link directly to it in a much more useful way than the old media landing page. The image is large and nicely presented but more importantly, the article is "underneath" it so that it's very easy for the reader to click the 'x' and then read the full article. I really liked that and think it is a great experience for the reader.

Second, I wanted to call for a second round of attention to User talk:Jimbo Wales/NPOV report on problems with MV. Currently it is a discussion rather than an NPOV summary (although there is an admirable start at the beginning). In order to make the whole thing more comfortable how about if we attempt to read that discussion and summarize it on the corresponding user page? To make it NPOV we will need to use qualifying language like "Some have objected that X" rather than "X". And references (diffs) would be excellent. I want something that I can present to the relevant decision makers that is calm and helpful. Those who simply want to have a power struggle (whether at the Foundation or in the community) are barking up the wrong tree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the things that turns me off about it is that it is all icon based. Wikipedia is a word based interface and I found myself annoyed at having to hover over each thing to see what it did. You could fit more buttons if it was text.

Like the rest of Wikipedia there is no "What links here", I cannot see a history button. It seems bolted onto the side rather than part of the wiki.

I know it is meant to be a viewer but that does not mean it cannot have the same interconnectedness that the rest of the wiki has. Frankly the way the whole site was indexed and linked together and revisioned is what drove me to edit here.

I like the aesthetics and I like the ability to link to it with an associated article. I think it can be a great tool, but I think there needs to be significant community input. Input where people make actionable improvements to make it wanted, and constructive criticism to address valid concerns.

I don't think it should be a polarized use it or don't use it discussion. Rather it should be an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Just like we don't delete an article that can be improved to standards this tool can be made valuable. Chillum 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would put this on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/NPOV_report_on_problems_with_MV but I am not sure how it fits with the format/scope of the page. Is it just for problems or are improvements welcome too? Chillum 11:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, Re icon based and "I found myself annoyed at having to hover over each thing to see what it did." — How does that compare to the row of 11 icons above each editing box when one edits Wikipedia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just stick it over there on that talk page. I'd like us to roll up a clear, non-accusatory, actionable request for a set of things that will resolve the problems. As you say, Chillum, in words that I completely endorse, "I don't think it should be a polarized use it or don't use it discussion". We've had far too much climbing the Reichstag dressed like Spiderman when we'd be better off just clearly expressing what we need.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just now copied Chillum's message over there.[39] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me just say that that file a good example of bunch of things that are wrong with graphs on wikipedia and commons. It's a PNG not a SVG (perhaps not a big deal), but the worse part is that it's based on sources in Mathematica, which haven't been shared. So it's basically not editable by others in an easy way; they might as well recreate it. And this is the kind of graph that needs and has seen updates; see File:Diseased_Ebola_2014.png#filehistory (without the MV, because that app still can't show you the update history, it seems.) Without trying to derail the MV discussion, about which I think I've said enough myself, I'd very much like to see the WMF adopt a Debian-like policy of at least recommending if not requiring sources for graphs/sketches/diagrams, preferably made with open source tools. Normally I'd tell you to see FTBFS for further reading, but that's another "awesome" Wikipedia article... So instead I'll quote from [40]: “The Debian Free Software Guidelines require "source code" also known as the preferred form for modification, for both programs and non-program software such as documentation, artwork and other data assets. Other distributions have similar policies. [...] Pre-rendered images of vector image files are not source. Instead include the SVG or similar and render the images at build time or runtime.” JMP EAX (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree but that's really another issue for another day. As it turns out, the source data is actually in a nice table in the article but that's obviously not as good as what you are recommending. That's really a social issue for commons more than for en.wikipedia.org and me talking to commons has typically proven to be counter-productive so I'll just leave that to others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Could this be a useful role for Wikidata? Input the source data and plotting style, and get out a graph that knows how to display its labels in the appropriate language and automatically updates when the source data changes. --Amble (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know, this is just me causing trouble again... But really, why will you "leave that to others"? Others can't do what you can do. Irrelevant to this discussion I know, but do you have any idea how disappointing that is to those who despair of the Commons mess, and look to you as a figurehead who might be able to actually do something about it? Begoon ^talk 19:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment but I'm sure you can understand why I might chuckle. Just a few minutes after you said this you expressed dismay when I called someone here out for poor behavior. Imagine how badly it would go down over there. Working through difficult community conflict issues requires pointing out where people are going wrong, and requires a willingness of those who are being told they are doing wrong to think it over and either try to explain themselves in detail (as I have done below) or to apologize (as I have done many times in the past when I get something wrong). I'm not convinced that my going to commons would be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate you might chuckle. I wasn't suggesting you go and reason with the resident lunatics - I was suggesting you might use your levers of power to have the lunatics removed without discussion. I'd do that if nutters were squatting in my house. Begoon ^talk 20:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it has some uses in making Wikicommons etc. more user friendly for the masses. But it should have been advertised a lot more, especially on release, and the benefits explained. I'm getting use to the extra click back to the old way now, ignoring the other features, but was really ticked at first. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More to the point (of MV) here. If I click on the big right-arrow on that image you tweeted, I get to this rod of Asclepius. Useful/meaningful "next" in that context? JMP EAX (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: re: "the article is "underneath" it so that it's very easy for the reader to click the 'x' and then read the full article. I really liked that and think it is a great experience for the reader.", this seems like counterintuitive behavior to me. I would expect that, as clicking "x" is the usual way to close something, that when I click the "x" I will return to your Twitter page. So, that I go to a Wikipedia page is a surprise, albeit perhaps for many readers, a pleasant one. Better would be an explicit link to 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, to ensure that I don't miss out on the opportunity to see the article because of an incorrect assumption. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had no idea how to get to the article from the image either until I read that. Maybe Jimbo could poll his Tweeter followers to see if they managed to figure it out by themselves... 188.27.81.64 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hono(u)r

Jimmy

You post on the page of a fine and upstanding user, Sitush, implying that he conducts himself without hono(u)r. You disinvite him from your talk page.

Sitush is one of the most dedicated and right-thinking wikipedians I have encountered.

He has devoted countless hours to this website, in a difficult and often insane area which demands dedication, resulting in many personal attacks upon himself, and threats, because he wishes to do what is right. And boy, does he do what is right. Check his edit history. He has selflessly devoted himself to the values of NPOV and accuracy which you espouse. He has done that over years, through hardship, and under attack.

You have the right to disinvite him from your talk page. We all have that right.

You do not have the right to question his hono(u)r.

Retract that immediately please. Or remove your "open door" stuff from the top of this page, since it is, in that case, worthless.

Apologies are nice too.

Thank you. Begoon ^talk 18:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment, and I'm sure Sitush does too, do we really need to expand the drama with yet another section? Wouldn't it be high time, for people committed to the encyclopedia, to stop pouring oil on the many fires, depersonalize and reboot the whole debate, and start looking for constructive solutions? MLauba ^(Talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Imagine it were you, rather than Sitush, MLauba. Really, imagine that. Sometimes something is so wrong that it can only be "righted" by positive action. I'm not pouring oil - Jimbo is hugely visible, as are his actions, and they can hurt commensurately. Sure, the drama needs to dissipate, but this was egregious, and in many ways separate (and maybe even arbitrary? (a mistake?)). Dealing with it will help the dissipation of the drama. With great power comes great responsibility Begoon ^talk 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was me. My contributions fell down to nothing after a similar experience with Jimbo. If this request of yours actually does achieve something positive, it would come as a huge surprise. Because my experience tells me otherwise. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well then we may both live in hope. I'm glad I'm not Jimbo, because my utterings here don't have the duty of care which his do. Tough at the top - but he gets to go sightseeing on the community starship when we build it. I don't. He'll respond to this, I hope, it would be the decent thing to do - I'm sorry your disagreement wasn't as high profile as this one. Jimbo, when you put right your error with Sitush, think of MLauba too, please. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 19:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Listening to these concerns I decided to review Sitush's contributions to my talk page to determine if I made some error. I am only human after all, and error is always possible. Here's what I found, in chronological order and, as it turns out, in order of increasing bad behavior.

1. First the claim that there is no evidence of sexism in Wikipedia, dismissing it as the work or "pressure groups"- a rather absurd claim given the level of broad public awareness of specific examples of it. 06:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Claims that concern being raised "seems to be more 'anti-male' and civility-based, intended to sanitise and censor" - a classic example of WP:NOTLISTENING 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Classic insult of "dramatic" - 16:28, 31 July 2014(UTC)] - it is important to understand here that this was an outrageous distortion as nothing dramatic had been said at all other than a mere noting of the fact that BHG was reversed with impunity. (It may be helpful to look up what that word means if you think it's a dramatic statement. "exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action" - the admin who reversed that well justified block after a very short and inconclusive discussion at AN/I will of course not be punished and is free from any injurious consequences of that action. If you think it was a good reversal then you should say "such blocks should be done with impunity" - but the fact of the impunity is not a dramatic thing to note.
4. When called on the unfair use of 'dramatic', decides to go further with 'such a liar' twice - 20:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Insult of another user as "hypersensitive and perhaps even delusional" - 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You may additionally find this statement by BoboMeowCat to be informative.

This is precisely the kind of hostile behavior that I think needs to stop at Wikipedia, and which we need to understand is precisely the cause of both our editor diversity problems and our difficulty in recruiting new editors. Those who have not been around as long as I have will be forgiven for not knowing that I personally and successfully kicked people out of the project (with the support of the community who did the same in other cases) for precisely these kinds of behaviors in the era that led to our explosive growth. It is our toleration for behavior that would not be accepted in any paid work space that leads to massive costs in terms of the quality of the project and the harmony of the work environment.

One mistaken meme needs to be addressed with great clarity. Refusing to accept bad behavior on the part of good content contributors is not a failure to show appreciation and thanks for that good work. It is to say that good work on content is not an excuse to behave badly toward your colleagues. People fear that we will lose a handful of usual suspects (and to be clear Sitush is not among them) who behave badly and get away with it, but tend to forget the great cost they impose on the rest of us and on newcomers who encounter such things and simply decide to quietly go away disappointed.

I don't want Sitush to leave. I want him to take a deep breath and understand that behaving in such a dishonorable fashion is beneath him and to encourage a higher standard - a moral ambitiousness - to make this community and this project great.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And a footnote on the word 'honorable' - from the New Oxford American Dictionary "1 bring shame or disgrace on: the mayor dishonors his good battle by resorting to sniping. 2 fail to observe or respect (an agreement or principle): the community has its own principles it can itself honor or dishonor." I think that Sitush dishonors his good work in other areas by resorting to such bullying tactics as I have outlined above. And I think that his behavior fails to observe or respect the principles that we have set for our community (and enshrined in both policy and the site's terms of service).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You are wrong. Civility is not "saying pretty things and ticking the PC boxes". The most uncivil people here have never said a rude word. You are allowing yourself to be used by a PC bandwagon which will look good today and tomorrow, maybe even next week, but further than that will falter.

I'll have no further part in this discussion, since I've seen these lines drawn before, elsewhere, and it never ended well. Good luck. It's brave to pander to the loud, fashionable minority, I guess. Oh wait, no, just foolish, and momentarily "trendy". Begoon ^talk 19:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I agree absolutely that civility is not "saying pretty things and ticking the PC boxes". Indeed, I think that 'civility' is too low a standard to ask of ourselves. We should be kind, generous, thoughtful, respectful, open to listening. We should understand that when people of long experience and a proven track record raise a concern from a position of not needing to do so, it is probably unwise to jump to odd conclusions about "PC" and "fashion" and "bandwagon". It is true that some things come into fashion and go out of fashion - I am not talking about those things. I am talking about love of others and the character traits that support and are supported by that. And calling people names and behaving in a nasty way is simply not the right path.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So go and apologise to Sitush then, for calling his honour into question. That's huge to some, and in some cultures. That would be a kind and loving thing to do. He ventured an opinion - that's all. Tempers were heated. You overstepped. We're supposed to be able to see and realise that. You do that and I won't laugh at your beard. Promise. Begoon ^talk 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You've overstepped. Jimmy is entitled to his view that there is a "more honorable" way to participate in that discussion than "liar", etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well then, we've all overstepped, haven't we Alan? I'm sorry if I did, I'm sure you would be too if you felt you had (I'm entitled to an opinion too), and I'm sure Jimmy will be sorry if he feels he has also. Easy. Love these overheated discussions. Begoon ^talk 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you overstepped? When you came here, had you not read that he rather asked that more honor be shown and that he had not barred anyone from his talk page? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

My beard and I appreciate your thoughtful words. I will leave a note for him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are thanked. Have a good conversation. Only good can come of that, and you will enjoy it. Begoon ^talk 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just going to jump in here. Disclaimer: I'm a Wikipedian in good standing who just can't login right now due to technical reasons but I'll email Begoon later from my account once I can log in if he wants to know who I am. The edits made from this IP before today are not mine. Comments: Just like actions from one side can easily be misunderstood to be anti-whatever, we have to keep in mind that the opposite holds true as well. Doing something that appears "pro-whatever" might also be misunderstood. What I mean to say is, I don't think supporting an inclusive environment is "PC" or "anti-male" as much as folks genuinely care about getting a NPOV encyclopedia and think this is the way to do it. Just because Wikipedia's NPOV goal coincidences with a fashionable social goal at the moment doesn't necessarily mean the two are connected. The advocates might be connected to both issues, but the central goals are not. Correlation doesn't prove causation. When someone recognizes that they have a POV, regardless of who they are male or female, then they should be able to recognize that the only way to achieve actual neutrality is by inviting the opposite POV. A POV isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing. Acting with disregard to a POV is a bad thing. Acting carefully with regard to a POV and inviting the opposite site to balance is a good thing. As males, our opposite is females (not to be rude to other genders, just saying for simplicity sake and the sake of argument). Neither POV is wrong or bad, it's just a point of view. It's a matter of how we look at the world. Inviting someone who sees the world differently isn't "politically correct", it's how we achieve "neutral point of view".--198.201.23.10 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Jimbo. Re: "...I personally and successfully kicked people out of the project (with the support of the community who did the same in other cases) for precisely these kinds of behaviors in the era that led to our explosive growth." — This implies causation, connection between the period of individual rule and subsequent growth. The growth in 2005-07 was a social and cultural phenomenon, a sort of fad, that had little to do with the editing environment (which was equally as acrimonious as today's) and less still to a handful of targeted expulsions. There will be no mass influx of random participants in 2015 if we start behaving in a draconian way towards "civility violators" because the nature of the project has changed. Low hanging fruit is gone, high hanging fruit requires specialists with tall ladders to pick. This isn't to say that nothing should be done when somebody goes off and personally attacks others, only that cracking down is no panacea and is not apt to boost participation levels in any meaningful way. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess it depends on the definition of "Low hanging fruit". Lots of articles that are accessible to 1st year college CS/math students or even before, and are source-able from lots of textbooks, are poorly written in Wikipedia, even containing basic errors. I actually found better written articles on the more difficult/advanced topics, although sometimes COI is involved there, i.e. people writing about their own research. I guess the tragedy of commons applies to academic material in wikipedia as well. People are likely to invest time in promoting stuff that will get them grants... which is unfortunately not that different from the behavior of the reviled spammers/PR flacks from the commercial world. JMP EAX (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Carrite. That's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Eric Corbett 18:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is sexual harassment harassment?

I've started to squeeze some of the frass out of the civility policy at Wikipedia talk:Civility/sandbox and stumbled on a curious fact: in our present policy on civility, sexual harassment (the encyclopedia article) is described as one of the ways to identify incivility, in an item separate from our policy WP:Harassment. It turns out there's a reason: I don't see one word about sex in the latter policy.

Now policies on sexual harassment may have a bad name because some try to abuse them as a backdoor route to ban porn and such things, which I definitely don't want to happen here, but we do have to recognize that women here do report being driven off by comments/advances of this type, and there does seem to be some relation with other forms of personal attack and outing. I think it is possible that our weakness on these issues has to do with it being handled separately through this gloriously dysfunctional civility policy rather than the more straightforward and more frequently applied policy on harassment. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish between Sexual Harassment such as unwanted sexual advances, harassment based on sex/gender, and general incivility that may create a hostile environment, sometimes with terms that may be more offensive to women. I have honestly never seen the first case, where there are unwanted sexual advances, not result in swift and severe sanctions. Monty₈₄₅ 14:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you've not seen it because it happens behind the scenes, by email perhaps? I know of at least one very high-profile editor who felt sexually harassed on WP. Obviously I'm not at liberty to say who that was though, so please don't ask me. If she reads this and wants to take part in this discussion that's her choice. Eric Corbett 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you misunderstood Monty's sentence by focusing on the very first clause (I did this too, my brain was busy thinking of counter-examples to "never seen"); what he actually wrote was that he saw swift and severe sanctions in all examples of the first case of which he was aware. Probably you can think of better ways of writing this than either Monty's original or my mangling of it. (Verb towards extreme end of sentence often caused by too much Cicero. Always hated Cicero, even in that TV show.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I misunderstood at all. Eric Corbett 21:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That would be unthinkable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That didn't feel like a very kind thing to say. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to report you to Jimbo's new love police force once he's received his mandate to set it up at Wikimania. Eric Corbett 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Such a force must make your feelings a top priority, really. If you are right, then there are only a few days until such a delightful arrangement comes into force. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of police, remember there are "underage" young people editing wikipedia and some of them sound very intelligent and mature and not mention their real age. They also may sometimes edit on "naughty" topics. Sexual harassment of them (even if they do not identify their sex) could be a crime. There might even be feds trolling to encourage it to beef up their number of arrests. So it may be in one's own interest to self-control. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If they don't mention their age then how do you know that they're "underage"? Just more of your propaganda? Eric Corbett 16:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In the process of building an encyclopedia, I can think of no reason to sexually harass anyone of any age or gender. I believe that Carolmooredc's comment was intended to provide a little extra incentive for caution to those for whom the usual reasons based on respect and community standards of behaviour aren't enough. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you like, as may I. I was simply drawing attention to these increasingly hysterical claims without even a shred of evidence to support them. Eric Corbett 18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's some more: Wikipedia:Help desk#Help, it seems I am being attacked as a woman writer —Anne Delong (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what point you're trying to make. You yourself say in that thread "I have looked at the article in question, at the AfD page and at the editor's talk page. There is not one comment anywhere by any of our editors that has anything to do with gender". Eric Corbett 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Key, Eric, just providing you with a purely rational thought experiment, i.e. one of many possible ways anyone sexually harassing someone can hurt the project, and in this case even themselves. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather deal with hard evidence than with "thought experiments" than are in fact figments of your overly febrile imagination. Eric Corbett 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett and Carolmooredc, actually I was just providing an example of a "hysterical claim without even a shred of evidence to support it" for Eric's collection. It's surprising but also interesting that both of you interpreted my posting as an argument against his position. (Although, of course, as an easily intimidated person I'm against harassment.) —Anne Delong (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest anything "hysterical" (perhaps not the best word choice here...), nor do I want to see Wikimania turned into a vehicle by which the wealthier editors of Wikipedia establish their natural right of political dominion over the rest of us. As the first person to reply points out, there already is a policy, it's just not in the policy. Coming up with a philosophically sound, moderate criterion for sexual harassment is not easy, but presumably it would help admins to make more even-handed decisions when cases like this come up, with greater legitimacy, and most importantly, it would encourage any women who possibly have been subjected to sexual harassment but, upon seeing no mention of the topic in the current policy, simply stop editing rather than speaking up. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

So, Jimbo...

There has been a lot of discussion here on your talk page since I complained January July 29 [41][42] about civility on Wikipedia. It's veered off onto sexism and the gender gap, which are related, but the core problem, IMO, is a lack of respect for and enforcement of civility policies here. I was reviewing the Wikimania schedule, and it looks like that's ongoing through August 10. I was just wondering when we might expect some feedback from you regarding various ideas that have been pitched in regard to addressing the civility problem on Wikipedia. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking for. I discuss the issue (giving feedback) often. Do you have a specific proposal in particular that you'd like me to comment on? (And I think you mean July 29th not January? 6 days ago.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on the month, thanks. I've fixed it.

As for the feedback, when you rebooted the discussion, you suggested (neither supporting or opposing) that WMF hire community managers. [43] @BrownHairedGirl: suggested adopting the wmf:Friendly space policy, or simply enforcing the existing wmf:Terms of use.[44] I gave four specific suggestions, in two separate edits.[45][46] There were others. Anyway, when you rebooted the discussion, you mentioned that Wikimania was coming up, but that you would read the discussion with great interest. I was just wondering what you think of the ideas - at least those that interest you - so far. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The debate hasn't moved you much, has it? Carrite (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, Wikimania is just about upon us. I'm not prepared to speak to or support specific measures just yet but I do think there are proposals that could be very helpful. Nothing can be changed overnight I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, lots of things change in an instant, especially when someone wants to make a change. The status quo takes longer. USchick (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah, I love the smell of forum shopping in the morning. It smells like horse. You know, that dramatic smell of well bludgeoned equine when someone just can't drop the stick. 81.171.52.12 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Have I asked Jimbo to speak to a specific incident or editor? No. Am I asking him to do so now? No. Did he agree on July 29 that Wikipedia has a civility problem that must be addressed? Yes. You might want to re-read your own contribution to this page and re-consider who is beating what. Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC) User:81.171.52.12 at least the meat will be tender. Interesting sense of humor, that got a few belly laughs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The heckling following Lightbreather's 2nd comment here is a very good example of why something must be done on civility. Of course there was another recent example: somebody using the c-word, being blocked, and then having an admin remove the block. It's not just about civility, it's about enforcement of WP:NPA and the Civility Pillar in particular, and about a breakdown in the enforcement of very basic rules by admins in general.

Jimbo asked for specific proposals. Here are a few.

• Hire community managers/advocates/ombudsmen (don't we have these already?) who are easily accessed, and are empowered to block uncivil editors (let's say 2 days the 1st time, 4 days the 2nd time, 8 days the 3rd, etc,). Swift and sure enforcement will solve the problem.
• Empower the community managers to desysop admins who enable the incivility, e.g. by unblocking.
• The board should issue a statement saying that admins must respect policies and guidelines as written, and not oppose enforcement of the simple reading of policies and guidelines. Too many admins think that they get to make up their own rules as they go along.
• Bring in outside organizations, or even consultants, to describe how their organizations dealt with the more specific problem of an uncivil environment for women. There's nothing new here - lots of organizations have had to deal with this problem.
• Survey editors, readers, and WMF employees on whether they see a problem. It may not show up with readers, but my guess is that 70% of editors (90% of women editors) will tell you that there is a problem
• Governance on Wikipedia is clearly broken. Make it a priority so that during the next strategic planning period we have a long discussion on how to govern a project of the current size and visibility. The old way of doing things isn't working.

I believe there's a board meeting Wednesday and Thursday. Jimbo, can you bring up these concrete proposals? I won't be in London, but at 15:00 on Friday in the Barbican Room there is a Q&A session with the Board. Can somebody bring up these proposals then with them?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, other than the use of the c-word, what problems do you feel apply only to women, or more so to women? Gandydancer (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue is really on whether the rules will be enforced or not. I can't imagine anybody using the c-word in mixed company and not using it as a way to say as loudly and clearly as possible "Women are not wanted here and I'm trying to insult all of you." If that's not incivility, I don't know what is. But the civility pillar was not enforced. So are any rules ever going to be evenhandedly enforced? That is the key question for me. I'm male, I'll let women answer your quesstion, but you might look at WIKIPEDIA SEXISM IS SO ENTRENCHED, EVEN THE GOVERNMENT'S TRYING TO FIX IT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You have avoided my question. You stated, "[Wikipedia has] a problem of an uncivil environment for women", and I asked, "other than the use of the c-word, what [civility] problems do you feel apply only to women, or more so to women?". Other than the use of the c-word, I'd like to know what problems you are referring to. The article you linked to is about sexism, not about workplace environment. Gandydancer (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed two days ago, in the subsection above "Sexism on Wikipedia," and if you think that civility, the gender gap, and sexism on Wikipedia are unrelated, join up with like-minded editors and... show us your proof evidence.

• Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM. Retrieved July 30, 2014. RQ3: Gender-Conflict hint at a culture that may be resistant to female participation.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones Apparently you feel otherwise, but I consider ignoring another editor rude and uncivil. Gandydancer (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given you my answer: I think the main problem is that admins don't enforce the rules and I'll let women answer the specifics of your side-question. If you want me to format the answer in a specific form, I won't comply. Please don't badger people. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather Why are you so hostile? It is ironic that any hint that an editor may not be in full agreement with your assessment of the reasons that more women do not edit here is met with hostile statements suggesting that they must be anti-woman. I have not said that the lack of female editors has not affected our articles. It has and it does and the way things have been going since I first began to edit in 2006 I have seen it get worse.

Surely it must be obvious that Wikipedia culture is a reflection of society in general where a woman's thinking is seen as less well-thought-out than that of a man. That's why that when I joined I knew better than to list my gender and only the last few years, now that I have a long edit history, have I been willing to say that I am a woman editor. And I believe that in general editing is more difficult for women because they are more likely to attempt to negotiate rather than use aggressive tactics. Add to that MAS (Male Answer Syndrome) [47], to make discussion difficult as well. I noted that one study found that women tend to make longer edits that appear to have been well-thought-out beforehand while men make shorter edits that they then refine. I'd guess that is an example of MAS at work. Many times over the years I have seen editors twist their edit this way and that when their initial statement was false rather than admit they were wrong, and be unwilling to leave a discussion until they had the last word in. Since they were not aware that I was not a male, they obviously do it regardless, but I can imagine that if I were using a female name I might think that they were treating me in a sexist manner.

Lest anyone think I'm male-bashing, I'm not. I am speaking in general of my experiences over the years. The lead photo for the Americans article is perhaps a good example of what happens when totally clueless men edit. On the other hand, perhaps one of, or maybe the most important woman-related article in Wikipedia since it is the first concern that NOW lists, the Abortion article, was written by men. Three years ago a group of men changed the definition of abortion so that it did not imply that women are murderers. It took many pages with thousands of words on the talk pages discussion. This same group of men continue to watch the page to make certain that the definition language is not reverted to the previous wording that had stood for many years.

In short, I do hope that Wikipedia does not decide that we need to tighten up the civility rules for the benefit of the ladies as though that's going to make anything better. I find passive/aggressive behaviors much more frustrating than the occasional use of a few unapproved words. I don't know what might help. Perhaps some voluntary communication workshops. It would be good, for instance, to have Lightbreather explain in detail how she felt when Eric used the word cunt, which in the US is about the worst word there is (right next to nigger). And for Eric to explain to her his feelings as well. I was involved in groups for many years and it's pretty amazing what a good group facilitator can do. Gandydancer (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I am sorry if I came across as hostile. Let's say I do at times become defensive on the related subjects of Wikipedia civility, the gender gap, and sexism. I think that is understandable because when I bring these up I am usually accosted with a lot of allegations about my own conduct - or worse, intentions. (Although it's rarely provided, I can ask for evidence re my conduct, but intentions? No-one can know my intentions but myself, though plenty like to lecture me about what my intentions "are.")

Isn't it sad that you had to "know better" than to identify as a woman when you first started editing here? Perhaps if I had known better, I would have, too, but I didn't. I don't think I have the energy to comment on that any further right now, except to say again: Isn't it a sad commentary on the state of this grand project that "anyone" (appears 10 times in Wikipedia:About) can participate - but (unwritten) it's best to try to blend in with the fellas? (Then, once you've passed initiation, you can "come out." But for heaven's sake, don't suggest that anything is wrong with the model.)

Finally (I'm running out of steam), I hear you about both the longer edits and the negotiating. I ran into opposition early on in my editing (my currently preferred subject area is a contentious one). At first, I would make long, thought-out single edits. Then, I discovered that some other editors, rather than tweaking the part of what you'd written that they disagreed with, would revert the whole thing. So then I started breaking my edits into chunks. This, of course, meant that instead of one big edit, I might have a dozen or more smaller edits. I would get accused of editing in "avalanches." I would be asked to discuss my edits before making them. When I would discuss, I would be accused of being "tendentious" (a charge which I think is way over-used on WP). Basically, what I was being told was to go away. I suspect a lot of women who leave the project do so for this very reason, because if you get to that point and you choose to stand your ground - you will get the shit beat out of you. (I'm thinking of the scene in Gandhi, when the waves of people keep stepping forward to be beaten, except in this situation, I am a wave of one. I keep stepping up to incivility - as defined in WP policies - and I keep getting beaten down, by those who believe there is no civility problem. In fact, some say to be civil is uncivil. Ha!) Lightbreather (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: I totally agree with your experience, since I also edit controversial topics. I was watching two male dogs on the each side of two neighbors' fence the other day who spend at least an hour a day patrolling their side and peeing on each others' pee. A visiting female dog came up to the fence and started to pee and they both went nuts and scared her off. Here some yell CUNT or other obscene words (in a perfectly innocent fashion, of course) to scare off women. Luckily for them women choose not to reply with words that would wither their kilts in a second. (Tempting as it might be.)

We seem to forget that humans have both an upper brain (the cerebrum) which is relatively rational and a lower brain (the brainstem and cerebellum) that deals with automatic and unconscious functions. I like to think that humans can choose not to act like dogs automatically peeing all over territory they think is theres and driving out any females. Of course, that's more difficult in a culture that is riddled with patriarchal and violent attitudes and entertainment, teaching young males and some females to act like mad dogs. It would be nice if Wikipedia was a place that totally transcends - yes for weeks at a time - the lower brain "mad dog" modus operandi. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: I am re-reading your comments before answering, trying to understand. Where did Smallbones say "[Wikipedia has] a problem of an uncivil environment for women"? Lightbreather (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones - I'll see your blog link to the (richly POV and thoroughly unscientific) title of the piece in the illustrious Washington Free Beacon with this from Slate.com: Heather MacDonald, "Wikipedia Is Male-Dominated. That Doesn't Mean It's Sexist.: Why the New York Times and feminists should stop hyperventilating about the Web site's gender gap. Provocative article titles in the commercial media don't prove anything. Carrite (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Free Beacon headline is "Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist? $202,000 to address ‘gender bias’ in world’s biggest online encyclopedia," and although the how headlines are written is interesting, the more remarkable thing is... that the NSF is spending over $200,000 to find out why Wikipedia is sexist. Lightbreather (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: the actual title of the grants awarded is "Collaborative Research: Wikipedia and the Democratization of Academic Knowledge". The grants were awarded on September 1, 2013 and neither recipient has published any findings related to the grants. Do you think that it's fair to say that it may be presumptuous to label Wikipedia as sexist based on those facts? Also, I'm still interested on your thoughts on my question to you below. Thank you. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Having now read that paper you keep citing, I have three questions for you:

• 1)How much weight do you think should be given to findings that 'hint at a culture that may be resistant to female participation.'?

• To support the conclusion that there is a 'hint at a culture that may be resistant' the paper reports that:

...females are indeed significantly more likely than males to have their edits reverted during the early parts of their tenure. Interestingly, beyond this initial handful of edits, we see little statistical difference between females and males in how often they are reverted. This suggests that females and males who manage to reach a modest level of Wikipedia experience are on par with each other with respect to community-perceived contribution quality.

Given the paper's findings that:

...males and females are focused on disparate content areas within Wikipedia. There is a greater concentration of females in the People and Arts areas, while males focus more on Geography and Science.

Do you find it disconcerting that the paper makes no effort to record the sex of the reverting editor?

• What other areas of this paper do you think point to sexism or incivility being a cause of the gender imbalance on Wikipedia?

Thank you in advance for your answers. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

208.76.111.243: I am going to answer your three questions, and then no more, because I am not in the habit of discussing my opinions with anonymous commentators. I think the study supports anecdotal reports and the funding of further, related research, such as the one funded by the NSF. Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your line of thinking from "To support the conclusion" to "Do you find it concerting," but to answer your question: No, I do not find it disconcerting. The sex of the reverter would be interesting information to capture - assuming everyone divulges their sex - but sexism doesn't have to be about how you treat the opposite sex. The bigger question, IMO, is, regardless of which "sex" is doing it, are women editors being subjected to different, discouraging treatment? The two parts of this study that (suggest an) answer?

• Hypothesis: H3b F-Reverted-More Supported? Yes Description: Female newcomers are reverted more than males
• Hypothesis: H3d F-Blocked-Less Supported? Reversed Description: Females are more likely to be indefinitely blocked

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to those just given (H3b and H3d), this: "Hypothesis: H2c F-Social Supported? Yes Description: Females are more likely to participate in social- or community-oriented areas of Wikipedia." Social- and community-oriented areas function more smoothly if their members behave civilly. Or as Lam et al put it: Our results for H2c F-Social suggest that addressing the gender gap could help Wikipedia better address its needs in social- and community-oriented areas.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent post, Smallbones. @Jimbo:, if you're serious about this, I implore you to act on this request. The timing is excellent. Lightbreather (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want an indication of what Jimbo will do on this is exactly what he's done so far and does so well at in others, he will agree vaguely and then retreat without actually addressing the issue other then vague comments. The reason he does this is because he is largely a figurehead here and only one member of a board of directors. He's stated it off many times, he won't override the authority and I doubt he really can at this point as well. I suspect if the communities wishes are to be completely ignored the editor ranks will hemorrhage even more. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, we need a survey to see what the community's wishes really are. And as I said "my guess is that 70% of editors (90% of women editors) will tell you that there is a problem." Just wondering, where do you see the community's views? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if you don't trust him to bring up a problem at a meeting, ping some of the other board members: @Sj:, @Phoebe:, @Raystorm:, @Mdennis (WMF):, @Stu:. Lightbreather (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor ranks don't hemorrhage. We already have an encyclopedia. This reminds me of the comment that if an editor doesn't like it here, they can "fork". Please, let's be real. Everybody has complicated lives. "Wikipedian" is only a part of it. I don't perceive this discussion as being only about individual terms that might be problematic. Nor even about "women's" issues. The general topic is "civility", is it not? Should people refrain from speaking abrasively to other people? How can friction (to continue the "abrasiveness" analogy) be avoided? There are those who perceive restraints on language to be tantamount to restraints on free expression. I disagree completely. Anybody who has anything to say can express themselves using language that doesn't offend anyone. Therefore there is nothing standing in the way of solving this so-called "problem". Perpetuation of the deployment of potentially problematic language is just a choice. I definitely favor language that cannot possibly offend anyone. Wikipedia would be a better place if editors "spoke" respectfully to one another. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

But you focus on words and ignore behaviour, which is the weakness of your position. The problem is not with words. Eric Corbett 03:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How people use words is a behavior. The letters C, U, N, and T alone mean nothing. Put together they have meaning. When a person chooses that word over others that behavior has meaning. Lightbreather (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

But the word in question has different cultural connotations depending on the nationality of the speaker. For example, if Eric had said, "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a dick is not to act like one." would we still be here? I don't think so. But many people are choosing to ignore that Eric's original statement and my hypothetical are equivalent in many parts of the English speaking world. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't that complicated - or doesn't have to be. "Cunt" is a word that is offensive to many people. "Dick" is a word that is offensive to many people. What one means when one uses them is irrelevant in social situations, because only the people who use them can really know what they meant. All that matters is, if someone does take offense, or says they do, and the word is one that might reasonably be considered offensive, then the offending party apologizes, and refactors or retracts the statement; perhaps the offended person says "Thank you," but the big thing is - the discussion moves on. You don't spend hours or days trying to figure out who meant what and whether someone has the right to feel offended. That turns the whole situation into a competition. We're supposed to be collaborating, not competing. Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of forcing someone to apologize or retract/refactor their words wouldn't it be much less complicated to ignore the word you find offensive, especially given the knowledge that the word has different connotations depending on the locality of the speaker? Why does your offense at a word give you an obligation from that speaker? 208.76.111.243 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone makes an edit that unbalances the NPOV of an article, what "forces" them to retract or refactor it? What makes other editors not ignore it? Why is challenging such an edit an "obligation"? Policy. Specifically, WP:NPOV, which keeps the project's content credible. The encyclopedia is improved by the policy. If someone is uncivil, why are they "obligated" to retract or refactor their comment? Policy. WP:CIVIL also gives the project credibility, because we cannot expect the encyclopedia is improved by being created and maintained in a hostile working environment. I have given you two bonus answers today, ISP 208.76.111.243, for a total of five. I will give no more. Lightbreather (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A sound proposal, except for one flaw. These "managers" would look after the admins. Who, then, would look after the managers? If your answer is the WMF, that is a poor answer. If your answer is the community, that is also a poor answer. If the WMF had direct control over these people the WMF would also have direct control over us and our admins. If the community were to look after these people, as you suggest by the term "community advocate", it would just create another useless rank in our existing hierarchy. if your answer is none of these two, tell me what it is and I'll poke holes in that answer too. We don't need a nanny, especially not a nanny who is from an outside organization. KonveyorBelt 03:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones I appreciate your suggestions but as has been said countless times here, enforcing civility is hard - while there are some cases that are crystal clear, many many are messy. Just search ANI for "civility" and you will see the crazy quilt of situations. You will see the cruelest incivility couched in perfectly polite language, and earnest efforts to communicate and further the mission of WP, couched in course language. You will see complaints brought by (and against!) editors who are both clueful and insightful, editors who are neither, editors who are one or the other, or who are usually great and have suffered a lapse in one or the other. Some complaints baseless, some solid. Others, kinda. It is hard. "Simple readings" of policy, as you call them, are very often not possible. (here is a typically messy and ugly example from the archives) Add addressing sexism and other forms of systemic bias to the mix, and it only gets murkier, not clearer. I don't know how any high-level, exciting ways to solve the issues that people treat each other in crappy ways sometimes and that people can be terribly blind to what they are doing, sometimes. But I know that these are not issues that high-level declarations can meaningfully address. Like most things that drive change, sustained, considered, nonviolent grassroots action is the best tool. Enact civility. Try to talk people down from incivility, when they go there on Talk pages. Bring clean ANIs when people stick to their guns and persist in incivility, and do it calmly and cluefully. Watch ANI and calmly, cluefully support others who are doing the same. Maybe create a "Wikiproject Civility" and build a considered, insightful culture there. (I keep emphasizing "considered" and "insightful" because especially on complex issues like civility and bias, moving rashly and self-righteously is probably about the worst thing to do, if you want to effect meaningful, longterm change and not just create emotionally reactive drama) With something like that, the culture can change, albeit slowly. It will take something like that. This is not all revolutionary and action-y, I know. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC) (ce Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC))

This is really not as complicated as people make it out to be. I propose a very simple solution. Every admin gets a certain number of points, say 10 points to start. Every registered editor has 3 points that can be awarded to admins during the course of one year as reward points, and also 3 points that can be confiscated from admins. Once an admin runs out of points (for making bad decisions as determined by the community) the admin loses admin privileges. Good admins (as determined by the community) theoretically will have lots of points that can be converted to an award of some sort at the end of the year. At midnight on Dec 31 the clock resets and any admin with points gets to renew their adminship. Once you run out of points, you can never be an admin again. Problem solved. (Or at least a huge portion of it.) USchick (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite apart from the bureaucracy involved, need I point out that it would therefore be easy for a group of ten editors to desysop any admin by pouncing on Jan 1, for any misguided motive, regardless of involvement? This would only hinder admins resolving disputes because their opponents would just take away points. Besides, who gets to take the points? Autoconfirmed? That leaves it too open to sock/meatpuppets. And so on.... BethNaught (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What bureaucracy? Yes, only auto confirmed editors get to participate. Getting 10 editors to agree on something would be a miracle IMHO. Any admin who loses community confidence needs to lose their admin privileges anyway. Losing a few worthless admins would satisfy 99% of disgruntled Wikipedians. USchick (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What bureaucracy? Well, where do you keep track of the points, how do you check nobody gives or takes too many points, how do you prevent fraud? On talk pages which anyone can edit, or do you write some software? It's also worth pointing out that if you had, say a 90/10 RfA, immediately on promotion the opposers could take their points and permanently desysop the candidate despite the manifest consensus. For example. BethNaught (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Each auto confirmed editor only gets a total of 6 point for the entire year. 3 to award and 3 to take away. Once they run out of points attached to their user name, they don't have any more for the rest of the year, so what you're describing might happen in January, and then the people attempting to crash the system will be out of the game. What fraud? Unless someone hacks the system to create additional points, there's no fraud. The same way you can "thank" someone now, you can give them points. That's a new feature, right? It would work just like that. You can't make a move now without a bot coming right behind you to identify you, so the system is very well tracked already. USchick (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• I take it you are not too familiar with WikiPolitics. Ten points means nothing if a popular user doesn't like an admin, and is able to influence WikiFriends to use points. And even some of our most respected admins have made enemies over the years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposals one and two only should come if hiring and training lots of mediators doesn't work. The rest are good proposals. All of them should make admins who flout clear policies or help their pals and punish their enemies take heed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with Wiki politics, so I defer to people who know. It seems that the community is asking for an effort (any effort) to do something, which is really sad. If Wikipedia is a social experiment (which I suspect it is) then it's unrealistic for them to hire mediators. Is anyone here actually participating in those discussions? Are mediators seriously being considered? Also, my experience on this talk page leads me to believe that it's being answered by an intern. USchick (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

System crisis with Russian wiki

Now Russian Wikipedia goes in system crisis with Russian-Ukrainian war and Putin's regime attack on the human rights and freedoms. It seems that Russian Wikipedia controlled directly and indirectly by russian government that make impossible to write any anti-putin information. An example of systematic political censorship is article Putin khuilo! that exist in 21 wikis, but not in russian. (Some more examples you can see at Арбитраж:Посредничество ВП:УКР (in russian)) Wikimedia can verify fact of non-anonimous russian authorities edits this via logs of wikipedia's servers. So the question is - is it possible to perform a lustration in the Russian wikipedia? Or is it possible to create ru2 wiki - wikipedia in russian for all russian-speak people exept russian authorities and its Ministry of Truth that will be really free? --Pragick (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Bill Clinton supporters here managed to get the section header on his sexual abuses removed and mocked the idea it was important enough to be there. Now it's just a bunch of paragraphs under the "Bill_clinton#Public_image" section. So you don't necessarily need the government to removed negative material about a country's leaders or former leaders (or future leaders??). There is one in Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton#Sexual_misconduct_allegations but no listing of songs about his sexual allegations and other cultural phenomena, or about foreign reception. Perhaps his misconduct is as worthy of an article as a "Right sector"(?) football chant. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

1. article Putin khuilo! is not about Putin's personal sexual abuses. 2. "government controlled" means in ruwiki not only edition, but as well access to personal data of users and threats to life and freedom of wikipedia's editors. We know some facts that pro-putin's kind of Hitlerjugend collects addresses and other data for the punishment of undesirable editors. Рersonal data may be obtained from checkusers.--Pragick (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The same collection of data - probably more - is being done in this country. Americans have been threatened with prosecution for "material support" on flimsy grounds from surveillance. Edward Snowden and others warning Americans have been incarcerated or had threats to life and freedom. I don't see your WP:RS evidence it's being done there yet, though I'd be surprised if it wasn't. In any case, let's have facts, not propaganda. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Pragick: To be clear, are you alleging that checkusers are improperly using their permissions at ru. to facilitate political retaliation? Because that would be a really serious issue if true. Monty₈₄₅ 00:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  I guess it's possible. I know that checkusers can check the user only for its interest for some themes such as ruling party's corruption and stealing. I know that checkusers block not only open anonimous proxy, but as well paid vpn serveсes. --Pragick (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to keep a wiki from discriminating if enough of its members are committed to censorship. So I think the impulse to "ru2" is a good one. As a whole, the WMF or English Wikipedia can't arbitrarily pick out a few Russian editors or articles we think are good. What we can do is have a more open structure that gives more opportunities for alternative views to take hold. For example, we can encourage Russian editors to work on Russian-language drafts here for immediate translation to supplement our own articles, and in turn to translate our articles, properly updated, into Russian. In this way we can house some "ru2" drafts on en.wikipedia, knowing that they are effectively being watched by a larger pool of editors. Alternatively, I've started a suggestion meta:Usenetpedia... for now most people don't see the need, but it might become apparent; for Russian speakers it might already be apparent (though something tells me Usenet might not be doing so well in Russia, ru.wikipedia is an international resource). Wnt (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Putin has a lot of support in Russia. If you're looking for Russian government agents, you're more likely to find them editing articles about US government policy. Russian objection to Putin khuilo! is not about Putin. Russians consider Ukrainians as less civilized, especially when they resort to using profanity about their esteemed leader. As a result, the Russian effort to keep such "filth" off their Wiki is an effort to keep the Ukrainians out along with any Ukrainian supporters. Even those who don't support Putin are more likely to align with their fellow Russians against Ukrainians in this case. (This is an opinion from your friendly foreign political commentator here.) USchick (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr. 2001

Jimbo, can you clarify what you wish editors to do on your behalf regarding "Mr. 2001" ? In some cases, you engage with this person (e.g. here), the conversation takes place as any other, and is archives when it peters out. Other times such as today, other editors revert this user on sight. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've always made it clear that I will revert Mr. 2001 on sight on this page, unless Jimbo requests otherwise. Mr. 2001 is a banned editor and the rules say that anyone can revert his edits anywhere, anytime. When I see Mr. 2001 on other pages, I will always revert him. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice, but your opinion is irrelevant to my question here; the "revert anytime, anywhere" traditionally defers to the wishes of the talk page owner, if that happens to be where the posting is taking place. For example, Mbz1 and Grundle2600 may post to my talk page at any time, and I have to revert the occasional well-meaning editor who intervenes. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any talkpage editor is free to revert on their talkpage but in the main encyclopedia or other usertalk, Smallbones is well within revert at sight policies. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what I'm asking here. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The 5th pillar of Wikipedia begins: "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time...." — For those who remain obsessed with rules, here is an idea: When Mr. 2001 is out-and-out trolling, hat his comment. When Mr. 2001 is raising a legitimate point (albeit in a pointy way), grit your teeth and move along. That seems sensible, does it not? Carrite (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope that's why we have a ban, if they were welcome they wouldn't be banned. If you choose to ignore that on your page that is up to you or in this case Jimbo, but until he or the talkpage editor wants to readd it to the record then it's done within policy. I have left a few on my page too so I understand where you are coming from but I think it's a personal choice to each person's talkpage if they readd it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Captain Obvious, we really don't need the rules quoted to us here. The point, to reiterate, is that an editor has leeway on this matter as to allow a banned editor's comments to remain on his/her own talk page. I was asking the person, i.e. Mr. Wales, behind this talk page what he would prefer in regards to this particular banned editor; is it "revert always" or "only revert if they're being a jerk" or something in between. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of a ban then? If we will just grit our teeth and move along why ban them at all? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Bit like 'What's the point of a civility policy? If we will just grit our teeth and move along why have a civility policy at all?' AnonNep (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No the civility policy is about tolerance and can be cultural in nature in many cases, a ban is we do not want you here. Huge difference. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, both are cases where the community has reached consensus but the consensus is not enforced. AnonNep (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is a community guideline on civility and a consensus on enforcing it and on what terms where is that consensus. Show me where it defines it like it does with banned users. What I find funny is people specifically like Tarc will argue for civility and then lapse so completely in what a "normal" person could construe as a personal attack. That's why civility and personal attacks are so cloudy, the people whining about civility and decency disregard it whenever they choose. I'm only using it as an example because it only weakens what they are bitching about and is quite ironic and hypocr4itical at the same time. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL (which includes 'Blocking for incivility') and WP:BAN (which includes 'Edits by and on behalf of banned editors') became policy through consensus (they didn't drop out the sky). They aren't enforced. That's the rub. AnonNep (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No the pure hypocrisy of the position. It's selective enforcement, now IMO a clear personal attack is something like "Editor x is a stupid motherfucker" on the lamer side is "Captain Obvious" it's clearly not civil, it might even be harrassment if I thought they were doing it in relation to my level 1 warning on refactoring comments. Where is the enforcement for that? I demand justice, the world will not be livable until I right this injustice. Hold on while I climb the Riechstag dressed as spiderman. Enforcing a community ban is black and white, they post and they are reverted. I've left a couple evasion comments on my page but they were more the thank you for voting against sanctions sort which wasn't a discussion. This situation is quite different this is a person attempting to completely disregard the ban and do whatever anyway. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is selective enforcement, I gave examples of 2 banned editors who I have allowed to post on my talk page. You have no say in that matter whatsoever; I do. That's what I was asking here; what is Jimbo's say on "Mr. 2001". Tarc (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any admin has a say in that matter, simply by blocking the account/IP of said editors. Resolute 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

'IMO a clear personal attack is something like...' so, start trying to get consensus for your favoured change to the policy and follow it through until you get it. Until then there's a policy that already has consensus but isn't being enforced. I agree with you on 'selective enforcement' but its 'selective enforcement' of the consensus policy that does already exist. AnonNep (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Even after five years contributing to this encyclopedia, I am still surprised at how many editors, on all sides of our perennial "issues", feel compelled to repeat themselves over and over and over again, as if obsessive repetition is persuasive. As for the person we are calling "Mr. 2001", Jimbo engages them in conversation quite often, and this is his talk page, and he has an open door policy. So, as did Tarc, I am directing a question to Jimbo: Do you want various editors reverting inquiries from Mr. 2001, or do you want to make those decisions yourself? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A quicker answer to that is the block that is needed for evasion. Hence why an SPI was filed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And if we could just get enforcement on all existing consensus based policies we wouldn't be talking about them over and over and over again. AnonNep (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah enforcement is the problem, because there is no answer to what is incivility and what isn't, what is blockable and what isn't. That's the problem that has to be solved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think incivility is completely up for debate but at the moment we have a consensus policy that is being selectively enforced. As a result there are arguments over both what should be in the policy and what should be enforced by that policy. So, let's enforce the existing policy, the one already agreed to, see what happens. If the sky doesn't fall in I expect it'll be kept, in some form, but the enforcement will allow us to look at the real, rather than oft-projected strawman, effect before we work towards consensus based changes. At the moment, we're running in circles. AnonNep (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

of course we are going in circles that's the problem. That's why the pillar is an ideal, we likely won't be able to enforce it but it's a goal to strive for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A goal to strive for is a goal to strive for. Let's just enforce what already exists, and has already been agreed to, and reassess, as a community, based on the effect of that. AnonNep (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We know what incivility is. Incivility is unnecessary escalation of abrasiveness. The necessity here is communication. Any degree of abrasiveness above and beyond that which might be necessary for articulating a point in communication with another editor is incivility, for Wikipedia purposes. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What does Jimbo think?

This arguing is all very well and good and you are entitled to have your own opinions, but ultimately it is up to Jimbo himself. You may notice if you look very carefully and in the right places, that it is after all his user talk page and not a noticeboard or village pump. So what is your opinion, Mr. Wales? Do you want him to post on your talk page? KonveyorBelt 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? DuncanHill (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, that's not very civil... You don't want to go getting yourself hatted, do you? Carrite (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, putting the snark aside for a moment, the above is an excellent example of why a WMF Censorship Bureau is never going to work. It's perfectly possible to be absolutely incivil without using a single naughty word, just dump on a little bit of sarcasm and claim it was literal if the Official Morality Police come knocking. Grumpy people will be grumpy from time to time. As established editors we all know how to dodge conflict, or we should, and how to take action if crabbiness crosses over into harassment. Carrite (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why the WMF says, "Freedom of speech is essential to the Wikimedia movement—our projects cannot flourish in an ecosystem where individuals cannot speak freely", when it's very likely that this very edit will be snuffed out within minutes, on the premise that I am a sockpuppet who has no freedom of speech, while being simultaneously brought up on an invalid sockpuppet investigation. - Spotting ToU (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If I removed your comment User:Carrite it was unintentional and I apologize. I reverted tarcs re-addition of material because the SPI asked for more information which I have provided [[48]] which screams WP:DUCK Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo may or may not weigh in on this topic soon. My observation is that the status quo seems to be working:

• Sometimes, Mr. 2001 is clearly trolling. Usually, other editors (myself including, at least once) will closes or remove the discussion.
• I've never seen Jimbo revert said closure/reversions.
• In other cases, when the comment from Mr. 2001 seems productive, no one closes or removes. Eventually, Jimbo might or might not respond.
• I don't recall seeing Jimbo close such discussions.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the banned editor again and will repeat myself for those who didn't understand the 1st time "I've always made it clear that I will revert Mr. 2001 on sight on this page, unless Jimbo requests otherwise. Mr. 2001 is a banned editor and the rules say that anyone can revert his edits anywhere, anytime. When I see Mr. 2001 on other pages, I will always revert him."

Notice that Jimbo hasn't made any recent comments on this.

If anybody disagrees with my reversions, feel free to take it to ANI, but that certainly didn't work before when Mr. 2001 did it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have, once again, restored it; you don't get to be judge & jury on this, I'm afraid. It is just a comment, it is neither disruptive nor abusive, and it will do no harm to remain while the 2nd attempt at an SPI finding is being considered. Do not remove it again. Tarc (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to give help for the US president

Grandstanding by Russian IP hopper, Wikipedia is not for propaganda
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Jimmy. English Wikipedia is used for the promotion of mass murders vs the US citizens and vs Barak Obama (lobbying for the good of the NRA). I ask you stop the promotion of terrible death via Wikipedia. You can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&action=history Vandals for the good of the NRA must restore edits with the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=620021457#Second_Amendment_rights : "Second Amendment is the main trump and subject for misuse from the side of the National Rifle Association. Lobbing and corruption, which have relation to this organization, often are the reason of mass murders with help of firearms in the US (simple citizens are victims). Gun control in the United States almost does not exist by the fault of the NRA. For gradual stopping of mass murders can be organized special investigation to identify corrupt members of the US Congress and take relevant action vs them. Besides that, Barak Obama seeks support and attention of the US population, to decide the problem via different methods. He promises not to cancel the Second Amendment and explains, that restrictions are very needed on the federal and regional level - in relation of other relevant laws.[115] [116] [117] [118] [119]" Thank you Jimmy! - 37.144.112.87 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC). For someone editing from IPs geolocating to Moscow, and with some issues with the English language, you seem to have an unusual interest in a domestic US policy issue. Monty845 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Truth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC) You might also want to take a look at wp:3RR before editing that article again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC) I see you have also been edit warring in Gun law in the United States. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC) The NRA is key factor for the US gun laws, de facto (totally relevant information even for this article). Only lazy do not write that the NRA is the reason of terrible deaths almost every day in schools of the US and not only. The US president seeks support of population, but lobbists from Wikipedia do not wish give the bloody truth for the attention of visitors of Wikipedia. Action vs people of the US and vs Obama in the same time. A large number of respected sources write things, about which I say now. Relations of Russia and USA currently - have no any meaning (simple Russian people wish the good for the US citizens and children, which can be killed in any second because of the activity of the terrible organization (NRA). I ask give the sad truth for the attention of the US citizens (facts and respected opinions, which can destroy the bloody power of the NRA: life of a large number of the US people will be saved). If my English is bad (I am Russian), editors of English Wikipedia can make corrections (grammatical mistakes not will be trouble). Google bot was used. - 37.144.108.218 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore needs to be a place of neutral information, not an advocacy group for one side or the other. However at the bottom that article Gun politics in the United States there's links to articles of pro gun control groups. If you're passionate on this issue you should seek out the website of one of these groups. I'm sure there's a 'how you can help' section.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC) It's not the advocacy group, these are facts and opinions for the aims of the encyclopedia. Your right be with any reasons inside yourself (your personal motivation edit articles). But relevant facts and opinions are intended for relevant articles. When the NRA is key factor for the US gun laws, this information must be fixed in the article "Gun laws in the United States" (for example). Advocacy group (using your terminology) - is your explanations for me now (in favor of the NRA - it should be note). When the US president says about the NRA and about the US Congress in very sad context (such moments also must be placed in relevant articles). It is not only opinions - speeches of Barak Obama (facts and opinions in the same time). He urges the whole nation: restrictions are needed (need to display). Head of the state said. Hundreds of respected sources say that the NRA is the mashine for mass murders (need to display). Wikipedia uses these sources long time ago. And exist else more of sources, which say about the bloody truth. Lobbying of death via Wikipedia (very bad thing). And your opinion have no the big meaning (request is directed not to you: request for stop vandalism in favor of the NRA). In accordance with the rules of Wikipedia, lobbying and actions vs aims of Wikipedia must be banned. Main aim of Wikipedia (find relevant information and place this in relevant articles). Not lobbying for the good of the NRA (if somebody tries hide sad facts and important opinions in the same time). Read rules of Wikipedia (which materials can be placed in articles). There is no something like this (bloody activity of the NRA - is separate case). There is no (Obama or respected sources say about murders via the NRA, and such information must be hidden). You can be named as advocacy group (it is not about me). - 95.27.118.116 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC). I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. There's much of what you wrote that I don't think translated as you intended. Online translators are not as acurate as they'd need to be, for us to get our points across. I don't mean this as an insult. I'm sure if I tried the same in russian we'd have the same problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC) It was not insult (you are right). About translation (I already wrote: I need help to be free of grammatical mistakes). - 95.27.118.116 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC). But your text (15:08, 6 August 2014) I understood very good. - 95.27.118.116 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

• I think the biggest obvious omission I see in Gun politics in the United States is that the Black Panthers are not mentioned. The NRA spends the bulk of its energy protecting the right of rich old white guys to play around with $10,000 machine guns while in many places poor blacks can be thrown in prison for five years for daring to have a means of self-defense when walking through gang-infested neighborhoods. In the long term I don't even know if the NRA is relevant to gun issues. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Internet passwords reportedly stolen

A Russian group has reportedly stolen more than 1,000,000,000 Internet passwords.

• Russian Gang Amasses Over a Billion Internet Passwords—The New York Times (August 5, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility, the English Wikipedia, and the WMF

Here is a restatement of my thoughts for the WMF on civility (and its lack) in the English Wikipedia and the role of the WMF.

Civility is one of the so-called five pillars of the English Wikipedia. However, it is not enforced, and discussion on the English Wikipedia is often deeply uncivil. There is essentially no sanction for uncivil conduct that does not rise to the status of personal attacks, and some personal attacks are also ignored.

Three policies have the combined effect of preventing any enforcement of the civility policy and further preventing any effective discussion of the enforcement of the civility policy. The first policy is the principle that any block imposed by an administrator can be reversed by another administrator. It is recommended but not required that the unblock first be discussed with the blocking administrator. The second policy is the principle that blocks are preventive and not punitive. The third policy is the rule, very strictly enforced, against wheel warring, conflicts between administrators. The result is that civility blocks, which are controversial, will typically be unblocked. Since the original block was preventive (to avoid further incivility) and not punitive (to punish the incivility), it cannot be restored, and restoring it would be wheel warring. Since any particular case in point is then closed, any further discussion is essentially off-topic. There is no real opportunity within the scope of community enforcement for discussion of civility enforcement.

Some editors are clearly quite satisfied with the non-enforcement of civility. A few have even stated that any editor who is dissatisfied with the lack of civility enforcement should exercise the “right to fork”. (Jimbo Wales said recently that if a group of editors wants a community where incivility is tolerated, he would buy them their servers. I would say that they already have their servers, because they have the English Wikipedia servers, but that is my opinion.) I do not think that anyone knows what percentage of members of the community would prefer a more civil work environment but are silent (either out of intimidation or out of a desire not to cause conflict).

The governance of the English Wikipedia, like other WMF communities, is mostly a “direct democracy” under what is essentially a charter granted by the WMF. The exception to that direct democracy is that the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is elected by the community and so is an indirect democracy.

A case is currently pending before the ArbCom, waiting to be accepted or declined, concerning a particular incident of incivility and requests from some editors to accept it as an omnibus civility case. The ArbCom is probably about to decline the case. Some of the arbitrators state that this is an issue which the community should address for itself. That would be true in the best of all possible worlds, but this is not the best of all possible worlds. The community has demonstrated that it cannot, on its own, enforce civility. It can be reasonably argued that the ArbCom, which applies policy and does not make policy, should not intervene without at least community agreement as to how policy should be applied.

If the English Wikipedia is unable or unwilling (and the lack of consensus means that it is unable) to enforce its own civility policy, and the ArbCom will not enforce a policy on which the community cannot agree, the only remaining options are for the WMF, as the owner of the servers and author of the charter of self-government for the English Wikipedia, either to leave the English Wikipedia to its own incivility, or to intervene somehow. The problem won’t solve itself. The community can’t solve its own problem, and the community’s ArbCom can’t solve the problem without the backing of the community. Various proposals have been offered as to what the WMF can do. Will something be done, or will civility be ignored?

The preamble to the overarching Terms of Use includes: “Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.” Will the WMF ensure that the reference to civility has actual meaning, or will it, like the English Wikipedia policy with the same name, be an empty principle?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Define civility. Do it in such a way that it enjoys a broad consensus. Once that is done the rest will fall into place. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Draw bright lines. There are NO extenuating circumstances that should excuse a senior edtior from a long-term ban after telling another to fuck off and die. And yet, that actually happened. I'm relatively new around here, but I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it with my own eyes.   Mandruss |talk  03:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: I had an editor link to an off wiki blog entry which included a comment I and my family should be gassed. He got a 48 hour block but still wikihounds me almost everyday. I guess it's off to ANI or Arbitration to see if I can get help again but not holding my breath. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem possibly to be conflating again. From what you say, the user was blocked (punitively? ahem) for posting the link; that the same user is allegedly hounding you now would thus have nothing to do with the original block: a one-off and a pattern are different situations. Or did you mean to say that you had someone who was hounding you, of which posting the link was just one part in the pattern, was blocked for the pattern and is still hounding you? I vaguely recall that you've brought this up several times in the past, so it looks like one of those instances where, really, you need to put your money where your mouth is and actually take it to ANI. "Hounding", though, is a term often bandied about and often incorrectly alleged, so check for boomerangs first. (Obviously, if there is a practical rather than theoretical boomerang hazard then raising the issue here would also be a bit disingenuous, but I'm assuming that there isn't and basically just advising you to double-check). - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Actually, I have three hounders, the big one and two little ones. All three have trouble hearing me say "you are banned from my talk page" and "stop following me around/criticizing me/and/or reverting me" despite my repeated reminders I consider it wikihounding and harassment. [added later:And as you know perfectly well, Sitush, I've brought copious diffs regarding two of the individuals to both ANI and Arbitration to little avail (not to mention repeatedly to Admins who have already warned them!!) So don't act naive.

But I have begun to realize the reason guys put up with the hostile culture of Wikipedia and much of the internet is that they are taught to suffer pain in silence and "man up" whereas women today say "F* this pain" and split when it starts. Dang, I have to stop manning up! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that idea from. Men in general are taught to stand up and fight, both in their own defence and that of others. Is that a bad thing? Eric Corbett 22:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Having had profoundly uncivil (to say the least) comments aimed at me on many occasions by admins, sole-co-founders, Arbs, etc, I do not believe that WMF has either the ability or the authority (either moral or formal) to attempt any kind of enforcement in this area. Too many people who should have known better have burnt the bridges upon which they themselves were standing. DuncanHill (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, hypothetically, your saying that if another person was constantly making new socks and leaving extremely sexist/racist comments on my talk page, and I finally got so frustrate as to tell the person to "fuck off and die", that I should immediately receive a long term ban? Doesn't matter what was said or done to precipitate the outburst? (personally, there isn't anything that a sock or vandal can say that upsets me, their vandalism of my talk page just proves I've been effective, but others don't see it that way and can get rather upset over it) Monty₈₄₅ 03:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that pretty well sums up what I'm saying. I doubt there are many cases where people who are uncivil don't feel they're justified. So, if we say, "Don't be uncivil, but experience shows that you'll probably be forgiven if you had enough reason to be uncivil", we might as well give no guidance at all. The only real test of one's civility is how he treats those who don't deserve it.   Mandruss |talk  04:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I can think of at least three admins and one sole-co-founder who have such a history of incivility to me that no admin would ever think it proper to block me for calling them names. And that's not to mention those admins who have threatened to block me for revealing that they were enabling banned editors. DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And therein lies the core problem as I see it. All incivility is justified in the eyes of the person doing it---and, as you point out, also in the eyes of some enablers. We have to (1) establish effective ways of dealing with incivility, and (2) in the meantime, respond to incivility, injustice, etc., with civility---or be prepared to pay with a break. Anyway, if I'm so angry that I lose my ability to be civil, a break is probably a gift, not a sanction.   Mandruss |talk  04:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we're off the topic of the OP, which I think was mostly addressed to Jimbo rather than the community (it is Jimbo's user talk page, after all). It wouldn't offend me if someone hatted most of this.   Mandruss |talk  05:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Specific examples help as a reminder something needs to be done. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: There's a big difference between occasional incivility because people are doing something absurdly wrong or because someone has gone out of their way to push you buttons and the type that is exercised for domination and control (or because the person has an anger problem). Admins who know the difference can be helpful. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Trying to draw the line between those is where the civility discussion usually bogs down. Whats occasional? Does activity level influence that?) What counts as baiting? And how do you deal with different combinations of those factors, combined with more or less egregiously uncivil comments? If admins don't agree on that, saying leave it up to the admin "who knows the difference" doesn't get us anywhere. Monty₈₄₅ 18:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is rather pointless to get bogged down in such things, esp here. I think one large step to take would be to make it more difficult to undo an administrator's civility block. If serial disruptors like Malleus and others had had even a handful of those blocks actually stick for their intended duration, we may not even be here discussing this today. Tarc (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You civility warriors really do make me laugh. You appear to believe that it's perfectly OK to call me a "serial disruptor", but if I'd called you that I'd very likely have been blocked again. Have you no insight into your own behaviour? Eric Corbett 22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, Baiting someone like you've just done is tremendously uncivil. But I expect that you know that don't you? 208.76.111.243 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course he does. The dishonesty sticks out a mile. Eric Corbett 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I take your complaint a about as seriously as a defendant in a trial were he to whine about a witness describing his misdeeds. Which is to say, not seriously at all. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And here is the crux of the entire civility matter. You get to bait Eric, you get to purposely goad him by contemptuously referring to him by his old username, and you do it with impunity. If there was an ounce of honesty in this whole civility debate then you would be blocked for such antics. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Weird press release mentioning Jimbo and a "Wikipedia Reform/Civility Movement (WRCM)"

Brought to my attention at WP:ANI#User Jim-Siduri again - I think this might merit admin attention, see [49] (now collapsed). Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

From the 'release': "Ghe Wikipedia Reform/Civility Movement (WRCM) announced today a new promotional campaign in support of Jimbo Wales’ "moral ambitiousness" concept. The campaign will include press releases, targeted outreach and other support mechanisms to facilitate the effective implementation of Jimbo’s idea into Wikipedia. WRCM intends to use Jimbo’s "moral ambitiousness" concept to initiate a new Wiki-based project to discuss, create and implement Wikipedia reforms with the intention of significantly reducing hostility and uncivil behavior and significantly increasing female participation on Wikipedia." Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How strange. For the record, I have never heard of WRCM and have nothing to do with it. I can say that no reputable press will take notice of a press release written in such an amateurish style (referring to me as "Jimbo" - my Internet nickname). I would recommend that those who want to support the idea of moral ambitiousness around how we treat each other get involved in peacefully and cheerfully helping to improve policy and change attitudes internally - an external press campaign is not likely to get traction without my support, nor is it really the most effective route to positive change in this instance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We hatted it at WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force with a "not Task force project note" once we realized he was mentioning the project; plus took off all mention of the project. But will leave hat there in case he actually sends out the press release and media visits the link.

This is a strange well-meaning but deeply ignorant editor with grandiose ideas, which appear to be to use Wikipedia as his web vehicle to make the world a better place in some unspecified way. At WP:ANI, I have recommended a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

However, wouldn't it be nice to send out a press release saying "There has been no incivility/harassment/wikihounding at any Wikimedia project in one whole week." Would make my life more pleasant... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Duh. Like Carol, I would very much like to have significant reductions in the level of incivility, harassment, and hounding on Wikipedia. But if Carol really thinks that something would reduce the level of misconduct to zero for one week, she may be looking at an alternate reality. (So, maybe, is Jim-Siduri.) If there really were no reports of incivility for a week, it would be a very bad sign, because it would mean that everyone who would report incivility had been intimidated. We can hope, but we shouldn't hope for the unobtainable, because that is to dash hopes. I think that Jim really is hoping for something in an alternate reality. I don't know about Carol. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The phenomenon of incivility on Wikipedia Talk pages has to do with the clash of a small community with a large community. This is a large community and it always will be one. A much higher level of abrasiveness is permissible in smaller communities. We should be expected to speak differently here than we speak with our smaller circles of acquaintances. The language that we should be speaking here could be thought of as a different language than the one that we speak in the mostly smaller groups in which we exercise our verbal abilities. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Important discussion about categories at VPP

Hi Jimbo and to all those who follow this talk page. An important discussion concerning the ever-growing confusion as to how to sort categories on WP pages has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. It addresses the chaos that currently exists, and in creating a simple solution for the problem of the growing numbers of categories on article and category pages that are not sorted by any real consistent criterion or method, something that may have been okay for WP in its early days but that is now clearly in urgent need of fixing. Thank you for your attention, sincerely, IZAK (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, Jimbo Wales. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to stop lobbing for the good of the NRA

Hello Jimmy Wales. English Wikipedia is used for the promotion of mass murders vs the US citizens and vs Barak Obama (lobbying for the good of the NRA). I ask you stop the promotion of terrible death via Wikipedia. You can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&action=history

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=history (your page is used for the promotion of death)

Vandals for the good of the NRA must restore edits with the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=620021457#Second_Amendment_rights :

"Second Amendment is the main trump and subject for misuse from the side of the National Rifle Association. Lobbing and corruption, which have relation to this organization, often are the reason of mass murders with help of firearms in the US (simple citizens are victims). Gun control in the United States almost does not exist by the fault of the NRA. For gradual stopping of mass murders can be organized special investigation to identify corrupt members of the US Congress and take relevant action vs them. Besides that, Barak Obama seeks support and attention of the US population, to decide the problem via different methods. He promises not to cancel the Second Amendment and explains, that restrictions are very needed on the federal and regional level - in relation of other relevant laws.[115] [116] [117] [118] [119]" Thank you Jimmy Wales! -95.27.106.71 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

You have already been told that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal political campaigns. This isn't going to change - and if you carry on like this, you are liable to find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming a problem. I am not an admin, but I strongly suggest that an admin look into this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have contacted discospinster, who locked the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That I did. If the behaviour continues from this editor (via multiple IPs), it will stay locked. Personal commentary does not belong in articles. ... discospinster _talk 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Do not write st.pid things, so called discospinster. You and your comrades violated rules of Wikipedia (not about me). And you must restore the contribution from me, by this reason (including, by this reason). You must unlock articles. "IP editor" could edit article one time instead several (when the lobbying vs many of things does not exist). Exists only in favor of the NRA - from your side (see history, to understand - who vs people of the US and who acts for the good of NRA in the same time). Wikipedia does not depend from any NRA (any NRA is zero here). Propaganda (promotion of an idea). Not facts and opinions from respected sources (you must understand such fact, if you do not wish be blocked by the will of the owner of this page, who respects lives of children and the US citizens). Read the rules and respect them. Here is not place for lobbying and propaganda of the NRA. Place for facts and knowledge. - 95.29.135.141 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Right to remember

File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg

Template:PufcThis photo of Tom Carstairs on Wikipedia was removed from Google Search following a "right to be forgotten" request.

Please see Lila Tretikov WMF Blog, Wikipedia pages censored in European search results, Geof Brigham and Michelle Paulson, BBC Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links.

The photo was up for deletion on Wikipedia. I've put it in the Right to be forgotten article. It should also be moved to Commons and put in a new (?) Category:Right to be forgotten. Perhaps all the other articles should be put in a Wikipedia category, or maybe a List of articles subject to "right to be forgotten" requests. Please remind me if I forget. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Articles blocked by Google for local listings. Monty₈₄₅ 18:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem with Category:Articles blocked by Google. At the time of writing, Gerry Hutch is still showing up in a google.co.uk search. All we know for sure is that Google has told the Foundation about its intention to block the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: The reason why Gerry Hutch is being blocked by Google may have nothing to do with Hutch. See this screenshot. This refers to a retired officer from the Garda Síochána who is mentioned in the current version of the article. If we remove this, will the block be lifted? --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The page is not blocked by google. Nor will it be. All it means is when a particular name (usually that of an individual) is googled, the identified URLs will not be included in the search results. It would still be findable using any other search string. fish&karate 22:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, actually, I just tried some control experiments and I get the same "some of the results may have been removed" message for any random name, Arnold Layne, etc. I would welcome an experiment that can show whether a page has been removed, but I don't see we're here yet. Adding "Wikipedia" to the search and manually checking whether the article comes up is better, but it may be hard to go through all the results - in any case, Felix McKenna "Wikipedia" does get me Gerry Hutch on www.google.co.uk. (Of course, for all I know they checked and saw I wasn't actually located in Europe, and for all I know they might do the reverse for google.com. We could use more info...) Wnt (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The former Irish police officer is the only name currently in the article producing the "results removed" message (Mike Tyson could not cause this as he is a U.S. citizen, and Jim Sheridan and Alan Devine are not causing the message to appear). As Sherlock Holmes would say, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Well, almost. It is extraordinarily hard to prove who made one of these requests, but it has to be a living European citizen mentioned in a Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)