User talk:Bishonen

Block

I've lain low with regard to Jimbo Wales' block of me, because I wanted first to wait and see if the matter might work itself out if I gave it a few weeks (see contributions). I've been working at Wikipedia for five years, mainly writing content—you can consult Raul654 for the quality of my work, if you like—and I guess I had a notion that some value might accrue to that, but it seems I was mistaken. I'm taking an indefinite break, not just because Jimbo Wales has called me a "toxic personality"[1]—a quite remarkably personal attack, from which he had to be pried loose in a meanly unapologetic statement.[2] And not just because of the demeaning way he blocked me: without warning; without discussion; in retaliation and punitively; blocking a user with five years of squeaky clean block log under her bra; blocking a user vulnerably asleep and thereby incapable of self-defence; blocking without care for context ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]); and blocking in a hurry.
And he blocked me under the banner of holding himself "to the highest standard", yet. No, it wasn't just that, but because other issues have been piling up, making me mull over whether this is a good place to be: compare User:Yomangan's farewell message, and Llywrch's post.
I'll save people a question: what made me expect satisfaction, even an apology, from Jimbo Wales? Well, I didn't really, for it was not, in my view of his personality, to be expected. But I've become aware that he has—in secret corners of the project—in non-transparent places—received some major criticism for his block of me, and I guess I figured he might have the grace to admit to me and/or others that the block was problematic and that it demonstrated extra low rather than extra high standards.[9] No soap, though. Indeed perhaps you and I had a culture clash, Mr Wales: California[10] versus Northern Europe. Hasta luego, all my friends. Probably I'll return one day, even though it seems so un-tempting right now; but I understand that people do. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Crap. Well, do what's best for you and what you enjoy, many thanks for all your contributions and your sense of fun which was much appreciated. Sad, dave souza, talk 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about this. And Giano, too. Who is going to finish the encyclopedia now? Sandstein and Jimbo will have to work overtime now. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought such a situation could ever arise. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think she could use a wikibreak, she's been under a lot of stress :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California vs. Northern Europe? Seems more like Gordon Gecko vs. Mitt liv som hund's Ingemar. CEO's have no place at volunteer projects, and the CEO personality has no place outside of a reality television show.

In my own look through history, people get obsessed with the letter over the word, the word over the sentence, when they're afraid, when they're stressed, when they don't understand. "I don't know what's going on here, but that one said 'shit!'" is the attitude of the puzzled authoritarian. It's the reflexive attitude of the person whose action confesses instantly that there is coercion but not control. Well, the idea that there would be either one in such a place, in such a case, is laughable, and can only be proof that we're looking at a neolithic mindset. Geogre (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, degenerated as it may be with all its committees, behavioral guidelines, and pettifogging patrollers, is still a social experiment in taming the neolithic mindset. Largely failed in that respect, in my opinion. Or rather, it has contributed much to the development of the elaborate neolithism that dominates nine out of ten disputes these days. Enough of that. Bottom line: fscking crap. Kosebamse (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, see this garden? It's like your contributions over the years to this project—rich, colourful, deep, multifaceted. Mr Wales was wrong to block you. Please don't give that incident false dignity by reacting to it. You're strong and it will pass soon. Badge of honour, if you ask me. So please, if you must take a break, make it short, will you? We need you. Tony (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, humbug. :-( Tex (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Californian of Northern European descent, it's certainly my hope that there needn't be any cultural clash between those two places. I can assure you that Signior Wales's actions are not representative of California. As for this Californian: He hopes you'll be back before too long and values your contributions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon my return to civilization, I am disgusted at the way you have been treated - and even more disgusted that not one Arb had to the common decency or guts to publicly stand up and defend you! What a bunch of cowardly little shits they are. Giano (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Bishonen made a small error here: if she's writing about Wales, he's not from California, but from the American South (born in Alabama, lives in Florida). And while we Oregonians aren't all that fond of Californians (well, at least officially), there's nothing in a Californian mind-set which explains, let alone justifies, what happened here. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do with a problem like a toxic asset "CEO?"

Here is a new question and suggestion:

Civility is the quality of behaving in a way that allows for civilization
Civility is that which allows the civil society to function
Civility has nothing to do with taboo or politeness, everything to do with the social group functioning politically.

If these statements are true, and I think they cannot be doubted (borrowed from other users), then blocking a productive (building relationships and content) user is uncivil, while calling someone a twelve headed gastropod is not. Calling someone a miniature scat is irrelevant compared to blocking someone who builds and enables building.

Bishonen is well known as a defender of the blocked, as a questioner of the received wisdom of blocking. Such a person is inevitably going to annoy and inevitably going to be invaluable, as long as she uses rational argument and evidence. In all of her defenses of the rapidly blocked, she has proven her cases. She has been, in these cases, working tirelessly and thanklessly to keep the project functioning, to put the brakes on mob rule.

Bishonen has also been one to coordinate efforts and social interactions between editors. She has argued against power, which, of course, will antagonize the proponents of power, but it is also invariably an important position in keeping a multifocal and open project functioning. It is vital for the "civil" side of Wikipedia that there be no log jam of power brokers. Nor has she done so with inflammatory language or off-wiki tools, as many others have done.

It therefore seems to me fairly clear that Bishonen is a force for and of civility and civil construction at Wikipedia.

Blocking people with whom one disagrees is a long time taboo at Wikipedia. No one is supposed to do this. From the earliest moment of the project's creation, people were supposed to seek the uninvolved before doing something like blocking. However, when a person uses a term like "toxic personality" (n.b. "personality," not "edit," not "action," not "words"), that establishes that the block is performed out of malice or anger. It is a violation of the blocking policy.

Supposing that there are different standards of behavior for different users at Wikipedia is to suppose that there are special people. Such a belief puts the lie to the very founding impulses of the project, where all contributions were to be seen as equal. If some contributions are to be weighted more than others, then, indeed, there are holy and unholy users, and yet there is no way of telling who those people are. To my knowledge, there has never been a process at Wikipedia for selecting such a person, as selections of administrators carry no such warnings.

If there is no special status inherent or adherent, then Jimbo's block of Bishonen is administrative abuse and a breech of WP:CIV.

Therefore: should an RfAr be opened on Jimbo Wales to seek his demotion? Is there no other way to solve these fundamental misunderstandings? Can Jimbo no other way give up the illusion of "god king" and "CEO" and other such concepts of infallibility? Can there no other way be an apology and a measure to prevent more such Alexander Haig-like command? Utgard Loki (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an audience with the king

This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.

Over at User talk:GiacomoReturned#So!, Giano suggests that you still care about this block from Jimbo, and above he complains that Arbs have done nothing. That isn't quite true, as Casliber did mention his "dismay" over at Jimbo's talk page, and Jimbo did clarify that he did not intend to label you as a toxic personality. However calls for an RFAR, or a desysop, are terribly premature. You have both been around for long enough to know that dispute resolution starts with a one-on-one discussion. I am guessing you meant to start that with this post, however there are a lot of bystanders on both user talk pages, so I recommend that you two have a discussion on a separate page somewhere in userspace, either your own or you can use my userspace if you wish for me to exercise some control over unhelpful heckling. I would rather not become involved, but I will ask Jimbo to engage with you, if you are willing to have a one-on-one discussion with him. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, John. I will have a discussion with Jimbo if he's willing. However, since you mention it, I should point out right away that I'm unimpressed by Casliber's intervention (however well-intentioned) and by Jimbo's "clarification". I'll explain why if the occasion arises. A new subpage in my own space would be appropriate; I can't believe heckling would be a problem, once I explain to the too-helpful that the audience is supposed to be with the king, not the courtiers. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have taken the liberty of changing the tongue-in-cheek heading for a more direct one. This is not a moment for cuteness.--Wetman (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I would prefer that the original section name was preserved to put this in the right light of the accused, but I have added it as a hidden section name for now, as there is an incoming link. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

…and I’ve switched ’em back. I think the original section heading gets right to the heart of this issue — that this was a Royal Smackdown. Best wishes, Bish — Jack Merridew 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "toxic personality" Mr Wales referred to, then? Tony (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question for him to answer; I am just endeavouring to set up a forum for Bishonen and him to chat in the hope it will allow these lingering questions to be answered. See also his clarification where Jimbo acknowledges that his use of "toxic personalities" was not ideal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swift pointed out that the ancient Athenians argued that it was acceptable to say whatever one wished about whichever politician one liked. Call Themistocles a name, and you are alright. However, call Athens evil, and you will be hung. Call mankind bad, and you will be executed. It is better to lash an individual than a class. Well, speaking of "personalities" at all smacks of hubris. I want to know how anyone is qualified to speak of anyone else's personality or even the "personalities" (i.e. the virtual realities of discourse symbols that we call "users") other than that according to just some dude. I.e. if Jimbo is just some dude with an opinion, not held to any higher standard and not afforded any higher power, then he can think, for example, that I'm toxic or corrupting or diseased or venereal and I won't care -- he's some dude, and some dude will always have an opinion. However, Jimbo was simultaneously announcing that there were super-ordinary standards for expression and then betraying those by passing judgment on unspecified "personalities." Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that he has any longer any credible reason to have extraordinary authority. Such authority would either have to come from being well informed or extremely wise or extremely prudent, and not only are the facts against that, here, history argues that he is less and less any of those things. I don't know what sort of cloud he came out of to make such an announcement, but I don't think it was a nimbus. Geogre (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Please pardon my interruption, but I noticed that Jimbo asked on his talk page if there was a sub-page for discussion a few hours ago. I know it's absolutely none of my business, but I'm only hoping that something can be worked out where we wouldn't lose a great editor and great administrator. If this is all being handled privately, please feel free to just delete my post. I honestly hope that any disagreements can be resolved all the way around. Thank you for your time and use of your Talk Page Bish. All my best, — Ched : ? 19:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, if there isn't, then, uh, where on Wikipedia would Jimbo like to take part in dispute resolution? Seeing as he's deeply committed to Wikipedia to the point that Wikipedia need only hear his name to agree to his decisions, trusting that they are made with the best interests of all of Wikipedia at heart, I presume he would only want to use Wikipedia and wouldn't favor some off-wiki venue, like IRC or another website. Patience is a virtue, but one would rather not let the stale turn ~~toxic~~ worse. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bishonen/block discussion has been created. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem

Bishonen dear, this is rather delicate, but I feel someone should mention it. I have noticed of late that you seem to have a problem - it's ..er...talking to yourself [11]. Perhaps a longer Wikibreak is called for, somewhere nice, relaxing and soothing. Might I suggest my own establishment The Noto Home for Nutters permanent and temprorary cures guaranteed from $500,000 per weak. All credit cards accepted or cheques to my Cayman Island account. Giano (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just in case you get a reply, you may find this helpful. Giano (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Is "hit the floor" a literal translation of 'curtsy'? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope not! I have just been looking for images here and discovered the "Texas dip." It has to be either a wind up or a bizarre sexual position because I can't beleive that has ever been practiced in any court, I'm sure it's anatomically imposible as described there: "The "Texas Dip" is an extreme curtsey performed by a Texan debutante when formally introduced at the International Debutante Ball in the Waldorf-Astoria. The young women slowly lower their forehead to the floor by crossing their ankles, then bending their knees and sinking. The escort's hand is held during the dip. When they get close to the floor their head is turned down towards the gown and floor. The rising is made as an awakening." Oh the Americans, you can't help but love 'em can you? Giano (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going native ay? Was there a lot of tap dancing in Italian courts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they actually hit the floor. After all, the chamberlain hits it to tell 'em the king is acoming, and he hits it to tell 'em where to stand. I figure this is like dog training. After all that advice about not baring their teeth and snarling, it's got to be something like a stomp. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good theory, but with all of that floor stamping, it must surely have been deafening. Plus, the phrase "hit the floor deeply"? is odd in that context. Hit the floor "Hard", yes - "with deep feeling", maybe..... --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming quite clear JC that you do not move in exaulted circles, in fact I suspect you may never even have witnessed the "Texas Dip." I realise Buckingham palace is not what it was, but please do not mick the behaviour at the Quirinal. I expect though there is quite a bit ot tap dancing and Texas dipping going on at the Palazzo Chigi though these days. Giano (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, when the Italian guys in my neighborhood tell me that I need to pay up or they'll slowly break my leg, they're offering to take me to a royal party? Utgard Loki (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]It is to my deep shame that the closest I've come to the Texas dip is Guacamole, but I do thank your God, despite the recent expenses row, we don't have to endure the soap operas of Burlesque Toni. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a Texas dip in my mouth right now. Tex (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I am going to get a burrito. Back after lunch... Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I survey this page: No wonder you dreadful people are where you are, lowly, vulgar, common editors, while I am invited to take Dom Perignon and canapes with Jimbo and the Arbcom - I know that the cocktail stick should be discretely placed in the handbag and not used to impale one's enemies - I also know that in the presence of ones betters one smiles and slowly breaks one's leg - a choice you will happily make when I catch up with you in RL. As for Signor Berlusconi, had poor dear Amilcare not been so cruelly disposed of, I would be the current "La regina d'Italia" - and beleive me, you would all be hitting the floor super pronto. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Catherine, may I be so bold as to suggest that now one is in one's incorporeal state, one may sip whatsoever one wishes, with whomsoever one chooses whenever one chooses? Given that, it seems odd to see you quaffing the odd bottle with the lay-judiciary and a man with no razor. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EEEUUUUW. Texas dipping sounds like something that Lady Catherine should not be exposed to. Or can we all relax in the knowledge that it is some new type of poker? Tony (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The joys of nicotine without the perils of paralyzed cillia. Oh, sure, one's face gets eaten away by squamous cell carcinoma, but most of us don't have much in the way of a face to begin with. Meanwhile, the nicotine boosts memory and... other stuff... like... where the city of Copenhagen is. :-) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Evidence regarding views that blocking is inappropriate for provoked single instances of incivility, possibly provoked, without attempting to discuss with uncivil editor

I see you have been asked for evidence. Feel free to use this as evidence, if you wish. I believe Geogre would not be averse to you citing User:Geogre/Civility; I know there are other links which may prove useful, I will link here if my fuzzy little brain spits them out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Punitive blocks for incivility are bullshit, and discussing matters with the editor is always preferred." Me, Jan 2007.[12] KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia." Radiant, Jan 2007. [13]
More comments on blocking for incivility by Radiant [14]
Many of the comments, as well as the deletion nomination rationale, at the discussion concerning WP:PAIN which preceded the current WQA, discussion located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard
1. "I'm now convinced that Civility Warnings, Cooling Off Blocks, etc. are a mugs game."[15] Lar, Jan 2007
Wikipedia:Blocking policy, where the only mention of civility is at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which cites blocking criteria as "when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project" and clarifies this to be "persistent gross incivility"' no other mention of incivility is made at all.
User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility "Enforcement of the civility policy ... it's not a terribly helpful one." and "For those who insist that one cannot ignore uncivil users: Why not, pray? "
WP:ADMIN "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."
The oft quoted WP:CIVIL has "A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." There's no specific definition of 'civility' other than a description of the effects. "Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment." How nice. Nothing there about blocking without warning. "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."--Joopercoopers (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking policy hits the nail: "cooling-off" blocking is forbidden, and so is punitive. The onus is on the blocking admin to explain, when queried, why a block is necessary to prevent damage to the project; that onus is encapsulated in WP:ADMIN's policy on communication. It's as simple as that. Shoot now, explain later is fast becoming outmoded, and a good thing that is for the sake of the project. Senior admins need to be setting an example. Tony (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah woe. A flash of irritation at a time when a close friend appears to have just been driven from WP, and a nagging insensitive follower of the rulebook is descibed by a term which is not terribly stong in some cultures, but perhaps a deadly insult in others. Followed six hours after the event by a 3 hour block for "Incivility unbecoming an admin"[16] Sadly, punitive actions to make examples of admins have a history of unwanted effects, and had it been anyone else a warning would have been properly considered the appropriate action, a necessary precursor to any block. As it is, this has engendered bad feeling and wasted hours if not days of wikitime. Including mine, when I should be contemplating orchids. There must be a moral there. Ideally both blocker and blockee would concede that they've been rather naughty, and agree to make that an end of it. Just my tuppenceworth. . . dave souza, talk 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I am without standing, but may I only say this: I was reminded of what I've seen at AN/I. Someone shows up there, saying, "X has been mean to me, and he called me a craphound." A naive admin goes and blocks the person who used the dirty word, but the more experienced ones go and actually investigate and frequently come back saying, "You know, you were being awful. You were trying to insert junk, and you were past three reverts, and you were trying to get outside websites to bus in to win the argument. UserY shouldn't have called you a craphound, but it was understandable. You will be blocked if you don't start conforming to policy." Reacting to a dirty word is the mark of someone who is either too foolish or too naive or too indifferent to understand what is going on in a situation, and that's a bad, bad way to get civil interactions. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]