User talk:Jimbo Wales

Why would one want to be uncivil?

Just a simple question to any editors who feel it applies to them, why would you want to be uncivil? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Good editors are sometimes uncivil after sustained attack from clueless contributors who do nothing to build content but who have majestic opinions—everyone is equal on the internet! The problem is that Wikipedia has no way to handle civil POV pushers, whether they are ensuring [^{insert nationality}] is dominant, or pushing bling such as infoboxes. The pushers have won, but what they should have done was hold central discussions to make infoboxes compulsory. They chose another tactic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but why would someone want to be uncivil in such a situation? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Frustration - if you feel someone is an ignorant jackass, the obvious thing is to say they are an ignorant jackass. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

They see it as the only way to protect the encyclopedia. As for ignorant jackass, some of us are capable of distinguishing between our personal opinion/perspective and fact. "You are an ignorant jackass" is quite different from "You are an ignorant jackass, in my view." ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Many of the people who develop featured articles spend serious money buying references as well as serious time studying sources—that's before writing begins. They become very heavily involved in the topic and may be unable to avoid an emotional reaction when clueless passers-by open old wounds. Using expletives is seldom useful, but people are different, and not everyone can remain poker-faced when repeating the same argument for the twentieth time. One day articles may be written by AI bots, but until then the community should assume that writers are talented people with a wide range of backgrounds, and a wide range of emotional responses when under pointless attack. The community should step in and protect such writers—not give them a free-pass, but ensure that the drive-by editors move elsewhere because that would give the best result for the encyclopedia. Infoboxes are not mandatory, and the present tactic of driving off editors who prefer developing articles without them is highly unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the protection of "such writers" is also quite at the heart of the problem. The ownership exhibited by article "stewards" is part of the problem. Categorizing people as "drive-by editors," assuming that such an editor's opinion is unworthy, is part of the problem. Mistaking long term and blatant incivility as "infobox problems" is part of the problem. Assuming that an FA contributor is more worthy of protection than an editor who "doesn't edit articles all that much" is part of the problem - especially when I'll stack up my personal library against the collection of an average FA editor. And your assuming that I think I won something.... is part of the problem. And I really do mean that when I say, "with respect," as for all my differences with what you've said to me / about me, I won't deny that I could have been a better person in my responses. While at the same time not accepting the excuses and nothing but insults I received from said editor who was "driven off." And my sincerest apologies if my response here seems improper. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 04:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Incivility is the property of a community as much as the individual. People rarely escalate to extremes unless provoked by circumstance. But I think a big part of the escalation is badly written policy. For example, the case above made me complain at WP:POLEMIC that there are very different interpretations of that policy by different people. I've previously complained that WP:Civility has a lot of aspirational claptrap that greatly distracts from what the policy actually says. The problem is, when you have something like civility whose enforcement is so inherently vague and problematic, and then you pour on policies that read differently to different people, or which are too long and diffuse for anyone seriously to read through and learn at all, you have a situation where the moment that civility is called into question, people start feeling wronged because of inconsistent interpretations of what the policy is, and then they break other parts (at least in the eyes of some people) because they feel like it isn't being enforced anyway. I mean, picture how a baseball game would play out if they didn't have a foul line but let the umpire decide when a ball went too far to one side. Badly written policy weighed down with cruft and too-cute phrasing and diplomatic compromises where people with different intentions agree on intentionally vague text... it's a toxic legacy for everyone on the project. Wnt (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• And as a handy example of "civil POV pushing" we have dismissing infoboxes out of hand as "bling". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. I do not go around trying to add or remove infoboxes, and while I'm happy to offer opinions, I do not push my views. Also, I am not dismissing infoboxes—my only point is that there is no policy or guideline requiring their presence. Are infoboxes essential for machine-readable data? Or for time-challenged readers wanting a quick answer to a quiz question? Uniformity is desirable, but articles come in different shapes and sizes and complete uniformity is unachievable. That is particularly true given that articles are written by many people from very varied backgrounds. Johnuniq (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to be uncivil on Wikipedia. I can express everything that i need to while being civil. Anyone who makes excuses for being uncivil is simply making excuses for bad behavior. There is absolutely no need to be uncivil. Every editor can speak to the content itself, and not make accusations or insinuations about other editors. Every person can simply speak from their own self in the first person and leave out all snark and insults about others. But for this to work, it must be enforced to an extent that there is not the critical mass of hostility that currently pervades the project. In this atmosphere, someone speaking simply and directly is lost in a cacophony of yelling by others, and too often gets attacked and incited themselves. SageRad (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The worse (and more pervasive) kind of uncivil behavior, though, is not simply "You're a jackass!" Simple statements like that are too obvious. The worse is continual low-level hostility and insinuations with low-level aggression and bullying. Manipulative bully behaviors are usually designed to be just under the radar, or under a threshold that is easily called out. That's the more harmful type of behavior, in my experience. To address this we need to improve enforcement through good group dynamics, and have people call out bad behavior like that. SageRad (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protesteth too much... SageRad, you yourself can be plenty combative towards other editors as exemplified by THIS easily found diff in which you more or less directly accused another editor of following a "propagandist agenda" in their editing. Don't be so smug about how you "can express everything that [you] need to while being civil." Incivility is in the eye of the beholder. I'm far more concerned about Civil POV pushing to affect content than I am about people who lose their stuff in the face of incessant provocation now and again. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Look there you made your comment about me instead of about the actual topic. Your focus of your comment on me with insinuations toward my character is the very type of uncivil behavior about which i was speaking above. I'm not perfect and never claimedd to be. And... your diff is from less than a month after i began editing, while i was still struggling to remember to indent comments, to exemplify exactly what about me? Check out my next contribution in that thread and see whether i learned and remained civil. Anyway, i have developed greatly since that time, in regard to editing within Wikipedia. I'm not perfect, but it's really possible to discuss content and topics like this one without commenting on the other editor. It's possible to simply speak to the topic. If you must use examples, then make something up. SageRad (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

When a person says "me, me, me," the subject is them. What I am saying is: humility and humbleness are good things. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure i get your point here. Speaking from first person is a good rule of thumb to avoid being uncivil. Speaking as simply as possible is a good rule. I've learned somewhat to leave out snark and extra commentary. One can say "Only an idiot would think that source X says Y. It obviously says Z." or one can say "Source X doesn't say Y, it says Z." To my read, the first is uncivil and the second is fine. I'm not perfect. I'm working on it continuously. The more people who work on it, the better off we will be. It can be a cycle either way -- a cycle of incivility, or a cycle of respect. SageRad (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this is a genuine question? If so, is it intended to mean

"What are the real or perceived tactical advantages and psychological rewards of employing verbal and/or relational aggression in talk page discussions?"?

Is it true and relevant that intractable "incivility" problems tend to occur more where there is a "reward" system in the form of peer recognition of contributors (for instance in connection with FA, GA, DYK, etc.)? --Boson (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, the rude, vicious cyberbullies tend to win their way, by driving normal, neutral, educated users to leave their long-term skeleton crews of the specialist editors who had kept portions of Wikipedia up-to-date and improving, but are now fed up with other typical editors being driven away, as with Facebook bullies ruining social media. The proverbial "10,000 monkeys" at the keyboard cannot recreate the works of Shakespeare, but vicious apes can ruin the contents or format of 10 million pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: friction causes heat and sparks. Content writers tend to spend a lot of time, money, and effort doing what they do and when there are drive-bys who attempt to make everything pretty and uniform because the sacred Manual Of Style®™ says so, things can go south quickly. This doesn't even touch the scenario — at least as common — in which passionate person 1 comes into conflict with passionate person 2 about the content of an article. The OP phrases the matter wrongly when he asks why people would "want" to be uncivil. It is more like this: conflict is inevitable given the WP open editing model and "incivility" is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the situation is inflamed by the fact that the vast majority of WP editing happens in isolation rather than in person, which leads to misunderstandings and an escalation of aggressiveness towards those with whom one disagrees. Moreover, Civility rules are, as Kelly Martin has noted, little more than a cudgel in the content and style wars. We don't need to obsess about these things, we don't need to throw money and effort at the impossible task of developing Artificial Intelligence aggression sensors. We need to all, humbly, try to do better in dealing with others while remembering our real purpose here — writing an encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Three main answers:

1) some people like being uncivil to other people. That can be for any number of reasons. It is not what we are up to here, but some people just like it - consider it part of their style, whatever. You can't explain what people like.

2) Some people have very frail egos and will "cry uncivil" over things that aren't uncivil to many observers. In those cases nobody was uncivil and the question of "wanting to be uncivil" is off point; the relevant question is "why do some people want to perceive others as uncivil?" The subjectivity of "uncivil" is one reason why it is very, very hard for the community to deal with.

3) in a lot of cases, incivility happens although nobody involved wants to be uncivil. People are human - they crack under stress or have bad days.

There you go. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1. The usual limitations of communication via keyboard and computer screen. 2. Hypercynicism and black-and-white worldviews, widespread off-wiki as well as on. Conclusion: Largely intractable. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

One other factor in perceived incivility: culture. WP is fairly unusual in the way it brings together editors from different cultures, some of whom do not have English as a first language. What may to one culture be a term of endearment can appear to be rude and offensive to another. I'm not suggesting we go down the PC route of emasculating the language, but both writers and readers need to take cognisance of the cultural norms of their correspondents. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

George Carlin did say that "fuck you" is about the nicest thing you could say to anybody. His obvious point was that it's not the words but the feeling behind them. That feeling is usually fairly objectively apparent in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Martin from Sheffield is correct, however, the disparity is not limited to non-native English speakers. At one page, an editor "accused" another of showing McCarthyism. The accused editor reacted immediately and very strongly to this. I actually had to look the term up, and even now I do not understand the strength of reaction. Just a US/UK thing, but we are both native English speakers. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Because one feels being Right is being more important than being honest in a still considerate and respectful manner. A genuinely congruent human being will, at times, feel the conflict between needing to be Right over the imperative of caring about others more than oneself. And sometimes fail that standard, or not recognize it at all. I have failed in that recently. I've seen others do that, too. Or, after Apocalypse Now, "...[I]t must be a temptation to be god, because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and the irrational, between good and evil, and good does not always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have one." LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think there are multiple definitions of incivility in play, and an amount of bait-and-switch in substituting freely between them.

Vulgarity is often characterised as incivility. Is it? The use of cuss words in informal speech varies dramatically between communities. Texans rarely cuss in business meetings, Brits do it all the time.

Bluntness is often characterised as incivility. Is it? If someone is knowingly repeating a false or refuted argument, are they guilty of terminological inexactitude, or ae they lying?

Irregular verbs: I am blunt, you are snarky, he is uncivil.

Are all complaints of incivility equal? Many of them appear to me to be of the form "X refuses to accept my counterfactual beliefs as having equal validity with empirically verified fact, UNCIVIL!!!!"

Is incivility the cause of a problem or its effect? Some cases appear to be the result of long-term polite (but uncivil in the sense of determinedly ignoring consensus) POV-pushing.

Looking at the cases most often mentioned, Giano is not, to my mind, uncivil, at least not ina problematic way: he just doesn't suffer fools gladly. His reaction to WP:RANDY types tends to be withering scorn. Routinely telling people to fuck off? That is a bad idea on numerous levels. Occasionally telling someone to STFU? Can't see the problem. Wikipedia is not kindergarten and we don't mandate parliamentary language. The test should be, are people actually trying to rub along and collaborate, are they at loggerheads but with the aim of arriving at neutral content, or are they just sniping at each other with no useful purpose?

Not that I have the slightest idea how to separate the various issues or indeed fix them, but it seems to me that lumping multiple different behavioural questions under a single term is probably not going to result in a resolution any time soon.

We could, if we chose, mandate pariamentary language. We could, if we chose, impose a restriction on a particular editor or interacting group of editors to use parliamentary language. It might be an interesting experiment. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That's all Brits, all of the time, is it? Not just when they are in business meetings with Texans? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Gentleman Administrator from the vicinity of Betelgeuse may indeed possess wisdom and has a unique perspective that the nominally smiling editor of the pointy-ears may try to remember using in more serious form for the future. The Admin of the two heads also brings forth a paradox that without naming specific users and examples the definition may indeed degenerate into whatever fits one's individual situation of (usually) feeling wronged and only rarely recognizing when one is wronging others. However, there is an inexact yet specific definition of what incivility on Wikipedia consists of, namely, "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments." And it almost always goes hand in hand with a failure of etiquette. Etiquette is not just, "don't use four letter words. Don't point out others personal failings without love." It is, to quote the Emily Post Institute not only manners but, "[C]onsideration, respect, and honesty. These principles are the three qualities that stand behind all the manners we have."^{[1] link} This is a major part of my responses above and how I'm trying to both change and evaluate for the future. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this product or service. I have one caveat: it is perfectly possible to respect a person while ridiculing their beliefs, if those beliefs are absurd. I can completely understand, for example, why some people believe in homeopathy. Their belief does not change the fact that it is complete bollocks, belief in homeopathy is not a respectable position, at least not once one has read our article. But a point well made above is: content matters, editors' beliefs don't. We can, should and often do quietly move people away from areas where their beliefs will not allow them to accept consensus. Bible-thumping creationists have a short half life on articles relating to evolutionary biology and that is right and proper. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• The community in general will burnout uncivil editors. Some forget Wikipedia:No editor is indispensable - most dont care if an editor has done some great work.....but most do care how they are treated by others.--Moxy (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• From the above discussion, it seems that for editors who are not malicious and encounter a difficult editor, they might become uncivil because they don't know of any way to easily deal with the problem editor in a civil manner. In that regard, is there any single essay that focuses on this problem by describing various methods for easily dealing with problem editors, which can be used instead of incivility from frustration? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

--Here's an example of advice in such an essay – When you have consensus on your side, and an editor goes on and on with repititious unconvincing arguments, keep in mind that it is the article that you are working on, not trying to change the editor's beliefs. So if the editor isn't a threat to the article, you don't need to respond to the editor's remarks nor be uncivil. If you feel you need to respond, keep it civil and short and refer to previous discussions as appropriate. The phrasing, "That's already been discussed" can be used too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Somewhat along the lines of Guy's comment above, i would like to understand better what various people categorize as "uncivil". Is it always uncivil to comment on another user's behavior? If someone seems to be extremely stubborn to the point of completely denying something like "Source X says Y" or are seeming to gish gallop and distract with their dialog while remaining obstinate on blocking or inserting a specific content, then is it ok to say "You seem to be very stubborn and your dialog seems to lack integrity and completion"? Is it ok to insist on dialog with integrity? To me, participating in a dialog but leaving very specific questions unanswered while changing and shifting the dialog seems uncivil to me. It seems like intentional disregard for integrity of dialog is like a disguised filibuster, essentially a prime example of "civil POV pushing". What i've encountered so often is someone in a dialog who seems to not really be there with good will and good faith, and who does not treat the dialog with the requisite respect to work through often complex questions, to tease apart the sub-questions, etc. That really does take a commitment to good dialog. Every tiny bit of insult or snark in a dialog can also throw everything off. Every single tiny insinuation and allegation can throw the dialog off, as a conscientious person who is assuming good faith will feel compelled to answer accusations. Those are the sorts of situations that throw me beyond a breaking point on occasion. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You really need to stop using that word "integrity", because you have used it so often as a synonym for ideological consonance and by now every single time you use it I automatically discount your point as being self-serving. You may not like that, but I am pretty sure I am not the only one who sees it this way.

All we require of people on Wikipedia is that they are honest. A True Believer does not lack integrity when they trot out endless anti-vaccine or climate denialist tropes. They are wrong, and they are almost always POV-pushing, but it's not a lack of integrity unless they know and understand that they are wrong and continue anyway. That only happens in very rare cases. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the questions, Bob K31416. I feel this discussion is critical for the well being of the encyclopedia. It's quite a complex bunch of questions. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Depends on context. As I've said in previous discussions 'play the ball not the man/woman/etc'. Personally, I've no problem with someone saying 'that article was a c*nt' to get to GA' but I don't think calling another editor a c*nt is acceptable. AnonNep (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

See here: "Personal attacks can paradoxically arise when we're actually trying to be nice. Suppose that someone has produced work that you think is well below the required standard. Then you can invoke personal issues instead of thrashing the work, our brains have evolved a tendency to do that to soften criticism and to steer people away from with collaborating with each other if that would lead to friction. This may have worked well in the Stone Age, but in today's society this yields bad results as usually you're not going to have your way with picking your collaborators. So, what one needs to do is to be as open as possible with discussing the content, if is seen to be thrash, then calling it thrash is justified (provided one can motivate why). If a person repeatedly is seen to be producing thrash, then going to AN/I to get a topic ban imposed should be the next step." Count Iblis (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

We must be forgiving. We are all human and we all crack under stress sometimes. We must also strive to be our best selves. If i am being uncivil at any time, i would appreciate someone else calling it out in a kind way. I try to do the same. Lord knows i am not always as civil as i could be, but i do work on it. If we are working toward being civil, this may be the best we can ask. We are human beings working collaboratively on a massive project to represent all of human knowledge. That is a huge and important undertaking. Currently only fools take Wikipedia to be the last word on any subject. It's a useful springboard to further reading, and it's generally a good sketch of most topics, but it does embody some NPOV issues. Nobody knows everything. We editors go further, declaring that we know nothing. We must use sources to determine what is verifiable. No one editor or group of editors has a right to control an article. Good dialog must occur to resolve different points of view. To hold good dialog, we must be civil. Otherwise it devolves into name-calling and tangled knots of accusations. SageRad (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

“ I fucking love motherfucking South Park ” — Jimbo Wales

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The comment wasn't aggressive towards anyone, so it's not uncivil, if that was your point. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that was not the point. Please see South Park S19 Ep5 – Safe Space. South Park did an episode on what would happen to the small group of moderators (represented by Butters Stotch) who are willing to deal with difficult disputes if we would all demand our own safe space; a place free of uncivil comments. I've seen quite a few cases in which it would've been helpful if people just chilled out and realized that not every discussion that contains a couple of swearwords requires Jimbo's, Jesus' and Obama's attention. Blocking tends to make people less civil, not more. We have productive editors who use swearwords once in a while onwiki. In some cases they edit in areas of the encyclopedia that are known to cause heated discussion. I think it is easy to judge someone harshly based on a list of diffs where productive user X who makes many good edits in areas of the encyclopedia that can cause heated discussion used swearwords if that list has been carefully compiled by cherrypicking through thousands and thousands of relatively boring edits and presented without context (e.g. user X was being trolled by Y when he told Y to fuck off, in a content dispute with Z when he told Z that he should stfu etc.) and user X is known to use swearwords once in a while (couple a times a year maybe more with increasing wikistress). This can sometimes be solved without any long blocks or bans, by simply talking to the user (or asking someone to do it for you), perhaps mentoring or helping reduce wikistress or something; making people leave is not the only nor the most desirable solution. I am not claiming that all incivility can be "cured", but I do think that there is a real possibility of judging too harshly and quickly. And of course there is a trap: our idea that we ourselves are never incivil... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, swear words aren't the main thing. General unfriendliness and condescension and plain meanness are more bothersome, and there are some editors who seem to exude a meanness in nearly every single comment. So while i understand your point above about how it's possible to make someone look bad on first glance given a dozen diff's with cursing, there are genuine problems with people who consistently exude a hostility or toxicity. And i'm not someone who demands a "safe space" but rather a general common decency, a tendency toward civility, would be enough. SageRad (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but again this goes to wider societal-cultural issues. We are not going to make Wikipedia an island of common human respect relative to the rest of the world. Not when our doors are wide open to anybody. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but in daily life i find most people to be much more civil than many people on Wikipedia. Even when talking about controversial topics. SageRad (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't interact with a representative cross section of society, do you? For the most part, I choose what crowds to mingle with and avoid people who are not somewhat like me. I don't go to biker bars, I don't engage in debates with strangers at the mall, and I certainly don't visit the relative slums of Detroit or Birmingham. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite so. One's intimate circle rarely challenges one's cherished beliefs, whereas Wikipedia does it all the time, pretty much by design. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

In a sense, yes, i see this point about self-selection of dialogs, although i did specify that i can have civil dialogs with people across differences above. The friction in Wikipedia can be a good thing, a creative tension from which excellent content emerges, and may be an explanation of the commonality of incivility, though it is not a good reason to be uncivil; it means we must work hard to be civil and keep working on our ways of speaking with each other. SageRad (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a general comment. I hope we're not entering an age of diminished common decency, where being a badass on the Internet is considered cool. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The anonymity of the Internet has always liberated people from normal societal standards of behavior. Unless you commit a serious crime like credible threats against a world leader or child porn, you can pretty much say whatever you want without consequences. Behave like that in RL and you generally get your ass kicked, lose your job, or something equally unpleasant. There is a deterrent to antisocial behavior, and that is an essential function of any society. Many, many people think it's cool to be free of those constraints. They can use the Internet as their daily dumping ground for the frustrations and resentments of modern life. If they wish they were a tough guy, they can play one on the Internet. Some of them choose Wikipedia as the place to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a general comment. I feel that calling someone "an ignorant jackass", should result in an automatic one- or two-day block, or maybe a few days more. It would be a slap on the wrist, like a speeding ticket (which is punishment for an offense that somewhat increases the likely hood of others' premature death). 176.11.201.117 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)/176.11.201.117 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who needs to know how offensive various terms are can now find out thanks to OFCOM, the UK's communicaitons regulator. Happy to be of service. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think one is uncivil to call attention to oneself. When one ceases to have an agenda—any agenda—one avoids or at least minimizes conflict at Wikipedia. An agenda is having a plan. An agenda is having a widely sweeping idea of how things should be. That is taking ownership of not just an article but of the project. You have essentially deluded yourself when you have reached the conclusion that this is your project. Under that delusion you are justified in being uncivil. It is as if someone has damaged your personal property when your agenda encounters a mere road bump. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone has an agenda, anyone who says they have no biases is delusional. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is true, and I was not clear. Anyone who pursues an agenda is likely to run into trouble. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It is ok to be passionate. It matters what one is passionate for. Wikipedia is a grand project. An alternate slogan could be Writing the Universe. Notice that this does not say Righting the Universe, per WP:RGW. Sometimes writing correctly according to NPOV does improve the content in a way that is good for the world. This is a good passion. If an editor's passion is completely within the policies of WP:V and they are WP:CIVIL and engage in good dialog about content, then passion is welcome, for it makes the best encyclopedia. If an agenda is counter to the policies, then it is a problem. There should be no ownership of articles or of the project in general, but only good application of the policies as a collective goal. SageRad (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, because the question is just vague enough to give answers that provide a wonderful insight into the varying nature of the human psyche. I especially like Jytdog's reply. In my own opinion, the question itself is a bit misguided. We will always encounter people who are uncivil, and ironically enough those are the same people who will usually cry "incivility" at the slightest provocation. In reality, this is a very human way of testing other humans, in order to root out weakness. That a person is uncivil to me, may call me names or issue personal attacks is no reflection of me whatsoever. Instead it's a reflection of themselves; the person they really are but want to hide from the world. The only reflection of me is how I respond to it, which is the reason for the test. The weak will give in to anger and respond in kind. The strong won't be affected by it. It's a tactic as old as combat/conflict itself. Zaereth (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a good question because it asks squarely why anyone would be uncivil. I don't think it is "vague". I think the question asks those who are or have been uncivil why they are uncivil. It is a poll of those of us who have been uncivil as to why we at least sometimes choose incivility. The original question is "Just a simple question to any editors who feel it applies to them, why would you want to be uncivil?" (And the heading is clear enough: "Why would one want to be uncivil?") Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia

We appear to have lost sight that the 4th pillar of Wikipedia is Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. I would have thought that the pillars were non-negotiable. For instance, the second pillar is Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; If this thread had been phrased "Why would one want to write with a POV?" I doubt there would have been a single voice in agreement that POV is (sometimes) permissible. Why is civility any different and why are there editors here arguing that this pillar should be ignored? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. Building a safe space where anyone with an internet connection can join in is not Wikipedia's role. The problem is that the community has no procedure to block civil POV pushers and the generally clueless. That means unhelpful behavior can be repeated, and that may elicit incivility from those who have helped build the encyclopedia. Any solution needs to look at both sides of the equation—do not focus on the effect (expletives) without dealing with the cause (civil POV pushing or lack of competence). Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said a "safe space" in the sense of some fragile "you offended me!" over-the-top level of civil... and on the other hand, what one person judges to be a "civil POV pusher" is to another person working toward NPOV. There are differences of perspective, genuine differences, among people. Those who think they're absolutely, clearly, no-question, for certain, I know it when i see it Right are a problem. Sometimes those and the ones who are uncivil thinking they're "saving" Wikipedia from "wogao" are sometimes one and the same. That's a problem. DrChrissy is right that civility is a pillar of Wikipedia. That's more than a nicety -- it's a necessity. (By the way, expletives are the least harmful aspect of incivility -- it's a deeper thing.) The ends don't justify the means -- and often it's not even as you see it. Sometimes it's your specific ends which don't justify the means. Sometimes it's the rush to judge those of different opinions as being "civil POV pushing" or "lack of competence" -- sometimes that simply means that someone has a different perspective on a topic, and they ought to have space to discuss it without being treated badly. SageRad (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's put-up time. Please link to a couple of discussions where incivility was nofailt properly handled. Because the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encylopedia, there can be no rule specifying what block should be imposed for an expletive—the underlying issue is always the key point. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy has 40+ pages of editors trying to document a big scandal in the video game industry while unblocked power users accuse them all of being trolls and misogynists. 50.196.177.155 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What, you mean it's all about ethics in videogame journalism? Who knew? Guy (Help!) 09:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not want to put specific dialogs here, to call attention to any specific user, but i see it all the time. I did not say anything about a "rule specifying what block should be imposed for an expletive" so maybe you were thinking of an above comment while responding to me. Civility is important, and it is the means to having good dialogs about the content. Without civility, good dialog is not possible. SageRad (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Having "good dialogs" is not the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not possible to have useful dialogs with POV pushers or those who lack competence. What is a worse problem—some bad words or repetition-to-death from POV pushers and those who lack competence? Why the focus on the former with no procedures to handle the latter? Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there's easier and more effective ways to handle repetition-to-death editors than incivility. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

maybe. big maybe and fairly useless maybe. (see my comments here in yet an earlier iteration of this endless discussion) bottom line is there is little we can do as POV-pushers are generally deaf to any feedback, however civil they are, and they are definitely deaf to nice requests to stop soapboxing, or to yield to consensus, etc, to which they generally respond with cries of "censorship" or "incivility". humans lose patience. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a possibility from a previous message of mine in this discussion:[2]

When you have consensus on your side, and an editor goes on and on with repetitious unconvincing arguments, keep in mind that it is the article that you are working on, not trying to change the editor's beliefs. So if the editor isn't a threat to the article, you don't need to respond to the editor's remarks nor be uncivil. If you feel you need to respond, keep it civil and short and refer to previous discussions as appropriate. The phrasing, "That's already been discussed" can be used too.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Point of view pushing is advanced by incivility. An outburst is a violation of WP:CIVIL but an outburst serves to call attention to oneself and not coincidentally to one's point of view. Incivility is as much implicated in point of view pushing as so-called "civil POV pushing". The difference is one has the backing of standard English and normal behavior and the other veers off into self-expression at any cost. I favor limited speech under these circumstances. We know that the encyclopedia is read by a wide swath of the English-speaking world and comes up first in Google searches therefore everyone wants to get their "message" out. But in interpersonal dialogue there is no place for the boisterousness that we call incivility. I think that may be the reason this problem is the 4th pillar of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to DrChrissy for that quote: Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Having "good dialogs" is not the purpose of Wikipedia. ..... and i didn't say it was -- having good dialogs is key to creating good content. Although some people disagree. Some people think that they are correct and therefore those who disagree need to get yelled at until they leave. That's the other side of this coin. It's people who are so cocksure that they are Right with a capital "R" who are most willing to be mean and condescending to those who challenge their precious beliefs. That's the thing about this all, and this dialog right here has made it apparent in microcosm. This whole thing about "Civil POV Pushing" is really another way of saying "He won't admit i'm right and he keeps talking!" which is a position that generally is stated by someone who is sure they they themselves are right. I hope to show the absolute poverty of that argument. It's a completely relative argument. The other person probably would say the same damn thing about you! Yeah, i've been there, with 5 excellent reliable sources stating something very relevant to the article, with another editor telling me that it's not relevant to the article and therefore should not be in it -- and filibustering basically -- and the meanwhile accusing me of "civil POV pushing" when in fact from my point of view, it is them who is "civil POV pushing" and usually not even so very civil.... so this argument holds no water. It's a completely relative statement generally. It's generally a flim/flam bullying technique or else a delusion of the holder, and should carry no weight in this discussion about the need to be civil. We do sometimes need to break an endless cycle of "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!" and in those cases often go to an RfC which sometimes helps. But accusing others of "civil POV pushing" to justify your incivility is not a good enough reason. They may equally see you as a "civil POV pusher". SageRad (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is that we all know the difference between being fair and being abrasive. And there is no difference between incivility and civil POV pushing. That is because incivility is also a way of calling attention to oneself and ones point of view. Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If we all know the difference between being fair and being abrasive, then we all need to choose to be fair, and those who are abrasive need to be sanctioned then. But... what i'm saying is that this assessment of "civil POV pushing" is often a way of saying "He just won't admit that i am right, and give up!" which is a position of too much cocksure arrogance about your own rightness. Incivility is being mean whatever the motivation. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"civil POV pushing" is Orwellian. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you mean that the term is Orwellian in the sense of being doublespeak, then i agree. SageRad (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Without pov pushing on either side, there can be a long intransigent discussion where each side is motivated by what they think is best for Wikipedia.

SageRad, Suppose you were in a long discussion where the other side had consensus, and they began to not respond to your messages, what would you do? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that violations of WP:CIVIL represent POV pushing in and of themselves. I don't accept that people "just snap". That lashing out represents a calling of attention to oneself. And the calling of attention to oneself advertises one's "cause". Furthermore incivility also takes place at a lower but nevertheless harmful level. This is abrasiveness that causes divergent opinions to go away. Thus this unfriendly behavior is POV pushing. Civility should be enforced. It is a "pillar" of Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the problem is that POV-pushing, and especially WP:IDHT, are not identified as the fundamental incivility that they are. Refusal to accept consensus is an act of passive-aggression. Both SageRad and DrChrissy, zealous advocates here for civility, have taken on this crusade only after their refusal to accept consensus resulted in sanctions against them. Both clearely resent these sanctions and reject their validity. That is the context, and it is really hard to view either as having clean hands here as a result. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So Guy - are your hands clean? Have you ever lied about an editor? Have you ever changed another editor's edits to change their meaning? I think you are here simply to derail this thread. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right that I am here to derail the thread, since the purpose of the thread appears to me to be POV-pushers tryign to pretend that being sanctioned for POV-pushing is somehow worse than POV-pushing. I am sure you have stopped beating your wife by now, though. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You are an admin. You are admitting to disruptive editing in this thread. I'm not married. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I am admitting to being here to stop you rewriting history to suit your internal worldview rather than what actually happened. You and Sage are both sanctioned POV-pushers. Your claims of "incivility" very often come down to implicit demands to have your POV-pushing go unchallenged. POV-pushing is uncivil, at its root, but the self-selected "civility police" studiously ignore that fact. The complaint you keep reiterating was addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913 § Admin edits my post to deliberately change the meaning. I do not propose to go over that stale issue yet again, since anyone who cares can simply go and read the diffs. My personal view is that you would have a much happier time her eif you just steered clear of the drama boards. To reiterate a point I made earlier: faux politesse is not the same thing as civlity. I think you're a perfectly decent editor as long as you stick to writing about animals and stay away from the areas where your personal beliefs collide with policy. Maybe you should try that for a while, rather than trying to use claimed incivility as a smokescreen delegitimise the massive amount of pushback you have experienced during your failed attempts to advance a non-neutral POV. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

And it is of course a slice of the choicest, richest irony cake that DrChrissy is fussing over a table in which he asserts the supposed misdemeanours of other editors (including me) such as "tag teaming". Yet WP:TAGTEAM tells us "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are ... " (wait for it) " ... uncivil". Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there is an issue when some editors but not all declare that there is a consensus when there is not. Secondly, there is an issue when some editors but not all declare that someone is doing "civil POV pushing" when in fact they are simply speaking to the content. These are relative judgments. These are tricks used to force content sometimes. Sometimes, it really really really really is the case that someone really has a point, and they need it to be heard and responded to appropriately, either with agreement or disagreement, but to be heard before being dismissed.

I am not going to name names directly, but several people in this dialog here have been engaged in some of the worst "civil POV pushing" that i have seen, time and again, if you were to use their definition of the term. But they would claim otherwise because their perspective tells them otherwise.

We need to respect that different people have different perspectives and can see a matter of content differently. We need to not demonize this fact. We need to not define disagreement on content as "civil POV pushing" if someone won't just shut up when you want them to.

I'm saying it again, it's an arrogant, over-confident, bullying, cocksure way of being if you are ok declaring those who disagree with you as being wrong for speaking their thoughts.

We need to delve into the meaning of "consensus" and how it's determined. It's not determined by declaration by a couple of editors, you know, when there are reasonable arguments to the contrary. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A premise of my question was that the other side had consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sage, we know you do not accept that there was ocnsensus and do not accept that you were POV-pushing. That is pretty much the point: that's why you ended up sanctioned. It is unfortunate that the penny still has not dropped. Have you read m:MPOV? And if so, did you read it as a commentary on your own behaviour rather than others', as all such essays are intended to be read? It's like the Bible: all parables are about the reader, not "them". Guy (Help!) 08:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the situation, Guy. Your characterization of what happened in the past is incorrect. Your comment here pretty much speaks to the things i've been speaking about here. I would prefer to not engage with you on this topic if you can't keep it about the topic and not about me. I suggest you think about your own words here. SageRad (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, i hear you Bob. Let's work with this. First i wonder how you are defining "consensus" here and who determined it here. Obviously it's not a consensus of all active editors because your question implies that i am not in agreement, as your question was SageRad, Suppose you were in a long discussion where the other side had consensus, and they began to not respond to your messages, what would you do? The framing of the question as there being "sides" is another sort of red flag for me. I do not like when there seems to be "sides" in the sense of teams, like it's a group sport. That seems like polarization that is unhealthy. Unfortunately, i see that too much as well.

Here is relevant policy:

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.

When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment), and even more extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention, formal mediation, and arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as edit-warring, abuse of multiple accounts, or a lack of civility). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.

First, i would take some time and consider whether i'm perhaps truly wrong here. Or perhaps that it's not important enough to take my time even if i still think i am right. If that doesn't resolve it for me, then i would perhaps call for an RfC or take it to a relevant noticeboard for more eyes (and hopefully non-involved eyes, although that tends to happen more in theory than in practice, but it helps).

What i've done lately, and it sometimes works, is to try to get the relevant points clarified, and ping the key people who seem to have the conflict. In fact i did such a thing recently here in trying to (1) defuse a perceived civility problem where one user objected to another user's edit summary -- and (2) to get further clarification from three parties who had made edits.

But to your question specifically, if i were in discussions with others who then stopped responding, i would generally wait a good amount of time. If their objections seemed truly genuine, i would try pinging them as well. I would not want to rush forward without getting consensus. If all other users stopped communication for several days, that would frankly be really strange. It hasn't happened, in my experience. But i do not try to exasperate or to "outlast" other editors. I seek simple, clear, genuine dialog with the sole purpose of working out the complexities of sources and content for the articles. SageRad (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like your response to my question is found in your last paragraph, which essentially says that you would stop. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

SageRad you have been WP:SHUNed when you would not Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK; you have experienced it. Bob K, that is an option. Not an effective one, obviously, and not in a place like WP where people will continue to engage with a person who will not drop the stick. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, If you were in a long discussion, would you continue to engage with a person who will not drop the stick? If so, why? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been in many. This seems to be theoretical to you, but it is very real. To answer, I try to engage for a long time and when it becomes clear the person will not deal with what everyone else is saying, I enact SHUN. Sometimes stating so, sometimes not. With your garden variety advocates who are just passing by, not responding works great. See Talk:Vaxxed and its archives where we have done that several times with drive-by editors. For folks like SageRad who are committed to The Truth they bring to WP ... others often keep responding far longer than I do. Have a look at Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_6 for examples - you can wordsearch "shun" but to find them all you need to uncollapse some sections.

SHUN is tricky to implement because we all have an obligation to try to reach local consensus on things and to respond to good faith questions, and where to draw the line on what is "enough" is not simple.. but at some point enough is enough.

And of course, if the Civil POV pusher takes silence as consent and starts to actually edit the article per their preferred view, the whole discussion starts again. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog and Guy's opinions on anything about me is from his perspective and is highly biased as he's been in opposition to me in ways that i do not think were good at all. Jytdog and Guy are not neutral observers by any stretch of the imagination regarding me, and it would be good if they would not make this about me but rather speak to the content of the discussion as i am doing. Failure to do that is one major cause of problems in dialogs, and is one of the main causes of breakdown of civility. I'm going to simply contest to the highest degree possible their assessment of things of the past, and not engage in dialog with those two here, seeing how it's going so far. SageRad (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course my view is fomr my perspective, but we also have a lengthy arbitration case with evidence and findings of fact. You choose to reject that as invalid, just as you choose to reject the sanctions against you. And that is your problem. Not that you have an opinion - everyone has - but that you are unshakeably convinced that you are right, to the point that you clearly perceive Wikipedia's failure to deliver your agenda as a lack of "integrity", a tword you have used a very large number of times in a way that always seems to me to be be synonymous with giving SageRad what he wants. You'd attract a good deal less crap if you could distinguish the difference between "I still think I am right" and "I am still right, therefore Wikipedia is broken beause it does not accept this obvious fact". Guy (Help!) 09:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In the latest round of complaints above we hear all about the terrible things happening on Wikipedia, but with zero evidence. I think Hitchens's razor can be safely employed here and this grumbling can simply be dismissed. The reason people make it "about" SageRad is because it is about SageRad. Nothing else is ever brought in evidence: we just have complainer & vague unsupported complaints. Alexbrn (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's frustrating. I actually think that if Sage could flip the bit mentally to accept that he might be wrong about things, he'd become a much more valuable member of the community. e digs up some good sources and engages in thoghtful debate, it's just that he always does so from a perspective that is essentially evangelistic. This is a thing I recognise in myself, and I would love to help him understand the intellectual liberation of accepting you're wrong. It's the old Carl Sagan quote again:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.

— Carl Sagan

If ever there was a rule for life, then that's it. Admitting you're wrong is tough. But once you've done it? You haven't lost anything. People respect you for it. You don't lose face on Wikipedia by accepting that you're wrong, in fact you gain credibility. However, refusal to even countenance the possibility that you are wrong, to the point where you assert that disagreement amounts to a lack of integrity, that is a serious problem.

It's kind of ironic that in pleading for civility, Sage in particular implicitly characterises everyone who disagrees with him (which is pretty much most of those involved in these disputes), as lacking integrity. I wish he'd stop using that word. It really grates., Guy (Help!) 11:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

How come a discussion about the subject of or the concept of incivility has to decline into a discussion of individual "faults"—perceived or otherwise? Is there no incivility at Wikipedia? Do people ever treat each other with disregard, disdain, dismissively? You may think I'm being exceptionally optimistic but I'm absolutely certain that there exists a higher level of functioning. We should strive for it for any number of reasons. Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it was never about civility, any more than GamerGate was really about ethics in videogame journalism. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia

Jimmy Wales, we are waiting for you to do something while you are waiting for Lowercase sigmabot III to delet what we have written ([3], [4], [5],[6]). Are you really unable to solve such a minor problem despite the fact that you are a creator of Wikipedia? Do you really have no rights? Does Meta have all the authority? I want you to answer one question: are you gonna do anything about the AzWiki issue or are you not? If you are not going to do anything, please state it openly, so that we stop asking you to help. Idin Mammadof (talk), editor of DMOZ 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Idin Mammadof,

In your post you have only asked for Jimbo Wales' help.

May I ask if you have tried everything else, within reason, to solve what needs solving?

Please do not demand anything from Jimbo; to my knowledge he is not a machine, only a mere human. If I say to a stranger "I want you to do this", then that is likely to be considered quite rude in English.

If Jimbo Wales does not reply to this thread, for whatever unexplained reason, then I hope that someone else can give you some advice or support, if someone understands the problem, and agrees with your view (more or less).

I do not understand the scope of the problem you seem to be experiencing at "your" wikipedia. But I hope someone will ask the one question that will make me see the light, and the heart of the problem which your wikipedia allegedly is experiencing.

I will try to get back to you if I know what to ask.

Regards! 176.11.244.167 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you even follow the conversation that we had here? Yes, we have tried EVERYTHING else (which is basically Meta and WMF), but Meta was sending us to WMF and WMF was sending us to Meta. So, we are stuck in this loop. We have explained here already (you can read it on this page's history) that our own administration doesn't work ('cause why would it work against itself?). So, if there's any other place which could help us with the situation we have, please send us there. --Мурад 97 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Мурад 97,

Can you please digest for me your view about:

1. What is your best argument for that either Meta or WMF, should be the first to act?

2. Who do you think should act (first) - Meta or WMF? 176.11.181.66 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If there's an issue which needs attention, and the admins on the other Wikipedia won't solve it, then you could find a steward, potentially (Stewards have a long list of things that they aren't allowed to use their extra powers on - such as the entire English Wikipedia - so this might not be the best idea). Also, you have posted about this 4 times before. If you keep doing this, you will keep being ignored, as it is massively annoying. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, it was much more annoying when we were exchanging e-mails with WMF for a few month and answered on like a 100 questions and a few month later they were like "oh, your situation is very bad and it should be solved, but you should apply to Meta for that". And this was after Meta sent us to WMF and after WMF has spent so much of our time on some useless few month long Q&A session. And if you just bothered to check, you would find out that AzWiki doesn't have any stewards. Also, if you bothered to actually read what we have written for not just 4, but 7 times already (4 times here, twice on Meta and once to WMF), you would then find out that the very reason we had gone beyond AzWiki to complain is that we tried to established an arbitration commission there in order to be able to resolve such issues without going beyond AzWiki in the future, but some members of our administration had prevented it. I don't care who should act, I just know that in Meta they will send me to WMF and in WMF they will send me to Meta, so I don't see why would I go to either of them again after that. --Мурад 97 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Stewards have global sysop tools. They aren't restricted to one Wikipedia. I have "bothered to check", you just don't know what a steward is. See here. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Stewart wrote, "Stewards also have no role in voting and elections of an arbitration committee" Aydinsalis (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Then go to meta. Or the WMF. That's really the only other way to solve this. If you keep being sent to the other one, there's nothing anyone can do about that. Unless Jimbo decides to directly intervene, there aren't many other options. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Brought this issue to the Meta for consideration, have been unsuccessful ([7],[8],[9], [10], [11]...). Or the WMF... Aydinsalis (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, sending something to meta 5 times makes less people want to help, as people get annoyed after the second or third time. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

For now, I think we should play this as if Jimbo has said:
All of you reading this page are empowered to move on this matter. I trust you.
Besides, theoretically one day he will retire from wikipedia; now we can show that the community can step up to the plate, without big daddy holding our hand every time.
(Every crisis has the potential of having world-class leadership talent step onto the podium. I hope to be reading about that, while I am imbibing at "Sandy George and the wiki-Dragon".) 176.11.215.26 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I can not see that a case has been made for why one has chosen to contact the one organization before the other. Was the decision made by flipping a coin?

Are there organizational statutes or a charter, which is worded so that there is a reason to think that this whole topic is firstly under the domain of one of the two organizations? Does anyone have any relevant quotes? 176.11.215.26 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If one of those two organizations (or a steward) claim that they will look into the matter again, should then this thread be moved?

I say yes, in that case the thread should be moved.
(At least one layman, is still trying to formulate questions - to understand why the two organizations are pointing at each other; and formulate suggestions re: steward.) 176.11.215.26 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If this thread is moved or archived: When will a re-appearence (on this page) of these topics, be too soon? If "too soon" - what do we do?

Three weeks is too soon - after being archived or moved. Three years is not too soon, imo.
Perhaps someone would care to shrink the mentioned timeframe. 176.11.215.26 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What to do if "too soon": Answer such a thread with the following words, "In the linked discussion [this one], it was strongly suggested that this topic conditionally should have a vacation from this page, for ... months. "The vacation" should end, not before [fill-in-the-date-here]." 176.11.215.26 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Anything less than 2 months should be too soon. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase sigmabot III does not delete discussions, it archives them based on its settings. (Yes, this is obvious for many Wikipedians. But the distinction may be lost to a newbie.) Letting a conversation slip off to archives without response, for any en Wikipedian, is usually a form of answer in and of itself. Without having read the archives, self-identifying something as a "minor problem" is nearly a sure way to ensure non-action. Jimbo is busy enough and feels secure enough about the wikicommunity to not have to address every minor problem that comes up - he'd never get to the major ones which only he can handle if he focused on every minor one we bring to him (myself included.) Sorry, I'm pretty sure that is not the answer you were looking for, and I could be utterly wrong. That's just my take after hanging out here when I'm too tired to do serious content editing. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Foreign-wikipedia: to ban or not to ban, permanently

On the linked [12] wikipedia, there is a discussion regarding that wikipedia's second permanent ban. There are only two things missing:
A token admin will probably announce his/her arrival, to oppose the proposal for banning (a named wikipedian). If admin "4***" will not be the "token admin" (against the proposal), then he will quite possibly give his "for" vote, together with a speech: "This was not our day, but our cause was just."
(For now no admins have supported "the accused", however 6 regulars have voted against a permanent ban.
9 administrators (and one "regular" wikipedian) have voted for permanent ban.
The wikipediaHave-nots are not siding with the admins.)
Someone might let you know if a permanent ban, will be the result. Other than that, perhaps nature should take its course in silence. 176.11.146.3 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Administrator in need of coaching?

Could there be a teenage administrator involved in combative reverting and even redacting of edits, on a foreign wikipedia? See history page of the targeted user:
Two of the following edits have been redacted from the history page. (Diffs can not be examined by wikipedians.)

• 2. okt. 2016 kl. 20:21 . . Tela**** . . . (+33)‎ skjul
• 2. okt. 2016 kl. 20:21 . . Jeb*** ...(-33)‎
• 2. okt. 2016 kl. 20:19 . . Tela**** . . (+33)‎ skjul
• 2. okt. 2016 kl. 20:18 . . Jeb*** . . (-33)‎ 176.11.13.11 (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)