Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:43, 5 October 2014 view sourceFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits Malicious misuse of Administrator privileges: rv ban evasion← Previous edit Revision as of 13:04, 5 October 2014 view source ClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,739 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 174. (BOT)Next edit →
Line 31: Line 31:


__TOC__ __TOC__

== Eric and Sitush ==

I know both at times can become a little heated, but I don't know what sort of crackdown you've launched but it's causing even more trouble than before. Whatever you've said has provoked the trolls into stalking them, rubbing their hands with glee whenever they spot even the slightest thing uncivil. This trend in lynching them has emerged and barely a day goes by I don't see a fresh new comment from one of the gang members. It's become a joke and it's highly disruptive, more disruptive than anything either of them could say. Is this really the sort of encyclopedia you want where administrators go about patting each other on the back for playing civility policemen? To me it's far more toxic the way these editors are hounded. And it's not just these two, it's other editors who I respect are also having to deal with the same sort of thing. It's counterproductive to building an encyclopedia and creates far more of a backlash and time wasting than it would if it was simply ignored. Does the need to be perfect people really take precedent over building an encyclopedia? I can understand why you find them problematic, but I don't understand why you think this sort of response is somehow acceptable too.♦ ] 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:What's counterproductive to building an encyclopaedia is being uncivil in the first place. At any rate, ArbCom now looks likely to accept the GGTF case, which should hopefully put the repeated ANI threads to bed for a while. ] (]) 10:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::There are a wide range of interpretations defining "uncivil" on wikipedia. I see it used to describes comments not even remotely close to being a personal attack. If content contributors saying something uncivil is indeed counterproductive to building an encyclopedia, is it not worse the fuss which results after it and the civility police patting each other on backs and encouraging an environment of bullying?♦ ] 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::]: Just noticed 5 now accept it (Arbitrators at Arbcom). However, except for an occasional allusion to the past, the problems seem to be over at GGTF. (Two problems with editors Wikihounding me for a year ended up with their following me to and causing problems at GGTF, but that's been solved by ''ANIs placed by others''.) So I don't know why ArbCom would come in at the last minute for a dramafest! <s>(I've run out of 500 words at the request, so am reluctant to say that there now.)</s> <small>'''] (])'''</small> 12:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::"The problems seem to be over." You're assuming the "problems" to be reviewed by any ArbCom case are only the one's you have complained of. Several of the arbitrators have indicated that any case wouldn't be limited in that way. For example, one of the arbitrators who voted to accept today previously said "Whilst I'm very happy that the Gender Gap Task Force is trying to increase the number of women on Misplaced Pages, I'm not happy with the fact that a subset of that task force is complaining about the criticism that they are receiving." ] (]) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::].) <small>'''] (])'''</small> 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::No, of course not. I'm quite surprised to have to spell it out. Some of the arbitrators have signalled that the behaviour of those complaining was also poor and will also be subject to scrutiny e.g. Salvio said: "In this case, in my opinion, both sides have conducted themselves in a way that bears review, so I vote to accept" ] (]) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::: ''"So I don't know why ArbCom would come in at the last minute for a dramafest!"'' — Now, now, you simply must remember masterful way they turned what promised to be three days of intense debate into a six week, ummmm, clusterhug with an 11th Hour intervention in the Private Manning case... But hey, drama is what it has been all about for the last couple months at GGTF, so here comes Act 3. ] (]) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:I have little experience with Sitush myself, but the method of communication as often wielded by Eric (and increasingly wielded and enabled by other editors, including more and more sysops over the past 3 years or so) are a significant part of the reason why I gave up my bits. It seems that a few people have gotten an effective 'carte blanche' on our pillar of "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility". Eric specifically says that he "treats those who deserve respect with respect". But the pillars are not about the judgement of one person, they should reflect the goals and boundaries we set as a community. If we as a community think that he has a pattern of being disrespectful and uncivil (something stated in the discussion all the time even by his supporters), then he is not acting in the spirit of the pillar. They are pillars, not scales to be tirelesly balanced out with excuses and 'good content'. If we are not dealing with that pillar, then it can only mean that either the pillar is useless and should be torn down, or that we need to do more to restore that pillar. It seems that a lot in the community have chosen to either side with, to stop caring and ignore or to leave. So probably the community should tear down that pillar in that case... I think that would be a terrible idea, but it does seem to be the direction that the community (or what remains of it) is adopting. —] (] • ]) 12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::What I'm saying though is if it's not acceptable for Eric to be disrespectful and uncivil to certain editors, why is it OK for administrators to deal with the perceived problem in an environment which encourages bullying and provoking. Doesn't the constant lynching and feeding him provocative remarks also pose a threat to that pillar?♦ ] 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I want to endorse Dr. Blofeld's comments. Your answer to the problems that dog Misplaced Pages have been long awaited. But I have been dismayed more than I can say by your recent attacks on Eric and Sitush. Is it really your assessment that the core problems are due to the behaviour of some of the most able, productive, long term and committed content editors, and that these editors need to be banned? Because it seems to me you are opening the door to a vigilante culture, where it is okay to use politically correctness as a weapon to bait and goad able content builders until they respond immoderately. What I definitely don't see are attempts to create a climate which facilitates content building, and allows content builders to work with some dignity in a non-threatening environment. --] (]) 11:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:Is this in regards to something specific Jimbo has done or said recently? If so, then good; the project needs to stop giving content creators a free pass to behave as badly as they want to, to anyone at any time. ] (]) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:: What are you talking about Tarc? Since when have content creators had "a free pass to behave as badly as they want to, to anyone at any time"? That's rubbish. --] (]) 12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::Don't play ignorant; Corbett/Malleus has a block log a mile long because few have the fortitude to make a block stick. Sitush makes a threat many construe to be a threat of violence, gets blocked, then unblocked after a day with no explanation...that didn't come til later. It took several years to finally get rid of Betacommand, and that only came about because his ardent supporters started to fade. ] (]) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::: Then say what you mean. That's not what you said. --] (]) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::Um, yes, it is exactly what I said; these editors are regarded as prolific content creators; when they are uncivil, even grossly so, to others, it is allowed to slide. ] (]) 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Tarc, even if being a content contributor doesn't mean anybody can behave how they like, you're missing the point. There is a whole subcommunity of admins on wikipedia who exist to feed provocative comments to get a reaction and then relish brandishing the civility stick and imposing blocks and preachy comments and seeing the drama escalate. I'm witnessed it so many times. It's intentional, these people know it's going to blow up into something. That sort of environment is more toxic to me.♦ ] 13:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry, but no; adults are responsible for their own actions. "Billy teased me so I hit him back!" stops being a viable excuse for bad behavior right around puberty. ] (]) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: Any fan of NFL football or NHL hockey knows that the key to keeping order in the game is to punish the instigators, not those who react and "take the bait." ] (]) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Probably not the best of times to be holding up the NFL as a paragon of virtue, bro. ] (]) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Actually, things tend to calm down more often in hockey when the referee sends ''both'' to the box. Punish the retaliator exclusively, and you only encourage instigation. Punish the instigator exclusively and you encourage badgering. Punish nobody effectively and you end up with Misplaced Pages. ]] 16:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::: Four minutes for the instigator, two for the retaliator... ] (]) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It was what he said at WikiMania. The problem has escalated since then, and the constant harassment on talk pages has got worse as has the backlash to them. This is not promoting a civil website. I'm not criticising Jimbo for wanting a website where everybody is completely nice to each other and things run without conflict, but I am highly critical if he thinks the lynching and gang warfare in response to perceived actions of "incivility" is somehow acceptable and an appropriate way to deal with it and drive them out. Jimbo might not like a lot of people who he considers toxic to the website, but it's also setting a bad example in encouraging this sort of ham-fisted behaviour from certain admins or people who clearly enjoy the attention beating the civility stick gets and the brownie points it earns from others and Jimbo. Doesn't he think that the taunting and the backlash which inevitably results also contributes to a toxic community? ♦ ] 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:Several things happened at once: ] got going again; someone asked about a possible "Civility board" and Eric Corbett’s 7/24/14 comment “the easiest way to avoid being called a c*nt is not to act like one.” which was mentioned in an ANIs and elsewheres; civility also was discussed on this talk page; Eric and others supportive of such language then joined the Gender Gap project and were disruptive; Wales made his Wikimania statement. No one person is responsible, though if someone is going to act uncivil, some may call them uncivil. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::Blofeld....there are hundreds of "content creators" such as yourself that don't have anyone ganging up on them. Frankly, until you've had the old encyclopedia dramatica and GNAA gang up on you like I did, you haven't seen a real gang up.--] 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::It's still no excuse to target any editor and lynch him. uncivil or not. And it is real ganging up, and it creates more bitterness and problems.♦ ] 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::: <small> I am not sure if this is the right place to say what I want to say </small> Sitush is a great contributor, agreed. Sitush not editing is a loss for the community, agreed. But can we just ignore anything wrong that they do just because they are good contributors? Well Sitush himself used to say that he had received death threats, I believe that those threats were taken seriously. I wonder what happened to those editors who had threatened Sitush, were they shown the same kind of leniency that we are trying to show to Sitush? What are the reasons to believe that the threats issued to Sitush are any different from threats issued by Sitush? To be honest I feel that this issue has been blown out of proportion. Sitush did something wrong, he was punished. End of the story. I also hope that Sitush gets back very soon. -] (]) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Where is the evidence that he issued threats?♦ ] 15:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Are you denying that the events detailed in ] happened? ] (]) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: How would you know the content of the alleged threats, Tarc, you are not an administrator (saints be praised)? It has all been scrubbed with revision-deletion. So please spare us all your faux sanctimonious and inflammatory comments. ] (]) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: The comments are posted in the ANI discussion that is now closed. -] (]) 15:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::Carrite, don't be obtuse, the comments in question were paraphrased by editors in the ANI discussion several days ago. ] (]) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::: An out-of-context paraphrase is not the same as reading direct quotations in context and you know it — or should. ] (]) 20:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::: Things seem to have come a <s>]</s> (wrong idiom, my mistake). ] (]) 15:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know all that happened Tarc, I didn't see a diff on Sitush's talk page explaining the "indefinite block" but I do know that history repeated itself, ''again'' this time with him, and that obviously the block was not clear cut because it was removed by a very respected admin shortly afterwards. Such things make a mockery of the system we have on here and reveal that it is ineffective in dealing with content contributors who occasionally become involved in heated arguments and say something which others consider uncivil. Obviously numerous admins disagree with Jimbo's idea of super strict civility enforcement as most of Eric's blocks ended up being swiftly removed by another, in this instance it was Sitush. All I know is that I'm tired of seeing the same thing all of the time and the civility policing actually causing more trouble and bitterness with the backlash which results than what was said initially. ''Clearly'' something needs to change. For all the uncivil acts they've apparently committed, the system of dealing with civility has shown itself to be grossly inadequate every time. And somebody has to be honest and acknowledge that the way it is dealt with creates more bitterness in the long term than it does in solving civility or controlling it. ♦ ] 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)♦ ] 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who generally stays out of these things, I have a question: Is it really too much to ask that an editor (regardless of the number of edits or contributions to the project) not call another editor names? Put aside, for the moment, the issue of disrupting a Wikiproject, which requires a somewhat subjective judgment; or the issue of what language is appropriate to use in criticising the 'edits' of another editor (as opposed to calling the editor him/herself a name); or the question of whether there is ever a valid reason to tell another editor to "f*** off"; or the issue of whether telling someone that if you were in their presence, they would be looking down the barrel of serious weaponry, is a threat. I have opinions on those subjects, but just put them aside and explain to me why we tolerate name-calling. I don't see any reason why an editor should be allowed to call another editor an idiot, or a moron, or a piece of s***, or any one of a number of body parts, or any other kind of name, regardless of the circumstances. ("POV warrior" or "nationalist editor" or the like is a different discussion, because those are really shorthand ways of expressing an opinion about someone's 'edits' and to question why they should be editing in a particular area of the project, or at all.) For now what I'm saying is, just don't call people a body part, or some other kind of name. If you can't comply with that simple request, go somewhere else on the Internet where people like to be called names, or where nobody cares. Forget about the past. Starting... now. What's wrong with that? ] (]) 16:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::I'm not defending that, at times when an editor acts insufferably it is easy to do so, but if it wasn't calling somebody a name they'd find another way to brandish the civility stick. If the website truly can't tolerate somebody telling somebody to eff off, then there needs to be some official thing in place which punishes it evenly. I've seen administrators using such language at editors and nobody blinking an eye.♦ ] 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::*Many editors would have absolutely no problem with ] if it was applied consistently. That is impossible as long as individual administrators can decide on how severe an editor's violation of ] was or for how long an editor should be blocked for violating the policy. ] (]) 16:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::Well, it is likely that most people get by on the Pedia without often/ever having to even discuss civility, so it's not like it's actually that hard. ] (]) 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::If that was true, why is it barely a day ever goes by that somebody who I know is warned about civility or blocked? WP:Civility has become the single biggest problem on the website, and not just offending it. Everywhere I look very experienced editors are being templated for personal attacks over the most trivial of comments. It's become a site obsession to berate somebody with NPA or Be Civil. Might there actually be some correlation between those who really care about content and feel passionate/protective of it and the tendency to violate WP:Civility? It seems a strange cooincidence that many of the great content producers I know are often involved in "uncivil" disputes.♦ ] 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::I don't know who you hang out with but it seems telling that you don't say that ''you'' are warned every day. And so what. If it's a dumb warning ignore it.] (]) 16:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not warned every day, although I'll often have a "be civil" remark from somebody turning up on my talk page and it's usually related to their inappropriate nomming of articles for deletion because they can't accept that they made a mistake. I see it every day on the user tlak page or article talk page of somebody or other I know. A lot of disputes come about from lesser prolific editors picking holes in work and the contributors feeling defensive or naturally have a better understanding of what content it should contain. If such editors were not here to defend certain material and in doing so getting into a heated argument, wouldn't content be worse off if every experienced editor gave into people who have less experience and knowledge in editing? I'm not excusing genuine personal attacks or threats of violence etc, but I am saying that it's inevitable at times that editors who truly feel strongly about building content are going to encounter situations where they become inflamed with another editor in protecting it. I see such immense trolling for weeks sometimes over non issues to the point that any normal person would have long walked away from it. It's hardly surprising that sometimes people are "uncivil".♦ ] 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Well, there are several obvious realities any editor must know: 1) there are dumb people on the internet; 2) sometimes you have to deal with dumb people on the internet; 3) Misplaced Pages has adopted a civility policy -- that boils down to discuss ideas not specific people; 4) So, if one can't live with the first three points, Misplaced Pages will often be an unhappy place for that editor. ] (]) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::WP:Civility doesn't accommodate for the "sometimes you have to deal with dumb people on the internet;" part though does it? If it did, Eric wouldn't have been blocked or scolded much.♦ ] 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::That's because it's a dumb idea for WIkipedia to say all dumb people are banned from the internet -- moreover, there are places that are not openly editable by anyone, it's just that Misplaced Pages is not one of them. ] (]) 16:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Most of the problems come about from editors who certain people consider ignorant and are liberal in telling them so, the civil stick is brandished, they're blocked, unblocked, pressure gains for it to be lifted and it usually is. All unnecessary drama. You could argue don't, call anybody a name and it won't happen, but I honestly believe that most violations of Wp:Civil do come about from genuine ignorance by somebody over something.♦ ] 16:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Sure, and whether it's ignorance of not knowing how to just deal with the dumb in a civil manner, or not -- there comes a time when one has to say to themselves, either I can do that, or I cannot. ] (]) 16:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

===A Few Thoughts===
It occurs to me that the increased number of templates about incivility in general and the increased number of complaints about civility by particular editors, said by some to be hounding, may reflect all of the deeply divided mood of the community about civility in general, the frustration by some editors who perceive that there is very little enforcement of civility, and the perception that certain editors are exempt from civility. I have recently offered a few thoughts as to what the owner of this talk page and the WMF can do about this situation. (The owner of this talk page recognizes that the amount of WMF civility police, for instance, would be a bad idea.) I have in particular proposed that the WMF conduct a well-structured statistical survey of both existing editors and former editors to determine, among other things, whether the larger community favors stricter civility enforcement than currently takes place at the noticeboards, or whether concern with civility should be relaxed and restated. ] (]) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add that the mood at the noticeboards, which has long been difficult, has been particularly ugly recently. On the one hand, in the short run, we should all try to keep our calm and avoid making a difficult situation worse. On the other hand, a survey of the attitudes of editors would help to determine what can be done in the medium run and the long run. ] (]) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some good points Robert. I'm not saying it is fine to call people names, but I do see a lot of abuse of WP:Civil and WP:NPA. I often see veterans (I don't mean Eric or Sitush) templated for comments which are very minor in tone which reinforces my opinion that it's become an obsession on the website. A lot of editors in fact seem to exist purely to to say "be civil". The dominant issue for me is unevenness in standard of enforcement and the fact that admins have the power to make an instant block and override each other and create rifts. Some of the civility police behave in way which seem grossly uncivil yet its tolerated, even encouraged by certain others. ♦ ] 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:Some examples (of abuse of WP:NPA, say) would be good. What I see, much more, is editors like Eric behaving with absolutely ludicrous levels of hostility towards other editors, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole, as people see that even the worst possible behavior is something that some people get away with repeatedly. Eric, and some like him, should have been permanently banned from Misplaced Pages a long time ago because the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous. I see no evidence that anyone is stalking or hounding them at all. People have legitimate grievances and we lose good community members because of them. It's time to step up and say that we aren't talking about minor infractions or "political correctness" but about the need to get rid of people who violate our standards and do damage to the encyclopedia because of it.--] (]) 18:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::"taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior" - , "the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous" - <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

::You really think that a "permanent ban from Misplaced Pages" solves everything? Personally, I think it just makes matters worse. - ] (]) 12:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

:: Too often, Eric's army of sycophants dismiss your thoughts about the editors with cries of "prove it", knowing it's the Misplaced Pages equivalent of proving a negative. The administrative corps lined up behind him in vigorous defense refuse to recognize they fail the community as a whole when they overturn blocks with cries of, "he contributes so much content!" Fine. Then we might as well all decamp and leave the whole place to him for all they care about the rest of us, who are forced to endure his incivility, the other uncivil editors he emboldens, and the drama that follows in its wake.

:: It doesn't take a statistician to see the increasingly stronger correlation between the decline of civility on Misplaced Pages and the growing loss of editors, particularly women editors. I can offer up my own situation as evidence. I have expertise in two areas where I don't edit. The first is professional: in that case, I simply don't need the increase in blood pressure that comes from trying to deal with amateurs who know just enough to be dangerous, but who insist on editing in the area where I have expertise leaving a trail of mis- and half-information, coupled with the hybridizing of the content to fit American and British taxonomy, terminology and practice. Ugh! That's a lost cause. The second, which is germane to this discussion, is a personal area of interest in which I have expertise, but do not edit. Why? Because it would throw me into Eric Corbett's path. And I refuse to be there and be subjected to his dismissive attitudes, his narcissism, his misogyny, and his ridicule, not to mention his foul turn of phrase. Instead, I stay in a relatively mundane corner of the Misplaced Pages jousting with fanboys and fangirls rather than adding anything substantive to stay out his way, and the way of others like him. And yet he teflon's along, Misplaced Pages's version of John Gotti. Who needs it? I sure don't. --] (]) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Is the irony lost on you that a person decrying lack of civility refers to a whole group of editors as "Eric's army of sycophants"? ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
:There are many problems here, first and foremost the perception of unequal treatment. What would happen to an editor with say 5-6 months experience here who said things like "''He knows that I think he's a piece of shit''" or "''Fuck off , you're not welcome here''" ? ] (] 18:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::Agreed. But I have a personal recommendation to you (and don't take it hard, we all stumble sometimes): if you want to help with the campaign to make a kinder environment on Misplaced Pages, try to refrain from comments like the one you made up above on this page. Saying things like "Where do you work, Burger King?" are just not very helpful.--] (]) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:: Well said, Tarc! This is one of the most fundamental problems. --] (]) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::{{u|Jimbo Wales}} Without myself making a comment as to if I agree or disagree with your assessment, if you think so strongly about it, why have you not taken personal action? You retain the power to ban do you not? Have you taken a general position refraining from such action? If you have done so, it may be wise to say under what conditions you will or will not intervene. ] (]) 19:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I do retain that power, but I do not think it is the most effective way for me to effect change in this situation. (Particularly since Eric has repeatedly insulted me personally on my talk page, there would be a view that I'm just pursuing a personal vendetta.) I think it better to effect change on principle - what kind of community do we want to be? I think we should have significantly less drama about these kinds of civility bans, and the best way to do that is to actually ban them rather than having endless drama about how awful they are.--] (]) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::: It seems to me that many of the points you reiterate above are highly debatable and over-simplistic, and that you have been badly advised by people who are not aware of the full picture. --] (]) 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::Yea, sorry about the BK thing. Curano was being so dismissive and full of contempt towards the user in question that it just kinda hit a nerve. ] (]) 21:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::: Or alternatively, we could simply just get rid of the people that treat a so-called encyclopedia as a social networking service to push their own agendas, and in the process provoke excellent content builders such as Sitush and Eric to lash out against them ''because they are degrading the project''. But of course, that wouldn't fit in with the "new and improved" Misplaced Pages where any idiot with the basic ability to manipulate a keyboard can whine that people are being nasty to them, would it? In the end, do we want an actual encyclopedia or do we want a nice pretty website where anyone can inflate their ego? When I joined, I thought the answer was the former, but now it appears that it's the latter, and you are enabling them. ] 22:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Stumbled across this discussion at a talkpage I watch. I would like to associate myself entirely with every word BK typed here. At some point, the content contributor vs Misplaced Pages-as-MMORPG balance needs to swing back in favor of the content contributors. ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 14:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::Hear hear! Far too many people spend huge amounts of time bickering and politicking in project space. Just imagine what could be achieved if we closed down the drama boards (including this talk page) and everyone put that effort into writing articles. ] &#124; ] 14:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::::There are fallacies, first, the implication that Eric gruffiness on occasion (99% justified, a good ratio) is ''the'' incivility that needs to be targeted, when it is in fact dwarfed by hundreds of different forms of incivility rampant, and often by admins who are power-crazed and irresponsible since difficult to de-sysop. The second fallacy is that if one is going to impose zero-tolerance re incivility, then ban those admins as well, and all other editors guilty of incivilities not so easily identifiable (beyond the easiliy identifiable incivilities: "bad words" and name-calling), and many times worse than gruffiness. (The only explanation for the selectivity for putting a target on Eric's back, is personal vendetta and dislike; or, political pressures beyond reg editor and admin experiences on WP.) ] (]) 04:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

:Perhaps we need a different process to deal with civility issues. A long time ago I suggested that we could deal with people who have problems with being civil by making it compulsory for them to have a username that reflects their problem. I guess this would work better with icons that would be displayed; e.g. if someone has been judged to be uncivil then that editor must use an icon displaying a pit bull, and the more uncivil that person is judged to be, the more aggressive that pit bull icon will look. After a set time period of good behavior that editor can ask to have this icon removed, or replaced by a less aggressive one.

:The welcome message to new Wikipedians should contain information about these icons. If they know about this from the start that will take away most of the problems. It's similar to how real world interactions work where you have plenty of visual signals. You can see that someone is a drunk person on the street or some gang member. And obviously, you'll handle an aggressive pit bull differently than a poodle. Because a system like this allows uncivil people to continue editing, a community debate about imposing an incivility icon is less likely to degenerate into a big fight. ] (]) 20:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:: That is very interesting idea! --] (]) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::That would be rather childish and kindergarten like though wouldn't it? In the real world you don't get punishments for swearing at people in disputes so it does seem questionable on wikipedia. Your boss might fire you though if you say something to him/her.♦ ] 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::::It's not necessarily "punishment", some people here will admit that they can sometimes be uncivil and they usually don't see that as a big deal. Then this is just about making them owning up to that in a transparent way (newcomers who are not familar with such editors can then deal with these editors better). ] (]) 17:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:: Agree, an outside-the-box idea w/ merit. (But how would you discourage users from "earning" the most-aggressive pit bull icon as a "badge of honor"!? ) ] (]) 05:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

:Not all people are equal. Tolerance goes a long way in dealing with swearing. If I meet someone who lived on a housing estate in central Manchester I would not be surprised if they sworn every second sentence. That's just the local ]. Sometimes communications is a struggle in text words via the internet but a dose of tolerance can go a long way. For those that are offended . That's not to say uncivil behaviour isn't a problem on Misplaced Pages, because it is, but swearing is not a problem, although intolerance to swearing maybe. Regards, ]<sup>(])</sup> 20:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Something needs to change with the way civility is enforced. There's way too many double standards and disagreements in what constitutes a personal attack and then an argument on content contributors vs civility. And the system where an admin can block and another can unblock shortly afterwards is quite frankly an embarrassment to the site. Often the unblock is the right solution, but by then it's too late, the drama and bitterness has broken out. Me personally I think the best solution would be to simply ignore it or have some editors who operate on here simply removing the more sweary personal attacks. That doesn't of course account for those who may be genuinely offended by something said and actually leave because of it. If not, then something more extreme is needed which completely does not tolerate anything whatsoever and overrules admins and prevents people from debating blocks or bans. It would seem pretty ludicrous to me to ban a veteran editor for instance for simply calling somebody a sweary name, and we'd lose most of our editors that way, but you'd have a stronger civility enforcement with severe consequences. It depends on how much you rate civility among editors than building the encyclopedia itself. A severe way to deal with it might be something like a 3 strikes and out scheme every year. Every year an editor is given three "lives" so to speak and one is taken away after something serious has been said in an attack and once all out the editor is banned for the remainder of the year which cannot be questioned. Whatever the case, IMO the power in enforcing civility needs to be taken away from administrators, at least in dealing with experienced editors over relatively minor incidents of "uncivility". Admins are a large part of the problem with causing unnecessary drama.♦ ] 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:That would be too crude, prone to a bout of Christmastide truthtelling, but perhaps a system of ]s would have advantages. I'm not really thinking of the system for driving that our article is about, but the older use of it in the educational system, though I've never actually seen it used (not sure why). The interesting aspect of such a numeric system is that it might invite the possibility that editors can ''work off'' demerits by useful editing. With so many admins acting as if 100,000 good edits can't make up for the one time that you cite a reliable source somebody doesn't want to have talked about, it would be veritably revolutionary to suggest that our infractions could be quantified and countered by a finite amount of useful work. ] (]) 20:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::It depends how much you rate civility. At the end of a day we're an encyclopedia, so we should be trying to retain as many editors as possible and worry less about behaviour. Readers mostly aren't aware of what goes on behind the scenes. But the way it is dealt with is clearly very poor and creates more problems than anybody can say in the first place.♦ ] 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

: ''"It depends on how much you rate civility among editors than building the encyclopedia itself."'' — This is exactly right and the central cause of the hubbub. We do (and should) put up with more antics from established, proven volunteer contributors than we do from drive-by IPs or new sock accounts of provocateurs. At some point, the cumulative antics offset the positive contributions and the bad actor is shown the door as a "net negative to the project." The problem lies in the fact that this is a slow process and there are some who are on a fast track to use civility rules to annihilate their enemies, real and imagined. These provocateurs are every bit as disruptive, if not moreso, than the handful of foul-mouthed and periodically ill-tempered yobs that go off every now and again. It all comes down to one's view of how WP content is generated: whether by a comparatively small handful of driven volunteers or through the mass contributions of tens of thousands through the magic of "crowdsourcing." I'd argue that in the case of the fairly well developed, heavily footnoted WP of 2014, it is the former and will {{u|Wehwalt}} on the matter: ''"We are here to build an encyclopedia, not sing Kumbaya, and this is a shop floor."'' — ] (]) 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:The problem being that 'something serious' interpretation - it will always be argued about. I'd prefer to see a mandatory brief 'cool down' ban (maybe 3 hours) for any one who directs incivility at the editor rather than the article, Getting sweary shouldn't be the issue - 'That's a c*nt of an article to improve' is different to 'You're a c*nt'. Instead of being debated to death at ANI these blocks should be instant and irreversible by any other admin. Its three hours... if anyone can't wear that (including at times when, if it had gone to ANI, they might not have received anything) then it probably is better that they go. Short, sharp, no appeal, no other admin changing it - lots of us will get slapped on the wrist and we'll all learn to be more careful. Those who don't like it will go. Those who collect substantial blocks won't need diffs on their behavior when it comes to a longer block, or ban, at ANI as the block list will tell the tale. It'd be chaos for a while but it would settle down and remove the trolls and attack dogs as well as reminding everyone to take a bit more time. ] (]) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

: Dr. Blofeld is correct, and part of the larger picture that has lead to problems is to do with the way civility is enforced. At present we have well over one thousand admins, most of them legacy admins who were appointed ''for life'', way back when you had to do little more than ask in order to be an admin. There are no missions statements, nor is there the equivalent of a constitution. As a result there is no real direction, and admins just make up their own ideas about what they are here for. With such diverse and often woefully underqualified admins, it is no surprise civility blocks often blow up and are overturned. It is, for example, not uncommon for a loose cannon legacy admin who has never contributed significant content, to come out of semi-retirement and block a high profile content builder just because he can. Anomalies like this will continue until the current system for disciplining content builders is reformed. The ability to block experienced editors should never be part of the tool set for ordinary admins. Instead, able content builders should only be judged by their peers. A special disciplinary and resolution board should be set up, with members selected for their knowlege of the pressure content builders come under as well as their skills in conflict resolution. Then maybe we can start developing pride in the Misplaced Pages goverance of civility and related issues, instead of what we have today.--] (]) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed completely. First step Jimbo, and a major one, ban civility bans and the way they can be overturned by anybody. I think you've personally seen enough evidence of them creating unnecessary drama and complaints to ban them instantly. As Epi says, you really do need to distinguish between core editors and others. Given the time and content produced, the more you contribute, especially to core articles up to GA and FA status, the more likelihood heated debates are going to break out. So I think you do need to account for that, but I think any decision to impose civility blocks or bans on well established editors is something which needs to be decided by a special disciplinary and resolution board who have the power to make decisions which cannot be contested by anybody. And as Epi says, at least with some people within it who have much experience working under pressure. Then some more official guidelines in terms of sweary personal attacks and what is generally considered to be offensive or whatever need to be laid down if you're really going to enforce them evenly. And that goes for administrators too. In practice, editors really should be able to say what they want, and it does seem like a school having to have rules of civility, but I can at least see why some sort of control is needed within reason. The frequency of the civility warnings and provocative comments I see on here at the moment is one of the biggest problems in causing disruption and further ill feeling. It needs to be stopped.♦ ] 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

*My goodness, what horrible ideas. Epipelagic is going more of a ] direction of select committees and members investigating each other, whole Blofeld takes the ] route, suggesting that a class of editors should be privileged above another and subject to separate rules. ] (]) 21:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:: Misplaced Pages has already taken the ] route. It just has a different set of privileged users. --] (]) 22:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Any of those ideas would be far superior Tarc to your 1880s wild western approach to dealing with incivility.♦ ] 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:I...have no idea what that refers to. I'd have to hunt around for the link, but I believe the last time civility changes came up on Jimbo's page, my suggestion was actually quite the opposite of yours. I'd like to see a civility block put on a similar standing as an Arbcom block, in that it could ''not'' be removed by another admin on his/her own. ] (]) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:: C'mon Tarc, the present set up is exactly how you like it. It maximises the drama mongering. --] (]) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::Er, if I liked it, I wouldn't be arguing against it. ] (]) 21:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::: Excuse me, but after your behavior in the Manning Case (both on and off wiki), I have a hard time taking at face value the ostensibly principle-driven arguments you make. ] (]) 22:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::: Do you have in mind a way of getting more drama from it? --] (]) 22:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::Ignoring Carrite's trolling and addressing a real comment...do you think it would create more drama if civility blocks were made harder to undo? The blocked party will certainly be out of commission for awhile, and thus making no waves outside of his/her own talk page. Their friends...which is really a part of the current problem, in that AN/I, RfCU and related places become more about how many supporters one cane line up...will certainly squawk, but that's nothing new. You'd have to measure the drama of such a person's continued, unfettered presence in the project vs. the drama that'd surround a hard-to-undo block. ] (]) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::: Yes. If civility blocks such as the example I gave above are allowed to stand there will be a lot more drama. --] (]) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

* May I ask you Jimbo to seriously reflect on ] by a serious but savaged content builder. I appreciate it's not easy if you've never been there. But you need to develop some empathy with the serious content builders, or the heart is going to be ripped out of this project. --] (]) 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It ''doesn't'' matter whether an editor ''deserves'' a block/ban or not. It doesn't matter if he/she is a major content contributor or not. It doesn't matter if she/he is a drama seeker or not. What DOES MATTER, is if an editor has a ''strong support/fan base'' or not. No matter what the situation, if he/she has a strong support/fan base? she/he will likely not serve an entire block or even get banned. PS: This goes for ''any'' editor. ] (]) 22:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:"fan base" becomes much less relevant once it gets to arbitration. It becomes about precedents for conduct sanctions in previous cases...and also dependent the degree with which arbs investigate the evidence. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
::Arbcom most likely ''won't'' take a case, if there's no consensus among the participating editors, for them to accept it. Such a consensus won't come, if an editor's strong base opposes. If such an editor were to get banned? there'd possibly be a huge push to 'change' Arbcom. There would indeed be a big commotion. ] (]) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

:::I added a couple of suggestions in previous discussions on this issue and managed to get no replies whatsoever! I'll try copying them here to see if I fare a little better. --] (]) 23:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

::::'''Comment 1 - the BBC'''
:::::''The BBC is paid for by the (compulsory) licence fee and its programmes have message boards. That includes, 10 national TV stations (including BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament), 10 national radio stations, 40+ regional radio stations, BBC Worldwide etc. They employ professional moderators and they have levels of moderation and - deep breaths everyone, I'm going to put it out there - pre-moderation (a delay between posting and the message appearing while it is moderated). There are levels to moderation and areas where moderation is more concentrated, a message board for a gardening programme would receive little attention, BBC news which will have threads about the current conflict between Israel and Palestine would receive considerably more attention. Individual accounts which have been problematic in the past may become subject to pre-moderation on everything they post. Excessive swearing is edited out (with a note to say the post has been edited).

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

:::::''I'm not sure if'' '''' ''will work outside the UK but anyway... --] (]) 03:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)''

::::'''Comment 2 - Trigger Street'''
:::::''I used to be a member of ], a website founded by ] and his business partner ] where people get feedback for screenplays, short stories and short fims. There is a '''''' - review another member's work and you earn a credit, attach the credits to your own piece of work to make it rise to the top of the pile of scripts. There is also a jury system to prevent people gaming the system, an obvious way of earning a lot of credits is to make up a load of generic comments like, "the characters in this screenplay are very interesting", request another assignment, copy and paste, earn credit, and repeat.''

:::::''The site had a Hall Of Justice for members who think the review that they received was unfair. There is a criteria for the reviews including: not cutting and pasting from other reviews, (if you think it has happened then the ref. no. from the other review is submitted as evidence), reviews should be constructive and non-abusive, a decent word length (I think the minimum was 100 words), there should also be evidence in the review that the reviewer definitely read / watched the submission. If a member thinks they have been unfairly treated then they send a review to the HOJ. Other members - let's call them arbitrators - with a high enough participation level (like having 'enough' edits in your edit history) can request a - randomly generated - docket, read the review, read the details of the complaint (e.g. "I think this review is a cut & past of ref. # 'x' ...."). The arbitrator who received the docket for review then has a choice of Y/N check-boxes relating to the docket (e.g. "The reviewer has cut and pasted their review from another review") and a comment form, for anything else that they might like to add. The same docket goes to a number of different random arbitrators in the same way. (Note: there is a limit to how many dockets a single member can request in 24 hrs.)''

:::::''If the majority think it should go further, it is passed on to the jury. The key thing about it is, in the first instance it is other members with a basic account that make the decision, a similar system could possibly work for disputes on Misplaced Pages. <small>Ironically the message boards were a mess with one of them called the "Free for all" message board.</small> I also mentioned, at the top of this talk page (just prior to the section ]), how BBC message boards are moderated - so it never escalates to that point of needing arbitration in the first place. --] (]) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)''

:::Professional staff, pre-moderating comments would mean there would be no need for blocks / bans. --] (]) 00:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::While your ideas are appreciated and worthy of examination I do not think either idea would play well on this website for a variety of reasons.--] 02:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Professional staff pre-moderating comments would indeed mean that there would be no need for most blocks and bans. It would also mean that Misplaced Pages would be an entirely different entity than it is now. The number of professional staff who would be required to moderate the comments would be substantial, probably considerably more than the current number of developers and other WMF employees. The WMF censors would be far more unpopular with the volunteer editors than WMF developers are. It is likely that the cost would exceed achievable donation revenue, and that the transformed Misplaced Pages would have to be advertising-funded, something that Misplaced Pages has never done and does not plan to do. In view of the visibility of a transformed Misplaced Pages, it would still be so much of a target for POV-pushers that it would probably have to maintain a list of banned users simply to save the time of the moderators, so that the need for bans would not be entirely eliminated anyway. It would be a very different compendium of knowledge than Misplaced Pages is. ] (]) 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::A pilot scheme would only have a small number of professional staff. They may prove unpopular with volunteer editors who enjoy their bad behaviour, but I think they would also generate new editors and improve retention among civil editors (which is the point of doing it). I think that, just like the BBC boards, there are areas that generate worse behaviour than others, there are also topics that are "hot" for while. It is also difficult to say what it would do for donations, the result could be positive with potential donors having greater faith in Misplaced Pages's ability to police itself. I didn't envisage that there would be no need for bans whatsoever, just that the current cat-and-mouse over short-term bans / blocks and the personal politics that circulate around temporary bans / blocks would be ameliorated.

::::::In any case something has to change, I just read in another discussion that there were no RFAs for August or September and that long-time admins are quitting. That's unsustainable. From other discussions I get the same impression that you mentioned in your opening post about either relaxing or restating the civility issue. I've read comments from people who are from the "pro-incivility camp" who argue that content is king, and that editors of merit will survive the kicking process. That begs the question, "What is the point of having a civility pillar at all?" I think the pro-incvility ideology fails when it comes to the vulnerable in our society who have valuable contributions to make. Making sure that they are heard would turn Misplaced Pages into "a very different compendium of knowledge", but I think the change would be a positive one. --] (]) 05:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::The fight against incivility is Misplaced Pages's version of the War on Drugs. Nobody wants an encyclopedia dominated by incivility, but forceful action to penalize it only makes it more widespread. The easier it is for editors to turn on one another in disciplinary proceedings, the more they will find ways to express their contempt for one another for doing so. The more that heavy-handed authorities can swoop down and eliminate comments they don't want heard (not to mention content), the less valuable the encyclopedia will be and the less respect people will have or show for it in any way. It may be possible to make ''limited'' policies that prohibit incivility from being shown in certain ''forms'', such as overt threats of violence, but it is not possible to empty the human heart with policy. The only way to fight incivility is by organizing positive efforts against it, which is to say, convincing people to be more civil rather than compelling them. ] (]) 08:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: Bingo. ] (]) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::''The fight against incivility is Misplaced Pages's version of the War on Drugs. Nobody wants an encyclopedia dominated by incivility, but forceful action to penalize it only makes it more widespread. ... The only way to fight incivility is by organizing positive efforts against it, which is to say, convincing people to be more civil rather than compelling them.'' - Do you have any evidence to support this ]? Or anything that suggests the BBC's way of moderating its message boards has had a backlash? A '''''' of how the British are perceived internationally showed that 46% of those questioned regarded 'politeness and good manners' were the best characteristic of the British. ''The more that heavy-handed authorities can swoop down and eliminate comments they don't want heard (not to mention content), the less valuable the encyclopedia will be and the less respect people will have or show for it in any way.'' No comment or content should be censored, only the way that it is phrased is subject to scrutiny. "I don't think that is correct." is a civil version of "That's just f**king stupid!" There is no justification for using the second phrase. Poor retention of editors due to incivility is a form of censorship and the cloud that Misplaced Pages is currently living under. --] (]) 18:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: Yeah, I was trying hard not to get started on the British. Put it this way: when French intelligence agents pulled aside an admin here a while back and tried to get him to delete something, Wikipedians made fun of them,<sup></sup> but just recently when the British Foreign Office briefly tried to get media not to say ]' name, oversighters and ultra high echelon admins went full mad trying to keep the name totally suppressed anywhere on Misplaced Pages, deleting AfDs and such, long after even the British press had started printing the name (everyone else had been from the start; his wife was giving interviews). This isn't the first time I've seen weird special treatment for issues regarding that particular country. I think some high-level authorities here forget sometimes that Misplaced Pages isn't an arm of the British government (like the BBC actually is), even to the degree that I seriously start to wonder if it ''is'' (cf. ]), but in any case, no, I'm not feeling like admiring the British right now, nor the BBC, and I definitely have no desire to emulate them. Lady Liberty is an ugly bitch, and we love her! ] (]) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::: Absolutely. Did you know Eric was in fact a secret ] agent based in an undercover cell in ]?! ] (]) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::: No idea what you mean by that, but if you're being dismissive, I do suggest you see some of the published reports regarding media manipulation.<sup></sup><sup></sup><sup></sup><sup></sup><sup></sup><sup></sup> So the thing to ask is not whether it is paranoid to think they would tamper with Misplaced Pages, but rather, is Misplaced Pages ''special''? Has Misplaced Pages managed to make itself immune from their interventions where news reporting, Hollywood, social media, search engines, and others have failed? I doubt it. ] (]) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Employing professional staff to pre-moderate comments on the grounds of civility has nothing to do with the examples of censorship mentioned such as the French Foreign Office. Also, BBC programming and the moderating of the BBC's message boards are two different things. Having said that, David Haines wiki-link that has been posted links to a dab page, but I presume you mean ]. According to the Independent newspaper ''"Mr Haines’ identity had been kept secret for 19 months to avoid worsening his situation as a captive but the kidnapping was made public following the video’s <small></small> release."'' ().

::::::::::::: Discussions about moderating comments for civility as though they were censorship, rather than what they actually are - ending the existing censorship reminds me of this quote from Orwell's 1984 ''"... at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally. ... There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. ... The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax."'' --] (]) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Well, I've seen these policies abused. I've seen more than one editor get frustrated with admins trying to claim that he violated policy by trying to make his point, then use civility as a ''coup de grace'' when he lashes out and calls them "control freaks". I've seen an editor being cyberbullied off-site keelhauled for saying there was a conspiracy against him... ''when there was''! It's one thing to look at an overall pattern of disruptive editing that is fundamentally useless and take action, but it's something else again to say that you can pull out one frustrated comment and take action against someone. And "civility" here generally refers to the latter. ] (]) 22:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: That sounds more like a argument in favour of professionals - as opposed to admins - rather than an argument against. --] (]) 05:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: I don't think that professionals are immune from bias on the underlying issues, and definitely I would expect them to crack down hard on any back-talk because they wouldn't want to be seen as being on a level with the unpaid people they block, otherwise why are they paid? But above all of these is a risk that they simply implement orders from a central command to suppress various types of information. My feeling is that the admins are already ''too'' professional, and that a jury system would give better results. ] (]) 10:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

:Hi, everybody, is ] file still accurate? I just added it to the ] page and I am not sure, because I noticed in the meantime, it was on the ] in 2012. Thank you for your time. <!-- (And here I go again, forgetting to sign (sorry)--> ] (]) 08:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

::Sorry, this absolutely doesn't belong in an article - not unless a "reliable source" cites it as a symbol of incivility. Half a dozen Misplaced Pages editors using a graphic is not a sourced indication that it's relevant to the topic. But -- the source you were elaborating in the body in that edit would be worth explaining further, specifically, could you detail what they mean about incivility coming from "asymmetric global interaction"? ] (]) 08:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the "Allegedly contributes good content" part of what you said Jimmy. You might not like Eric but he has most certainly contributed a lot of decent content here and at the end of the day it's a volunteer community. He's not being paid to edit. This isn't a formal workplace with salaries, dress and behaviour codes. It is odd that you consider civility more important than content given that it's an encyclopedia, but I can at least understand why you consider him to be a problem. At least acknowledge that he has produced good content though rather than "allegedly" good content, even if you can't stand him.♦ ] 09:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

:*Jimbo if you feel so strongly about Eric and those of his ilk, why don't you just block them now - you are still an Admin after all. Either put your money where your mouth is or be quiet. Venting on your high profile talk page is just whipping up the very same ill feeling and hatred of which you accuse others of creating. Is that your intention, or are you hoping that others will do the deed for you? You know very well that if you, or indeed any other editor, has a complaint against a fellow editor there is a correct place and procedure for making that complaint. So make your complaint officialy or drop it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

:He did say he would but that he didn't want people thinking it was a personal vendetta.♦ ] 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::*So Jimbo cares more for his personal reputation than that which he believes to be the good of the project? I don't think so. He knows very well that if he made an official complaint it's unlikely that the majority and the Arbcom would agree with him. Surprising perhaps to you, I too wish that Eric would moderate his language sometimes; however, on an encyclopedia content is king, rather than an individual who shouts and complains from the safety of the sidelines. Jimbo need to leave the safety of his page and make this official or be quiet.<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::For those who are wondering, just found ] which describes how his role works including ]. Learn something specific everyday. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::Eric's got more people who support the work he does than a lot of editors combined so I think it would be the inevitable massive backlash which would result from him being the one to ban him.♦ ] 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Gosh, you make it sound as if there's a big gang. So that anyone who challenges Eric over his obnoxious vile insults, for the good of others, will face violent retribution. Like gang warfare really. ] (]) 22:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
* From what I've heard elsewhere, Jimbo does not exercise his authority over matters here, by and large, which is a good thing. I regard the thoughts here as his personal ones, which he and other people here are welcome to have.
* In general, I find the following rule of thumb sensible: incivility threshold should be lower in a more public place. Related, but separate: there should be a higher incivility threshold on user talk pages, than article talk pages. User talk pages function more as chatting between people. There should be a still higher threshold on your own talk page. This does not mean that gross incivility is permitted; just the threshold is higher. To give my own sense of thresholds (not prescriptive), <s>Sitush's comments would not fall within the threshold</s>, but an ''occasional'' "fuck off, don't post on my page again" on your own talk page is fine. This can be tweaked: ] always applies, and so on, but you get the basic idea. Talk page guidelines do not mention anything specific, perhaps this should be considered. ]&nbsp;]] 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
* I think you're reading that statement the wrong way. Original, between the commas was ''"... and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole..."''. 'allegedly great content contributions' follows with driving content away etc. This doesn't seem to be a diss on the content of Editor X but an opinion that in creating that content Editor X's incivility and influence - always apologised for by them or others - and the example it makes, drives away other potentially great content contributors such as Editor's Y, Z, A, B, C etc. ] (]) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::The word "alleged" is still false. Read ] for instance, that allegedly wrote itself.♦ ] 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::: It struck me as a permutation of the old "Not A Real Wikipedian" canard when I first read it. As has been mentioned above, the fundamental cause of the controversy relates to differing levels of importance that people place upon "community values" vs. "content creation." For some the most important thing about WP is the aspect of "community" — the Misplaced Pages process itself has an almost metaphysical significance. Those who act abrasively and obnoxiously and with a mean-spirit are a very serious, serious problem indeed for those who feel the Misplaced Pages-crowdsourcing ''process'' is responsible for continued content generation and health of the project. At the other pole are those who feel the encyclopedia is what matters, not the romanticized and often dysfunctional ''process,'' and that it's a matter of simple math: so long as crabby people that sometimes act like jerks do more good than harm, they should be endured — or better yet, ignored. The wise slogan "Don't feed the trolls" has a corollary: '''Don't feed the grouches'''. There are some people who are just here for the drama, however, and they like to either poke the grouches to cause them to roar or else stalk the grouches so that they can throw drama petrol onto every spark. Those are the people who really need to be shown the door, if you ask me — they're the "net negatives to the project" that cause these enormous controversies over stupid crap that is easily ignored. ] (]) 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::No. Whatever it is, it is not binary. Why do we want editors who focus on ideas and not individuals, per our civility policy, because this project is about ideas, and the more focus on personalities the worse-off, it is. Moreover, it is often incongruous to hear, 'we must give leeway, to this or that person' by some who then turn around and argue, 'not a social network', because it is those who argue, 'we must give leeway to this or that person' that seem to <s>be</s> make the Pedia ''into a social network''. ] (]) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC) <small>(struck stray word. ] (]) 09:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC))</small>
::::*Sorry ], I'm not a native English speaker, could you rephrase the above for me; it's left me confused. ] 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::Sure. Not binary means, not this or that (as the comment I was responding to suggested) . . . and . . . our civility policy advises discussing ideas and not people, and that goes along well with being an encyclopedia (perhaps a simplfying quote helps ). . . and . . . one is arguing ''for'' a ''social network'', when one argues that a particular editor needs special dispensation. ] (]) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::: Enid Blyton and The Magic Faraway Tree aside, (theoretically) I read it as how does protecting one great content contributor, who's behaviour drives off another couple of dozen potentially great content contributors, equal a net gain for Misplaced Pages? It doesn't, so the first is an 'allegedly great' content contributor because, while we can point to what they have done, we don't what net loss they're causing to the project as a whole. ] (]) 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::Why? Because when Eric knuckles down and avoids the drama and improves content from what I've seen his editing skills ''are'' worth those of several dozen of some of the editors we have here combined. Yes, there's a few editors as capable, but I've yet to encounter a better general article copyeditor, and how quickly he is able to turn around sloppy prose into something approaching FA standard, not to mention putting order into sourcing and sorting out mess. How many great content contributors who produce FAs or dramatically increase the standards of prose in articles exactly have all left because of Eric? I do honestly wish that he'd avoid saying certain things at times, purely for avoiding the response from others and time wasting if nothing else, but there is a reason why he's still here, and that's because a lot of us have first had experience of what he produces when he puts his mind to it which is pretty valuable. There is nothing "alleged" about it. While it is true that if we lost Eric, content production wouldn't cease or the project internally implode, but at the end of the day we're an encyclopedia who relies on a very small group of contributors to produce the goods. And a lot of people on here know this, which is why he's still here. Most "uncivil" disputes involve a range of people being uncivil Carrite, why do you think he's the only guilty part in it? In most of the disputes I've seen Eric involved in, while he could have avoided saying something in the first place, the response and behaviour from others at times has been every bit as abrasive, even worse, and I see a lot of double standards which go unpunished. If civility is so important to building an encyclopedia, then standards needs to be evenly enforced and it needs to extend to how people bully others psychologically on here too, if not direct sweary attacks. If Eric has to be shown the door for it, what about the many editors on here who exist purely to trolls forums and editors brandishing the civil stick and trying to provoke people into being blocked? What about the many editors who display astounding ignorance towards content and try to AFD notable articles and are uncivil when they don't get their way? ♦ ] 07:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't think that interpretation flies. He didn't say "allegedly great content contributor", he said "their allegedly great content contributions". ] (]) 19:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::: Same difference. The quality of what they've produced doesn't outweigh the quality of those they may have driven away. ] (]) 19:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::But who precisely (name names) has Eric driven away, or is this conjecture on your part? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My responses were on the use of the phrase 'allegedly great content contributions' not what the OP meant by it. ] (]) 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, if one is upset by what an editor posts on his/her talkpage? then the solution is simple. Remove that editor's talkpage from your watchlist. If an editor is being obnoxious to you? merely sidestep them & concentrate on the topic/not the editor. As I mentioned at ], the best aproach is to be calm. There's been ''too much'' reporting of editors & dramatics. Concentrate on the content & things will go more smoothly. ] (]) 22:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:I agree with ]. The "take a chill pill / survival of the fitest" attitude to incivility goes against the civility pillar and drives potentially great editors away. If the system needs changing to deal with incivility without being drawn into dramatics then be bold and change it. That way will attract greater diversity amongst editors, more charitable donations to the foundation and improve content. --] (]) 22:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::Due to my current status, I shall neither ''support'' or ''oppose'' such attempts to tighten or loosen ] application. I do predict that there'll be a huge fight ahead, however. ] (]) 22:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I am struck by the irony that in a discussion about measures to improve civility there should be so much talk of potential "backlashes" and "huge fights". --] (]) 22:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
::::It's possible that changes could be made that neither tighten nor loosen existing restrictions, yet improve the situation. The biggest problem is that ] is 24k of mealy-mouthed blather that gives almost no idea what is acceptable and what isn't. Admins here seem to like ambiguity so that editors can't "game the system" -- problem is, the harder it is for editors to game the system because of the rule's vagueness, the easier it is for the ''admins'' to game the system, to protect those they like and punish those they don't. I actually tried editing down the policy, with very little change, to about 8k at ]. Bugs in the existing policy include that it doesn't reference ] except in the navboxes, while restating big chunks of other policies, and it links to ] ''de novo'' in a very weak way because it's not part of ] (I commented on that before, but no action). The appeal of a non-vague policy is that instead of trying to ban every hostile sentiment of the human heart, you could pick out ''just a few key things that are important'' and try to be fairly serious about them. Now, I lack confidence even that is a useful thing to do, but such a policy would be far easier for editors to follow (a.k.a. "game") than what we have now. ] (]) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::I believe a tightening of WP:CIVIL is coming. It will (regretfully) cause some editors to retire, but newbies will replace them. Thus is the nature of Misplaced Pages, always changing. We'll all have to adjust our conduct in the future. ] (]) 10:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Don't worry, it won't be enforced on many guys, mostly on uppity women. A woman can get a topic ban for a few frustrated outbursts against BLP-violating harassers, but a guy gets a 24 hour block for making threats/jokes about shooting other editors, including possibly me. We'll see how it works out getting the Foundation or Admins or Arbitrators taking a relevant case to let me know just what the threat really was. Male violence rules and females who object to it are made fools???? Well, that's the way of the world. Let's see if Misplaced Pages can set a higher standard. <small>'''] (])'''</small>
::::::::I think we're both appalled at the very person-specific responses to civility around here. I tend to see the admin excesses, and my innate reaction is to take away their power so everyone is on a level. You seem to be hoping that they can be made to enforce the same strict standards on everyone. But what we both agree is that unfairness is a bad thing, and a clearer standard, whether strict or loose, is better than a vague one of the same intensity. ] (]) 23:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot emphasise this enough - if Eric Corbett tells you to <insert profanity here> off, ''']'''. Per ], "Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact". Have a look at an article Eric took through FAC - ] and read what happened to ''those'' victims - things really do pale in comparison when you've digested what's been written there. Do I condone such language? Not at all, I simply tolerate it to the best extent I can, while simultaneously setting a good example myself, and trust people can make up their own minds about whether what's said in a discussion is justified. ] ] ] 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
:If that's the kind of place you want WP to be, fine. But the problem, as Carolmooredc pointed out, is that inconsistencies of civility enforcement mean that not everyone would get that pass you want to give Eric, and that people whom admins have taken against, for reasons fair or foul, would live in fear of being leapt on for trivial infractions. Or we could tighten civility and make this a calmer and happier place to be – sadly though, that won't happen, because certain sections of the community have a habit of flaming whoever they take a dislike to. ] (]) 16:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::I would also prefer that Misplaced Pages not be dominated by pedantic walls of text littered with blue links that are intended to sustain passive-aggressive attacks against other users. Sadly, that form of incivility is nowhere near as "sexy" as cursing, so very little is done about it. A fair number of solid contributors have been driven off by such users and their tactics (either through engineered blocks/bans or by frustration), but apparently that loss isn't considered vital. ]] 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Ignore it? Tolerate it? You have quoted ''']''' which opposes the spirit of ''']''' in every way, and then you have quoted NPA policy from a section which is clearly headed ''']''', and ask that it should be applied on any ocassion that ''Eric Corbett tells you to <insert profanity here> off'' - I cannot emphasise enough that that is a contradiction. The '''first time''' an editor does it, or if it's an '''isolated incident''', then it's a friendly warning. After that they are knowingly in breach of ] and should expect action to be taken against them. --] (]) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

::::Editors found to be uncivil could be restriced to using an account with a username of the form "Eric Corbett X". Newcomers will be told about these "Eric Corbett editors", that will mitigate most of the problems some newcomers face when they encounter uncivil editors for the first time here. ] (]) 19:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Around the time I became active on Misplaced Pages in 2006, an arbitration decision captured the core of the civility policy in one sentence: "Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." If there's a reason we can't aspire to that at least as a baseline, I don't know what it is. ] (]) 23:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::The baseline moves with some editors to fit whatever it is they say. Jimbo has this right and if Eric is so offended by it....he can stop adding content at any time or start trying to be more civil.--] (]) 03:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Problem is, people are people and people cope with adversity in different ways. Blocking people who lose their cool gives free reign to folks who deal with this...in other ways...so backchannelling, filibustering, ''faux'' indignance, tacitly sabotaging, writing arbcom election guides all go on...fun fun fun. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

:::I prefer to deal with someone who I (for whatever reason) to blow off steam at me first-up and we sort it out (sometimes) rather than have them try and sabotage something I do months or years later. ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
=== A few more thoughts ===

The whole idea of being offensive and then expecting special consideration based on edit counts is backwards, like the derelict who approaches your vehicle with a spray bottle when you are stuck at a stop light, then wipes your windshield with a dirty rag and demands payment for "cleaning" your windshield, after it is already too late to refuse. Better to make the arrangements in advance. How many edits are required if you want to offend a newbie or a woman, and are they more or less valuable than say, a member of the Kshatriya caste? If someone wanted to be particularly injurious, and was a little short on their edit count, you might even be able to get them to make a donation to make up the difference. I know this is a somewhat eccentric proposal, but surely there have been other "modest" proposals throughout history. Think of it, once you put a price tag on the privilege of being vicious, you could even set up a system similar to carbon emissions taxation, and use the revenue to fund civility training for bullies and miscreants. Just sayin'. —] (]) 05:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
:Why are you spreading this false rumor? ] (]) 06:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
::You think it's a joke? Sure I phrased it in an ironic manner, but does anyone really not believe that displays of offensiveness that garden-variety editors would never get away with has become a badge of status? What about ? (And I bet it hasn't been uploaded to Commons, either.) —] (]) 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Aaaand.... {{quotation|Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to ]?}}
:::Snow close. Teh community has spoke. —] (]) 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

====Returning to the point====
Jimbo ('''not one hundred other people opining''') could you please, '''yourself''', provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by ]. I have read much of his "intimidating" behavior and have seen cast iron evidence of his "alleged" great content contributions, I've also seen cast iron evidence of his alleged command of Anglo-Saxon bluntness, which I don't particularly admire, but I've heard worse in my life, and I'm sure you have too - we are adults. However, I have '''not''' seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Misplaced Pages by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. As ever.. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
:The only one that comes to my mind (since I was around at the time things happened) is {{u|AutomaticStrikeout}}, who later came back as {{u|Northern Antarctica}}. I can't think of any other example, but I have never had any unproductive interactions with Eric myself so I'm not the best person to ask about it. ''<small>→ Call me</small>'' ]] 04:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
::Unless, you are Jimbo's sock, I wasn't asking you. Please read above carefully. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 08:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:::] . ] (]) 18:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thank you (...]), but that editor appears still to be ; it's editors who have been driven off by ] that I'm seeking. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 21:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Until his retirement in 2013 he had 187k edits. Since his retirement he made 7 edits (this September) to a thread in a WikiProject talk page. That's alright then. ] (]) 05:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, I remember that one. Quite bizarre. He turned up on Eric's talk-page for no apparent reason, said something along the lines that Eric was someone who would only dare insult people from behind the safety of a keyboard, then retired claiming he was being bullied. I can hardly think that qualifies, to be honest. ] 13:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I provided the diff (above) where he gave his reason for leaving. It must therefore qualify in respect of the specific questioned asked by Giano. Whether he was "justified" in having that as a reason for leaving is a different question with a subjective answer. ] (]) 15:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I quit because of Eric.] (]) 23:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} Merely a research point. To indicate a specific editor was driving people off, one would have to a) identify what behavior(s) allegedly were driving them off and b) go to, say, their last 50 odd articles and see how often these behaviors impacted editor behavior (i.e., did the person announce they were quitting? Or did they just stop editing that article and their contributions rapidly or immediately diminish to nothing after witnessing the behavior?) and c) if there are allegations that the individual in question is allowed to violate policy in ways that average editors are not, look at their last 20 or 30 ANIs, noticeboard discussions, Arbitrations and see if individuals who objected to the behaviors and witnessed double standard application of policy announce they were quitting? Or did their contributions rapidly or immediately diminish to nothing after one or more such incidents?<br>
Of course, it's not possible to count lurkers on such pages who decided to never edit articles again if that's the way editors are allowed to act because there is an obvious double standard application of rules. It could be assumed there would be at least a small percentage more of such "drop outs". Statisticians might be able to figure out probabilities.<br>
There obviously would be a lot of subjectivity involved in this, so outside researchers familiar with Misplaced Pages editing protocols but unaware of the specific individuals/articles/incidents involved would help. Sounds like a fun project for the Foundation to fund. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


]. ] (]) 22:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry to be the bearer of unwelcome tidings, but ] was an admin who resigned from the project two years before ] made his first edit. RickK was subsequently desysopped for sockpuppetry. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 13:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I think you are looking for the wrong sort of dynamics. If we assume that RickK was honest about his reasons for leaving Misplaced Pages in 2005, then it's safe to assume that some fraction of the population will have a similar attitude as RickK did when they become editors here. They may start to edit here an an IP and then not like it here and not become a regular editor here. This is then in general not due to a few encounters with Eric, rather when soemthing happens there isn't enough feedback from the community. So, I think you have to interpret what Jimbo is saying about Eric more in a general sense and more about the community tolerating Eric as the problem, rather than Eric himself (although he is also seen to be a problem). So, it's the community that is tolerating Eric, and by implication that means anyone like Eric is being tolerated, which which means that the general editing climate may be such that people visiting Misplaced Pages are turned off from becoming regular contributors. I'm not saying that I support this view, but I think Jimbo's comments should be interpreted in this way. ] (]) 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::::: Just to translate that paragraph "I got that completely wrong, but instead of actually admitting it I'll write a bit wall of text instead to attempt to deflect people away from the fact that ''I got that completely wrong''". A normal person would have apologised and struck it, but there you go. ] 19:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Everyone knows Eric had as much to do with RickK as Obama had to do with Napoleon. It's just that I think RickK's statement on his userpage was quite clear; I think that wat RickK said (pointing to the general climate rather than one particular problem editor) is the real issue here. Again, I'm not sure that I would agree with that, but it should be clear that one particular editor cannot be the real issue. If there is an Al Capone who is above the law then the real problem is the ineffective law enforcement. ] (]) 21:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


::Totally amazing: the first eleven words of this thread and not one person heeds them. Now that in itself must prove something about the type of person editing Misplaced Pages. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 07:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Of course it does. We don't obey orders if we don't want to. (Just like you can ignore the answers if you want to, as seems to be the case).] (]) 08:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's do some good old fashioned research. Here's what I can find online about Eric in his former identity as Malleus Fatuorum from offsite sources :
* "The most famous editor in wikiland is a Manc called Malleus Fatuorum (Hammer of Fools) You’d probably get on. He is quite foul-mouthed and abusive to those who make dumb errors, and recently he conducted a two year “sockpuppet” mission to prove a point/take the piss out of admin, a move that would have seen anyone else banned like that"
* "Veteran content-writer Malleus Fatuorum pins his hopes on this. “It’s not at all obvious that Misplaced Pages’s model of unpaid and under-appreciated editors subjected to the harassment of an overly self-important admin cadre has any legs; for myself I contribute in the hope that something better will come along, and that our work will be ported over to it."
* "Two of the strongest voices on Misplaced Pages, Malleus Fatuorum and The Parrot of Doom are British, have a slew of excellent articles under their belts, and are just two I can name off the top of my head. There are many more."
* ""Malleus Fatuorum" is the user who has edited the most in recent history. This user is a "Senior Editor II" which means he has at least 35,000 edits and 4.5 years of service. He has also created roughly 50 articles."

::So, if we treat those as reliable sources, we would come out with the conclusion that Eric is a respected and prolific article creator, who expects contributors to be here for content and will criticise those that aren't, and there's no obvious documentation about any blatant harassment from him. ] ] ] 14:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I saw DeCausa's ping above and since I happen to be on this week I thought I'd chime to clarify a few points. Yes, I am a content contributor who ] and those like him, and yes, I am still functionally retired. I made around 50,000 edits in 2013, and I think this is my ninth edit this year, most of which have been to talk pages--there's a proposal for an Amnesty-Misplaced Pages partnership at ] that I'm still interested in.
Though Eric never went after me personally, I'd witnessed or been involved in enough of his flare-ups at WT:GAN and elsewhere that I'd gotten tired of watching him lash out at other people, and tired of the community allowing it. I don't consider myself a fragile little flower (I worked in real-life publishing for some years and quite liked it), but I came to find Misplaced Pages a deeply unpleasant place compared to other professional and volunteer groups I'd been a part of. I realize many people disagree with me about Eric, including some editors I particularly admire (like ], great to see you below!). So who knows, maybe I had the wrong end of the stick. All I can say is that I personally got burnt out on the atmosphere here, and Eric was a significant part of that. -- ] (]) 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

====Heading to divide from the bit above====
It isn't very civil to have a discussion about Eric's personality and actions in a forum from which he has been banned. ] (]) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:You're right. It should probably be hatted. But it should be said that the OPs of the whole thread and of one of the sub-threads opened them with the aim of being supportive of him. ] (]) 11:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
::That is thoughtful of you, to be so considerate of ] feelings, but I think it would be more unfair to Jimbo to hat a thread on his own talk page before he's had a chance to respond to it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 13:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:::He has no obligation to respond; indeed I hope he does not. There's nothing to be gained by speaking ill of Eric in response to your demand. At least your demand that no one else respond helped discourage more drama.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
::::"Your demand": Please read again, I quite clearly say please, which makes it a request. Demanding from Jimbo woudl be a crime de lèse-majesté. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Attn: ] for future reference. General principles coming from certain situations, with perhaps a link to some official proceeding, are much better. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 15:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::See what I mean. Everybody's uncivil here aren't they, no matter what they do.... I defend Eric and Sitush from the actions of administrators and I'm uncivil. Quite absurd.♦ ] 16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::It is absurd, isn't it? Let's play a game: I'll make an observation about how it's not particularly courteous to exclude somebody from taking part in a conversation and then malign them, and then anybody else who wants to play can add a non sequitur underneath it. You lose points if you read any of the previous comments but get bonus points if you manage to include your own hobby horse. ] (]) 17:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

====Returning ('''once again''') to the point====
Jimbo, I realsie with so many posting on your page how easily it must be to miss a a simply answered question like this; so once again: Jimbo ('''not one hundred other people opining''') could you please, '''yourself''', provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by ]. I have read much of his "intimidating" behavior and have seen cast iron evidence of his "alleged" great content contributions, I've also seen cast iron evidence of his alleged command of Anglo-Saxon bluntness, which I don't particularly admire, but I've heard worse in my life, and I'm sure you have too - we are adults. However, I have '''not''' seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Misplaced Pages by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. Yours in perpetual hope <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:While I might have outlined for fun an evidentiary process above, it's clear that ''policies against certain behaviors already exist.'' The consequences of misbehavior are obviously important, but they don't have to be proved to deal with the behavior. Whether it's someone taking a break, leaving Misplaced Pages, creating a new persona, writing an expose in the New York Times, etc., some individuals might not want to advertise their decision. So this is an irrelevant tangent. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 18:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:*Here is my last contribution to this subject (and I apologize for not being Jimbo). This "give me the list" silliness doesn't disprove the widely and firmly held understanding that Eric is uncivil and has offended many editors. Even if other editors like myself completely understand how Eric works and vents, and don't get particularly offended by any of it. I'd rather he write articles and keep writing them. But the excellent editor who got me started participating here years ago, ], made a comment at Eric's ] in 2008 which strongly summarized Eric's problem. And I didn't want to bring this up, but you guys won't stop bitching. Jay said, in oppose vote #4,<blockquote>'''Very Strong Oppose'''. Malleus is fine as a content editor, but frankly: he's one of the rudest and most immature editors on the entire project. Q3 sounds nice, but if you're looking for ad hominem attack and sophistry look through Malleus's contributions to talk pages. It's not just unprofessional, but often cruel and boorish to the point of being fatuous. It is precisely as a content editor that I oppose. Some of the most frequent targets of his savagery are the hardest working content editors on the project. I was surprised Iridescent linked to Larry Sanger's farewell: "To treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Misplaced Pages with respect and good will". Is that a joke? Malleus fails at this spectacularly. A good copy editor who demoralizes 50 other editors is not making a positive contribution. This seems harsh, and brings me no joy at all, but it's nothing compared to what he dishes.</blockquote> Now I know Eric is not asking to be an admin, but there you go. Can we please stop? Online, we are the person we present ourselves to be to others, no matter who we believe we are. Let's all try to be on the project the type of person we think we are.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 19:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:::And it seems apparent that no matter how many times it's stated that a large number of editors, including many females, find {{u|Eric Corbett|Eric}} is brilliant to work with, helpful, collaborative and thoughtful as well as respectful is just ignored. Perhaps those of us who appreciate Eric's work are not sufficiently vocal/vociferous - or would rather be working on content to improve an encyclopedia than spending all our time stirring things up? ] - ] 20:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Um, Phil, it's WOMEN, not "females" (we are not mere animals while men are people) and '''this feminist woman''' happens to have collaborated well with Eric, and he only was obnoxiously rude to me once, and that early on, over some irrelevant talk page drama, and before we had worked successfully together. I got over it. I've endured significantly worse actual malice, bullying and trolling from any number of other editors. The Illustrious Mr. Corbett has never tried to do ridiculous things, for example, like drag me to ANI for a revert, or ask that I be blocked for calling a notorious sockpuppet on their crap - I've seen toxic, Corbett is NOT toxic. If Jimbo or, for that matter, Carolmooredc think Corbett is the problem, then frankly, they don't get out much in wiki-land. Corbett-snark is nothing compared to what you get if you actually challenge an aggressive editor with a true POV agenda who lashes out viciously against anyone challenging them. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

====Returning ('''yet once again''') to the point====

'''Jimbo''', it's becoming increasingly obvious that with '''so many''' posting on your page how easily it must be to miss a a simply answered question like this; so once again: '''Jimbo''' ('''not one hundred other people opining''') could you please, '''yourself''', provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by ]. I have read much of his "intimidating" behavior and have seen cast iron evidence of his "alleged" great content contributions, I've also seen cast iron evidence of his alleged command of Anglo-Saxon bluntness, which I don't particularly admire, but I've heard worse in my life, and I'm sure you have too - we are adults. However, I have '''not''' seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Misplaced Pages by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. Yours in ever perpetual hope. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
:Hi! I'm looking for that page I've heard about on en.wiki where I can trade in my content contributions for abuse tokens. Can you help? ] (]) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::] ] (]) 03:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
:::*Isn't it just totally amazing. One asks '''Jimbo''' a simple question - he's been telling us all for ages about these people who've been driven off by ]. Having said and insinuated it so often, one woudl assume that Jimbo has this information at his finger tips. Yet he seems incapable of answering, instead we have the usual rag tag bag of rabble and noise all piling on Eric - yet where is the cast iron proof that he's driven a single editor off. I have yet to see it. You can hat this thread now, I've seen and heard quite enough to draw a conclusion, which is that it's probably the double standards and noise making rabble who drive people away - that's assuming that anyone, who really wants o edit, is actually driven away. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
*Repeatedly attacking and making allegations against an editor who is forbidden to post here, and refusing to provide evidence when asked, is definitely worthy of a block. Do be careful, Jimbo. I won't block you but if you repeat this I will take you to AN/I or ArbCom. Consider this a warning, please. --] (]) 19:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::I'm laughing so hard I literally have milk coming out of my nose.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::: I have no idea why. Any other editor who repeatedly attacked another on their talk page whilst providing no evidence whatsoever, and then persistently refused to provide said evidence, would have been at ANI by now. Why is this different? ] 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I see but one comment regarding Eric by Jimbo way above. I assume you must have multiple examples.--] 22:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::It is often quite obvious, when Jimbo talks of "disruptive editors" and civility that he is really talking about Corbett. ''']''' 04:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


== Thom Hartmann == == Thom Hartmann ==
Line 381: Line 63:


:Actually we do have a book of thruth. There are many topics that today are uncontroversial, in the sense that almost all reliable sources will agree with each other about certain facts. In some of these case, however, the topic was quite controversial in the near past. Good quality sources will give the reader a good overview of the known facts and if some ideas are preferred by experts then it will be explained why that is the case. But you may then also have people with an agenda writing up an article in some journal arguing for less well established theories. What we can do is check if the old Misplaced Pages pages on such topics tended to give too much weight on the less well established theories. Also if the right choices were made, it is still possible that there were a lot of editing disputes that were ultimately settled in favor of the right editorial choices, but all these disputes may have led to a bad editing climate (the articles on climate change may be such an example). ] (]) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC) :Actually we do have a book of thruth. There are many topics that today are uncontroversial, in the sense that almost all reliable sources will agree with each other about certain facts. In some of these case, however, the topic was quite controversial in the near past. Good quality sources will give the reader a good overview of the known facts and if some ideas are preferred by experts then it will be explained why that is the case. But you may then also have people with an agenda writing up an article in some journal arguing for less well established theories. What we can do is check if the old Misplaced Pages pages on such topics tended to give too much weight on the less well established theories. Also if the right choices were made, it is still possible that there were a lot of editing disputes that were ultimately settled in favor of the right editorial choices, but all these disputes may have led to a bad editing climate (the articles on climate change may be such an example). ] (]) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

== my comment on Walterruss proposal ==

:<small>sorry I was busy, and only few minutes ago have got the message --] (]) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC) </small>
:<small>'''note''' just a minute ago I looked at a dictionary what the phrasal verb "step down" means... --] (]) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC) </small>
<blockquote>the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down... ]</blockquote>
there is no Jimbo in Russian Misplaced Pages, however Deletists in Russian Misplaced Pages MUCH STRONGER than in English Misplaced Pages, so Walterruss's suggestion will make situation much worsen (] (]) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

Revision as of 13:04, 5 October 2014


    Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
    Start a new talk topic.
    Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates.
    He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees.
    The three trustees elected as community representatives until July 2015 are SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm.
    The Wikimedia Foundation Senior Community Advocate is Maggie Dennis.
    This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
    Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day 
    This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.



    Archives
    Indexindex
    This manual archive index may be out of date.
    Future archives: 184 185 186


    This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.
    (Manual archive list)

    Thom Hartmann

    How would you evaluate Thom Hartmann's critique of Misplaced Pages's Reaganomics article at ? Seattle (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

    I'm not in a position at the moment to view a Youtube video. What's the core of his critique?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    It is difficult to respond without getting into a debate about supply-side economics, and I feel fairly sure that Jimbo is not interested in using this page for that debate. For those who cannot see the video, Thom Hartmann quotes a portion of the Reaganomics article:
    Before Reagan's election, supply side policy was considered unconventional by the moderate wing of the Republican Party, though in reality John F. Kennedy in his 1963 State of the Union address, proposed substantial reduction in marginal tax rates, as well as a reduction in corporate tax rates
    Hartmann then claims, "yeah, but it wasn't Reaganomics." He then has his assistant cue up the Kennedy quote, which includes the phrase "...I think it is possible to gain 700 million to a billion dollars..." Hartmann emphasizes the word "gain".
    I'll leave it to professional economist to delve into whether Kennedy's plan would be accurately defined as Reaganomics, but my understanding of Supply-side economics is that a central theme is that lowering of the marginal tax rate would increase revenues. Hartmannn's emphasis on the word "gain" leaves the impression that he has skewered the Misplaced Pages statement, when in fact he has supported it. (Kennedy proposed reductions in the top marginal rate while simultaneously tightening up deductions, and aspect which is not a central theme of the Laffer curve inspired push for lower top marginal rates, but the article does not say that the Kennedy plan was a perfect instance of Reaganomics, it introduces it as part of the historical content.
    I think Hartmann evinces a misunderstanding of the content, but that is a debate best held elsewhere, possibly on the talk page of the Reaganomics article. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    However, a reasonable subject for this page is whether Misplaced Pages has been, as suggested by Hartmannn, unduly influenced by the right. I don't think the general point is supported by evidence and if one wanted to identify evidence, Hartmann's comment would not be much of a data point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    Here's another data point: GOP Opposition Research Firm Is Editing Democratic Politicians’ Misplaced Pages Pages Gamaliel (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    OMG! This will be the end of Misplaced Pages! If conservatives start working on the Barack Obama article we might have to shut the website down! We can't let our slobbering love affair disgrace of a featured article about Obama and other liberal politicians get tainted with any criticism by those mean nasty conservatives! Just who do these conservatives think they are....Misplaced Pages is for liberals only after all! Besides there has never been any proof that paid left wing or liberal editors have edited articles about conservatives...I mean never ever!--MONGO 17:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    Could you be any more of a cliche? Hysterically deny deny deny, then when forced to concede to the evidence, immediately attempt to justify it by claiming "liberals are doing it too", without evidence of course. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

    Um -- what is this source supposed to mean? A person has a COI because he edited about a college basketball team? AFAICT, the massive conspiracy wrt political BLPs consists of a single researcher ("Sprinkler Court"), and where no improper edits were made? If one wishes a conspiracy theory, one would need a lot more than this source. The article tries to assert others were in on this massive paid editing conspiracy: (His edits, however, appear to only be of the George Washington University basketball team: appears to be the sort of comment which weakens the claim of COI editing by that person). I have supported locking political BLPs during silly season in whichever country the people are in, but this rather pushes the envelope. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

    Attempts to suppress points of view are certainly not limited to Democrats and Republicans, nor to Misplaced Pages. If you want to see something sickening, just look up all the professors who have been driven out of universities because they took a pro-Palestine position. and most recently ; more at Peter N. Kirstein. In order for people not to be used entirely as pawns in some conflict they may or may not know even exists, they have to have a very strong and genuine respect for freedom of inquiry, for everyone having their say, even as they are scrupulously careful to avoid overstating what has actually been said. We can have peace between warring political factions, but only if we resist all calls to employ "editorial judgment" and instead simply document whatever can be documented, without overstating its importance. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

    Measuring the reliability of en.Misplaced Pages

    Hi Jimmy. Do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should have an ongoing program (and budget allocation) for it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

    I think they do have some programs like this, but they may be small. The real challenge, of course, is how do you define reliability? Essentially the question is "compared to what?" If we had the "Book of Truth", all we would have to do is have somebody compare articles against the BoT, and count the errors, but we don't have a BoT so we have to make do with something else, which will have its own errors, biases, be out-of-date, etc.
    NY Brad had an idea in the Signpost a few weeks ago, roughly - the only source comparable in breadth, reach and timeliness to Misplaced Pages is "the rest of the internet." Expanding a bit, we might ask a couple hundred journalists to volunteer a couple of hours of their time. Assign each a topic/article within their general area of expertise, e.g. finance, American politics, religion, business, literature, movies, ... Half should be asked to review the internet without Misplaced Pages for an hour on that topic, while making notes from the best sources on the internet (BSI) and comparing that "knowledge" to what they have learned about the topic from life experience, next review the Misplaced Pages article in the same way for up to an hour, and do a relative rating (W vs. BSI) on breath of coverage, depth of coverage, likely errors, timeliness. Writing style would be difficult to compare. The other half would review the Misplaced Pages article first, then the rest of the internet. It's do-able if we can get the journalists. Probably get a good deal of coverage as well. I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome, but I don't think Wikipedians would be ashamed by the results. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'd like to see more research in this area, and I think there are several considerations as to whether the Wikimedia Foundation should be doing it. First, if the WMF is doing it, then I think the focus should not be on "proving" (or "disproving") the quality of Misplaced Pages since no one is going to believe an in-house study anyway. Rather, if the WMF is doing it, then the focus should be on helping the community learn more about where problems lie and what the causes of problems usually are, and to help research solutions. Second, if we want research that is not just useful for us, but also has external credibility then funding outside researchers with no strings attached could make sense. But note well that even here, if the WMF is funding it, many will view the results as inherently biased. (As for me, I am cautious and skeptical of research produced by or funded by, for example, oil companies or the tobacco industry.) So finally, I think what the WMF could do here is encourage independent academics to do more research in this area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    Actually we do have a book of thruth. There are many topics that today are uncontroversial, in the sense that almost all reliable sources will agree with each other about certain facts. In some of these case, however, the topic was quite controversial in the near past. Good quality sources will give the reader a good overview of the known facts and if some ideas are preferred by experts then it will be explained why that is the case. But you may then also have people with an agenda writing up an article in some journal arguing for less well established theories. What we can do is check if the old Misplaced Pages pages on such topics tended to give too much weight on the less well established theories. Also if the right choices were made, it is still possible that there were a lot of editing disputes that were ultimately settled in favor of the right editorial choices, but all these disputes may have led to a bad editing climate (the articles on climate change may be such an example). Count Iblis (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)