Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 24 September 2014

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 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 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.

How to avoid never ending expansion of policies with advice?

I WP:AGF that the policy hawks (i.e. editors who seem to spend most of their breathing moments editing Misplaced Pages policies) only have good intentions. Nevertheless, it's impossible not to note that the same issues that arrise with civil POV pushing in articles are even more prevalent on policy pages. For starters, on articles at least there is an external factor (i.e. sources) that can sometimes limit what can be pushed in. There is no such limitation for policies, so whoever spends most of their time pushing the n-th slightly tweaked version of a failed proposal eventually might win by exhausting the opposition and/or profiting from their drop in vigilance. Any ideas for combating this phenomenon? Perhaps a yearly policy review instead of the never-ending tweaks? That seems to work for other important issue like ArbCom elections instead of having them on a rolling basis. JMP EAX (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we have a new policy on policy changes? Carrite (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase: 'A Misplaced Pages Policy is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled'. AnonNep (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes irrational editing behavior leads to attempts to come up with nitpicking policy solutions when the real solution is getting the editors more rational so nitpicky solutions do not seem necessary. Hmmmm.... maybe we can have an Adrian Monk at the shrinks help page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Which policy is being "expanded"? Could you supply a link? Lightbreather (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm merely guessing, but after looking over their edit history, I might guess they're referring to the several proposals at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks (where you are apparently already a contributor : ) - jc37 18:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your Wikimania comment and shameful list

Mr. Wales,

On Wikimania you said: "One of the things I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years." Once you even told me a story about a vandal who left wikipedia after he was asked to leave nicely. Remember?

I know Mr. Wales, that you would agree with me that templating user pages of banned content creators, listing their user names (which sometimes are their real names and/or could be easily linked to their real names) in this shameful list means shaming persons, means denying them an option to leave your site with dignity. Besides in some situations listing "the crimes" of named persons is violation of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. So called community ban discussions violate each and every letter of BLP policy.

Mr. Wales, I know you understand that wikipedia would only benefit, if people are treated with dignity. That list serves no other purpose but bullying and shaming human beings who often made tremendous contributions to your site, and who in many cases have done nothing wrong to deserve the way they were treated.

The shameful listed should be deleted. The shameful practice of so called community bans ought to stop. It is a good time to use your founder flag, Mr. Wales, no, not for the people who are listed in the list, but for wikipedia. 50.150.100.229 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Misplaced Pages is in the real world, and some people there have the usernames as their real names or something that is linked to their user names. This could seriously affect their chances for employment if a prospective employer happened upon this page. KonveyorBelt 15:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Then, not to be blunt, they shouldn't have acted in such a way as to have gotten the ban in the first place, and I imagine that any prospective employer who notices a user is banned from Misplaced Pages will examine the reason they were banned. This all goes back to personal responsibility: If you don't want there to be ramifications in the real world because of your misbehaviour, then either don't use your real name or don't misbehave. I do not sympathise one iota with the ban-evading IP; they should have known the consequences that would result from using one's real name. They're just complaining because now they realise it was a stupid idea - a year or so too late. —Jeremy v^_^v 18:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• See, Mr. Wales, the above post by Jéské Couriano, a typical representative of the so called Misplaced Pages community (whatever it is). He clearly demonstrates that for him keeping the list has nothing to do with protecting Misplaced Pages. He uses it to punish a real persons in real life. Do you believe such kind of users should be welcomed at Misplaced Pages, Mr. Wales? 50.150.100.229 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing; all I said was that there are consequences to misbehaving while using your real name online, and that you're only pushing this angle as hard as you can because you're trying to save face. —Jeremy v^_^v 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do you work, Curano, Burger King? No reputable business is going to care that someone is not allowed to post on a website, especially this one. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If the reason for the ban would implicate the job (i.e. harassment, issuing death threats, chronic disrespect of authority) then they would care, Tarc. (also, I don't work at Burger King, but I do work at a restaurant.) —Jeremy v^_^v 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, of course! Heavens to Betsey!!! Never let us consider how any of this should ever effect anyone who works in Burger King. This is a reputable site, only for people in reputable businesses!!! </END SARCASM TAG> AnonNep (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Wales, would you please be so kind, and define what is the Misplaced Pages community? A few weeks ago asked Lila this very question. Before Lila had a chance to respond Mr. Beaudette weighed in:

And, if even the Director of Community Advocacy " has been trying for years to figure out what is the Misplaced Pages community", and apparently still has not figured it out, what the heck are the community bans? Isn't your site is a charitable organization, and isn't this about time to stop shameful, medieval practice of public humiliation and lynching human beings on this charitable site? 50.150.100.229 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Do not insult the vandals. Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is largely my fault. I've recently stirred up a hornet's nest by requesting the page in question be deleted - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination). As you can see, there's a number of banned users (the one who started this thread in particular) who have a vested interest in the deletion and are getting a little upset over the matter. Those users aside, the debate over the list has been civil, even and informative, I'd certainly like to thank the participants there for behaving so well on such an evocative topic. Worm(talk) 10:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Crazy notion, I know, but did you ever consider the possibility that she has a valid point? Tarc (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the list should be deleted, as it serves no legitimate purpose. Many of the keep votes argued the "well they should have thought of that and take responsibility for their past actions" point, and I find that one unconvincing. Others say that the list is "useful" but I haven't seen a clear articulation of what it is useful *for*. Until we get consensus to delete it, we should at a minimum take care to keep it (and archives and subpages) out of search engines. For many of the names, even apparently real names, the page is readily found in a google search for their name. This is a problem in that it doesn't allow people to walk away with dignity and, as I said at Wikimania, tends to cause them to stick around forever trying to clear their name, etc. There's no value in that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, deleting it would make it somewhat harder to identify any non-LTA banned user that has been community banned. (ArbCom-banned ones are somewhat easier, given ArbCom has a list of active sanctions that can reasonably accommodate a list of users banned by them if the need arises). I note that most (if not all) of the entries on LOBU have links to the community ban discussions; if LOBU is to be deprecated/deleted, then would it be useful to link those discussions on the users' master accounts where practical? —Jeremy v^_^v 17:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Jimbo. Note, that I was on that list-in-question, for 13-months. Being banned itself, is humiliating. The list is more helpful, then harmful. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I just took a look at the page and found something that has shocked me, about a user's sockpuppet (I knew both users and did not know they were the same person). This fact alone (about a likely living editor) certainly makes me think this page should be got rid of immeditaely, certainly if Jimbo's comments were real and from the heart rather than being a marketing exercise with no bearing on reality this will happen promptly, or unless others of coruse prevent this form happening. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On-WIki threats of violence

Jimbo, so you are aware, it appears there was a situation today where this comment led to this comment (rev-deleted, but I believe you still have the tools to view? It's, obviously, the 2 hidden comments there), which according to someone who saw it before revision deletion, said this. The user was indefinitely blocked, then unilaterally unblocked less than 24h later; the user never posted an unblock request. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that Jimbo is aware, and what comment is more threatening the one by Demiurge1000 or the one by Sitush? 58.213.19.134 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Tarc ever said he is aware? It says So you are aware...? Moreso, I don't think this needs to be discussed here as it's already being discussed on AN/I, the unblocking admins page, and the blocked users page. I believe Tarc only meant this as to point it out to Jimbo. Dusti 03:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, the message here was to make Jimbo aware if he was not already. As for "which comment is bad", I have my own rather clear opinion there, but this message was intentionally neutral. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Without singling anyone in particular at the present time, I see several people in that discussion who should find a different hobby.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh FFS are we the TSA now? Devoid of common sense or reading comprehension, ignorant of the concept of metaphor? Maybe it makes it easier to get people on board with any policy decision when you revdel/suppress/whatever at the drop of a hat, but I am not impressed. What possible benefit is there to the encyclopedia to conceal the evidence (if it were evidence) that an editor is dangerous? If there's some fellow from Syria on here making threats to track down his opponents and chop off their heads, I'd rather we be able to read that in the page history right above the block notice rather than send a Misplaced Pages email (and reveal our address) because we don't know what happened. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and what are we to make of the concept of "On-Wiki violence", anyway? I mean, it's not possible to make an edit that would cause computers to get blown up. Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We are to make of it that it was a threat of violence made on a Misplaced Pages page, as opposed to e-mail or off-site. Pedantic nitpicking is rather unhelpful. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Any real threat of violence must be responded to by informing the authorities. Obviously if I threaten to burn your house and from the context it is clear that this may well be a real threat, then it would be irresponsible to not notify the police. But if this is not the case, then there can't have been real threat of violence and all we're taking about is a personal attack, albeit of a very vile nature. That can justify a block, but we should not confuse such personal attacks, however bad they may be, with real threats of violence. The former may get you banned from Misplaced Pages, the latter may well lead to a prison sentence. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are threats (though not of violence) that are not actionable by police but would be actionable by Misplaced Pages - for example, a threat to embarrass a user to his employer by email, or threatening to report his un-Islamic activities to religious authorities in his backward country and get him beaten up. Not all threats of violence that alarm Misplaced Pages are truly actionable by authorities - though they seem to get ever more aggressive about such things. And not all threats that are actionable are actually actioned. So we may have a standard for throwing people out over threats of violence - I just don't want it to be absurdly hypersensitive, and I don't want the threats hidden because exactly to the degree they are dangerous we need to know what they said. Wnt (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

One would think that if the threat was serious enough to oversight, then it is serious enough to ban the author. If it was deemed to be no big deal, then the unblocking admin should restore the comment. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As an outside view: As I read it , it's not intended as an actual threat, and therefore not reason to ban, but it's still not a good idea to keep things in the history that might be so misinterpreted, as this clearly has been. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable goal. There are all sorts of things in histories, and people usually know better than to bring them up fresh without looking what happened after a given edit. I remember when they came out, supposedly tools like suppression and revdeling were going to be reserved for "really important reasons"; now "why not?" is all the justification required, for those with the power to use them. Wnt (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wnt. Revision-deletion used to be used in rare and extreme cases. It seems to be used more frequently lately. Carrite (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no value to continuing this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the subject retracted his statement, this is moot. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But that's when discussions typically start here :). In the real World it also works like that, take e.g. the Ray Rice case. Count Iblis (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of rebooted discussion

I have started a new discussion on the "No personal attacks" policy page. Since this is (still) an issue of civility, and the subject of much debate here and elsewhere on the project, watchers of this page are invited to participate. "Avoiding personal attacks". Sincerely. Lightbreather (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot...

About the bot.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Was that a poem? Neutron (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note

• Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop

Since I mentioned your talk page (and the usage thereof), I thought I should drop you a note. - jc37 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 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. BethNaught (talk) 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?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 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." DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 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. Carrite (talk) 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. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 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?♦ Dr. Blofeld 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. --Epipelagic (talk) 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. Tarc (talk) 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. --Epipelagic (talk) 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. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Then say what you mean. That's not what you said. --Epipelagic (talk) 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. Tarc (talk) 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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 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. Tarc (talk) 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." Carrite (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably not the best of times to be holding up the NFL as a paragon of virtue, bro. Tarc (talk) 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. Resolute 16:35, 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? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Several things happened at once: Gender gap task force 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. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 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.--MONGO 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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to say what I want to say 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. -sarvajna (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that he issued threats?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that the events detailed in User talk:Jimbo Wales#On-WIki threats of violence happened? Tarc (talk) 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. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The comments are posted in the ANI discussion that is now closed. -sarvajna (talk) 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. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Things seem to have come a full circle (wrong idiom, my mistake). 122.177.57.41 (talk) 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. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld 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? Neutron (talk) 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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Many editors would have absolutely no problem with Misplaced Pages:Civility if it was applied consistently. That is impossible as long as individual administrators can decide on how severe an editor's violation of WP:CIV was or for how long an editor should be blocked for violating the policy. 122.177.57.41 (talk) 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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 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.Alanscottwalker (talk) 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".♦ Dr. Blofeld 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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 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. Alanscottwalker (talk)

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. Robert McClenon (talk) 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 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. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:57, 24 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" ?

Misconceptions about Misplaced Pages

According to reliable sources, what are some notable misconceptions about Misplaced Pages?
—Wavelength (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)