User talk:Bishonen/block discussion

Jimbo, could you please not insert responses within my posts? It's making it hard to tell who's speaking. I hope it'll help if I try to avoid making such lengthy posts. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC).


 * ''The following is reposted here. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Hi, Jimbo. I've been waiting for some commentary from you about your block of me, as suggested on your talkpage by John Vandenberg. Do you have anything to communicate in relation to the points I brought up above on June 7? Any response? Argument? Discussion? Bishonen | talk 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

1. I did not call you a 'toxic personality' and indeed went out of my way to clarify that. I think that our ongoing toleration of toxic behaviors leads to an environment in which good authors, such as yourself, feel a need to lash out at people in ways that are clearly inappropriate - and I consider that to be quite unfortunate. Toxic personalities create a toxic environment in which good authors can't do the work they want to do.

The solutions to this are not simple and are not straightforward, but I think it clear that we need to take action to raise the level of civility in the project.

Let me be clear about this. Your content contributions have been many and varied and of great quality and value. They are much appreciated by me and many others. I am disappointed that we have not been able to provide you a work environment that allowed you to flourish without the sort of toxic environment that caused you to lash out like you did. And I'm disappointed that you allowed yourself to sink to that level - I know you are capable of much better, and I would like to help create an environment where the work is allowed to blossom, and the people causing drama are shown the door.

2. As a part of that process, though, one thing that we absolutely must do is insist that it is never appropriate for an administrator to lash out and curse at people, no matter how provoked they might feel. When you wrote "you little shit" to another user, you were doing something wrong. I will not accept that kind of behavior from an admin in Wikipedia, this is not what we are about. It is not ok to act that way.

If you want to join me in asking that we refuse to have a toxic environment in Wikipedia, I am happy about that. And I hope you will realize that it has to start with the admins.

3. You seem to be suggesting that the block was bad because you were in the right in doing that. If that's true, then I'm sorry to hear it. If you think it's ok for a Wikipedia admin to snap at someone like that, then you are mistaken, and I hope that you will change your mind. You might consider apologizing to your victim.

4. I am happy to answer further questions and engage in further constructive dialog. There are several interesting questions here, and I'm afraid there are no easy answers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Break
Thank you for replying. I've tried, quite unsuccessfully, to keep my own response equally brief.


 * 1. I did not call you a 'toxic personality' and indeed went out of my way to clarify that. (I'm not going to quote the famous phrase again, unless it unavoidably comes up; I've heard it enough, and you will know what I mean.) Sorry, I can't accept what you say here. You certainly did call me that; "clarifying" that you did not, doesn't make it so. You might consider apologizing for using such language (even though I would feel a little ridiculous if I called myself "your victim" in the context.) Whether or not you intended such a slur, you actually did. Per John Vandenberg and many others, you did not intend it: "Jimbo did clarify that he did not intend to label you as a toxic personality,"" I'm not in your head, nor are these other people: only you know your intentions; I only know what you wrote. If the label was unintended, you might have been more careful with it. I don't know where you're supposed to "acknowledge" that it was not an "ideal" way of speaking, either: "Jimbo acknowledges that his use of "toxic personalities" was not ideal." An apology for misspeaking would IMO be more becoming than a huffing and puffing "no I didn't" at this point. See how I, for example, don't deny calling Daedalus a little shit? Try it. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC).


 * I did not call you a toxic personality. I did not think you were a toxic personality.  It's really quite simple.  What I did say is that your behavior in that instance was a direct result of us tolerating toxic personalities.  I later agreed that I should have said 'toxic behaviors'.  But in any event, the point was that our toleration of toxic leads us to a situation where a good admin and good editor gets blocked for snapping at someone.  The root cause is deeper than the petty details that led up to that particular incident.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Break I

 * I do not by any means accept that that was a "petty" detail—here it is again, take a look—it was either very aggressive, or very misleading, and in both cases, it pointed straight at me (in the second case, presumably unintentionally so). If you had any notion of setting an example of civility, you should IMO be apologizing rather than dismissing my complaint as "petty". But we're obviously not going to get any further nagging at the matter—even though I still think it's an important matter—we might as well leave it. I must ask you to take responsibility for what you yourself do, though. Don't ascribe it to the passive voice. The admin—me—didn't "get" blocked. You blocked her/me. Passives hide agency. It sounds, from your statement, as if you, a bystander, happened by the scene of an accident. "Oh dear, this administrator got blocked," you seem to say. Such use of language is deceptive, however common it is in the passive-aggressive Wikilove culture. Please use the active voice for the sake of clarity. You blocked me. I've been wondering why. What was the purpose of that three-hour block? I'm assuming it wasn't so much to keep me from jumping around disrupting the site for three hours? There are obviously easier and less ferocious ways of achieving that goal. Did you take any advice about it? You explained the block on WP:ANI in terms of "relaxation" and "stress"; an explanation that leaves the question just as murky to my mind, or more so. Who was supposed to be made to relax, and who to be stressed..? And did it work? What the block actually did achieve, as you must of course have been aware before you placed it, was to assure that my previously clean five years of block log will carry a smear forever more. Was that the purpose of your action? If not, what was? Bishonen | talk 01:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Anyway... you created a mystery, in minimal Non-apology apology mode, by speaking exclusively in the present tense: "I do not think that Bishonen is a toxic personality" [my italics]. Who are your toxic personalities, then? Those people of whom we have "been too tolerant, for too long"? And how is it appropriate to refer to them in such a way? Did you suddenly come to think of some unknown people? (Or, by inspiration and association, come to think of Giano? That's perhaps more likely, and has been suggested to me by several functionaries. You're the only one who knows your own thought processes, though.) In any case, IMO, the notion that you were referring to somebody other than me stretches credulity. I wish you'd be more frank and less evasive. Or, even better, that you'd be quite silent on the subject of my personality, because that's not something that's your business. For you to discuss my character, and to mention the badness of mere cuss words, in the same breath, is quite disrespectful. And your attempts to prevent cuss words from breaking out all over the site are like the little Dutch boy trying to hold back the tide with his finger. You say you "will not accept" those words. But you do accept them, in great quantities, every day; you'd need a huge and busy phalanx of civility police in order not to accept them, and many more hours in the day, and far more autocratic power than you actually possess. The tide is against you. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC).


 * I don't agree that "the tide is against me". I rather think the opposite.  Nor do I think we would need a "huge and busy phalanx of civility police" at all.  I think that a line of thinking that says that the only possible choices are (a) to accept admins yelling at people as being ok or (b) have a total stop of work on the site as we engage in a futile effort to stop it is a mistaken line of thinking.  I don't think you can come up with more than a handful of incidents per month that have admins doing things like calling people "little shits".  If I'm wrong, please show me the evidence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have any realistic chance to compile statistics of Wikipedian usage, but here's something from my own page. The phrase "bunch of cowardly little shits" refers to the arbitrators. The arb who responded didn't turn a hair, which was sensible. It's difficult to respond to your discussion of civility, since I have a whole different notion of what it means. It's not particular words that insult people, it's the context (a concept in my top post that you have not engaged with). On the simplest level: admins do worse than that, and unfortunately they do it daily. Sometimes because the English language defeats them, sometimes quite purposefully. A while ago I saw an admin insulting a user, very rudely, by saying "thank you", and I still regret being too busy to intervene at that time. (It was before you smeared my good name, so an intervention from me might have been acceptable.) Or take an example from your own text here: you perform convolutions to avoid admitting that you (perhaps unintentionally) called me "toxic"; are you now about to claim that in your "name names" paragraph below, you're not "really" calling me "mean-spirited"?  Bishonen | talk 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC).


 * I did not call you toxic, and there are no contortions necessary. You can continue to pretend otherwise, and I can't stop you, but the facts are the facts.  And no, I am not referring to you as "mean-spirited". --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your way—what I for my part see as your excessive concern with words, while performing incivil actions, such as your block of me—is quite unbalanced, in my opinion. And to do such things while praising your own "gentleness" and "kindness". —well, I will come back to the question of balance between words and actions, and of your blocks in particular, later, if you're still listening. I just want urgently to register my opinion, here, that if I thought such words as "toxic" proper to use—to apply to humans—which I don't—your block of me, as well as other unnecessary, non-vandalism, counter-policy blocks placed by both you and other admins, are examples of what I would call "toxic behaviors". They do a lot of harm. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC).


 * I don't agree. It was a good block for unacceptable behavior.  I understand that you don't like it, and you're coming very close to arguing that it was not unacceptable behavior.  So let me ask you point blank: do you think policy should be changed to make it acceptable for admins to call people names?  Do you think I am wrong to ask for a civil environment, and to say that we should use the tools in the software to enforce our policies on that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do indeed think you are wrong to believe the concept of civility to be so simple as you make it out. Since you ask. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Break II

 * 3.You state that You seem to be suggesting that the block was bad because you were in the right in doing that. I didn't mean to suggest that, no. Your block was bad on its own merits. And, checking my description up top of the various things that were wrong with it (an incomplete list), I'm rather surprised that you don't seem to have taken my criticisms on board. I'll come back to these criticisms some time later, if you'll permit me, and then also discuss the matter of User:Daedalus969 (as far as is appropriate when he doesn't have access to this page, i. e. very little.) Bishonen | talk 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC).


 * Your repeated use of the word "toxic" as an incantation in your post does not provide the clarity that I assume you intended, at least it doesn't make your point clear to me. "Toxic personalities create a toxic environment"... "join me in asking that we refuse to have a toxic environment in Wikipedia"..."ongoing toleration of toxic behaviors". Who are those toxic personalities? What are the toxic behaviors they indulge in? And, especially, what is the toxic environment which they create? You and I obviously have very different views of human motivation. Let me suggest what I think is a clearer and less occult reading of the word "toxic": I know of no single piece of behavior in the community that has a more bitter—more "toxic"— harvest than blocks. Blocks should be used only when absolutely necessary, such as to stop ongoing vandalism, because their effect is so bad. I believe it is now widely accepted in the admin community that so-called "civility blocks" are pernicious. My personal belief is that nothing loses the project more well-meaning established editors than those types of blocks do, together perhaps with ham-fisted arbitration remedies. Those editors should be the backbone of the project, and the teachers of the new arrivals; but in reality they not merely leave in great numbers, but leave in bitterness. The project takes very poor care of the editors that are its "institutional memory"—let me again suggest a read of this. I can't conceive of a worse—in fact, of a more toxic—way of attempting to deal with them, than through the humiliation of blocks. A look at your blocking log, Mr Wales, shows you to be a bull in a china shop in this context. You should consider surrendering your block button. Please think about it. If you would indeed "like to help create an environment where the work is allowed to blossom", giving up your own block tool, while admittedly a minor matter, would be a concrete, practical place to start; those are always more convincing than pretty words and incantations. I'll paraphrase your own statement above: "I think that our ongoing toleration of unnecessary blocks leads to an environment in which good authors can't do the work they want to do." And in which they leave. See WP:NPA, a well-written and humane policy too often unread (though frequently cited), for an explanation of which (few) kinds of blocks are in fact necessary. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC).


 * I will decline to name names, because I see no point in it. But we can discuss at great length whether, as you seem to be arguing, we should eliminate our policies on civility and allow for insults as a normal part of the work process.  But I venture to say that your reading of the community's mindset on this is simply mistaken.  Perhaps we can work together here to formulate a poll question to propose to the community.  Here's a good start: "Should policy be changed to make it clear that it is ok for administrators who are in conflict with another user to engage in personal attacks, up to and including insulting them and cursing at them?"  My own reading of the mood of the community on the issue of civility is that we have become sick and tired of people getting away with the worst sorts of behavior repeatedly, driving good editors away.  The idea that we lose good editors by trying to protect them from mean-spirited and insulting people simply doesn't match up with the voluminous evidence before us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Break III

 * I must admit that I don't feel any too well listened to. I thought I brought up a number of interesting points in that paragraph, but you obviously don't agree. (Name names? Was there any question of that? Me allow for insults as normal? Wrong shop.) For one thing, I would be interested to see you engage with the question of giving up your block button. I don't admire your blocking log, which I happened to take a look at in this context. It seems to feature blocks per WP:JIMBO, a policy which is a poor fit with WP:BLOCK. This one, for instance, has a mean, triumphant, power-speaking block reason: "User says he is leaving. Good timing." This unblock at the top here is pretty offensive: Giano is an adult, and a dignified guy; not a child to be sent to the corner. You're not good at this. For example, you seem to prevent most blockees from using Wikipedia e-mail—that's a bad idea. And look at how it took you (over) half an hour and a poke from MZMcbride to perform your basic admin obligation of posting a block message on my page; instead, you spent the time posting on ANI and on your own talkpage. I believe you're out of practice with blocks. I suggest both you and the community would be more comfortable if you undertook not to use the block button again. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

I thought of another way to frame the question. How about a poll on the question: "Admins are expected to abide by very high standards of civility. Administrators set an example for others on the site, and should have the experience and good judgment to take steps to defuse a situation before it escalates.  Admins are expected to never insult other users, engage in personal attacks, etc.  Everything that we as a group ask, in terms of civil behavior, of all users, applies particularly to admins." The reason I am proposing that we work together to come up with a poll question about this is precisely that you seem to be arguing that the community feels differently about this than I do. Let's find out.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about not starting with an utterly loaded question? Are simplified polls suddenly all right—aren't they supposed to be "evil"? Seriously, you should not start with a poll on a question, whoever has worked on it; you should start with a community discussion. Before the poll, assuming that it's a question suited for a poll at all (in my opinion, civility isn't.) Bishonen | talk 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC).
 * There have been many community discussions about rude behavior. All have been pretty conclusive.  I don't think you have much support for your position that it's ok for admins to use foul language and insult people.  If you think I'm wrong, then the onus is on you to come up with some evidence.  I think that you're an honest person, and a poll might change your mind.  Are you willing to submit the question to the community, or not?  You make some empirical claims: are they true, or not?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(Please do not edit inside another's post)

Jimbo, I'm disappointed in your actions and in your responses here; I do not believe you are setting a good example to the community. I am particularly concerned at the illogic in your statement immediately above my new header, where you attempt to foist a travesty of a position on to me—"that it's ok for admins to use foul language and insult people"— a position that I have both proved and stated several times is not my position—and where you coolly observe that you "don't think I have much support for it" (!) This is known as "false imputation" or the strawman fallacy. I actually don't think I'd have any support for it, in the unlikely event that it represented what I thought. It is not ok for admins to use foul language and insult people. Nobody thinks it's ok. I also have to ask why we'd need a poll on "Admins are expected to abide by very high standards of civility. Administrators set an example for others on the site"? It's in policy already (in WP:ADMIN). As for admin consensus on the best way to handle incivil users, it is not by blocking them (as you did to me when I briefly lost my temper; losing my temper was incidentally not ok, but neither, in the Daedalus context, was it heinous). Please see the impressive collection of evidence for current admin practice here Plus, it completely makes me blink in incredulity that you suggest asking the community to endorse the notion that admins "should have the experience and good judgment to take steps to defuse a situation before it escalates". That is just what you yourself spectacularly failed to do in my case! It would do the community and you yourself a favor if you admitted your block of me was inappropriate and unproductive. In retrospect, would there have been a better way to handle the situation?

I agreed to this unusual set-up, principally in the hope of getting answers from you to relevant questions that I've been wondering about: questions about blocking and your block of me. I have asked those questions several times, and you have ignored them every time, in favor of discussing what you (mistakenly) consider my convictions about civility, and which you urge me, in classic strawman manner, to prove. I will, again, present my questions below; sorry to be repeating myself, but it seems most convenient at this time to lay them out fully (again). Please stop filibustering and engage with what I ask. If you choose to continue to ignore these issues, this "mediation" might as well be over. I have RL things to deal with, and I'm sure you have too.

Break IV

 * 1) Your continued use of the block button. I can't conceive of a worse—in fact, of a more toxic—way of attempting to treat editing problems, than through the humiliation of blocks. A look at your blocking log, Mr Wales, shows you to be a bull in a china shop in this context. You should consider surrendering your block button. Please think about it. If you would indeed "like to help create an environment where the work is allowed to blossom", giving up your own block tool, while admittedly a minor matter, would be a concrete, practical place to start; those are always more convincing than pretty words and incantations. I don't admire your blocking log, which I happened to take a look at in this context. It seems to feature blocks per WP:JIMBO, a policy which is a poor fit with WP:BLOCK. This one, for instance, has a mean, triumphant, power-speaking block reason: "User says he is leaving. Good timing." This unblock at the top here is pretty offensive: Giano is an adult, and a dignified guy; not a child to be sent to the corner. You're not good at this. For example, you seem to prevent most blockees from using Wikipedia e-mail—that's a bad idea. And look at how it took you (over) half an hour and a poke from MZMcbride to perform your basic admin obligation of posting a block message on my page; instead, you spent the time posting on ANI and on your own talkpage. I believe you're out of practice with blocks. I suggest both you and the community would be more comfortable if you undertook not to use the block button again.
 * 2) Your purpose with my block. Why did you block me? What was the goal of that three-hour block? I'm assuming it wasn't so much to keep me from jumping around disrupting the site for three hours? There are obviously easier and less ferocious ways of achieving that goal. Did you take any advice about it? You explained the block on WP:ANI in terms of "relaxation" and "stress"; an explanation that leaves the question just as murky to my mind, or more so. Who was supposed to be made to relax, and who to be stressed..? And did it work? What the block actually did achieve, as you must of course have been aware before you placed it, was to assure that my previously clean five years of block log will carry a smear forever more. Was that the purpose of your action? If not, what was? Bishonen | talk 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments about my use of the block in the past. I will take your comments under consideration going forward, although I do not agree with you about most of your points. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future.

However, I fully stand behind my block of you, and if you do it again, I will block you again. I blocked you because you violated policy. The purpose of the block was 4-fold. Allow me to quote blocking policy:


 * 1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia - this was one reason, but a minor one. Your behavior, which you have not yet apologized for (if you have apologized to your victim, then I will be happy to learn about it), was a disruption.  "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." (from WP:NPA).  This personal attack was egregious for at least 3 reasons: (1) it was a direct insult using curse words (2) it was done by you, an administrator and respected editor and (3) it was an outgrowth of a simmering dispute that you were making worse, rather than trying to resolve.
 * 2. Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit - needs no explanation.
 * 3. Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated - this is the most important one. I am encouraging you, and all admins who might think otherwise (but this is rare to the point of being unknown) that cursing at others in the middle of a dispute is a behavior which will not be tolerated.  Period.
 * 4. Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms - I am unsure, based on your continued refusal to acknowledge that the block was valid and to apologize to the community for conduct unbecoming an admin, that this encouragement has worked, however I do suppose as a practical matter that you do understand that you may not do it again without taking a much longer block. I hope, rather, that this conversation coupled with the original block, will help you to change your mind about your behavior.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you quote those four points from WP:BLOCK in the best of faith, but you've missed something. Those reasons for blocking, whose relevance to my case I have some trouble understanding (especially the one that hypothetically "needs no explanation"), are supposed to come into play only "when lesser measures are inadequate, or problematic conduct persists"; do you see where it says that? What lesser measures did you try first? What problematic conduct persisted on my part? Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * You are an experienced editor. You know better.  It is as simple as that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To label my editing "disruptive" and claim your block was needed to put a stop to the disruption (or even to the "damage"!) is pure Newspeak ("the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year".) Please check the definition of Disruption, that much overused word: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." Note that all the italics, including "a pattern of edits", are in the original guideline; they're not my emphases. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * It is not "newspeak" at all. You viciously cursed at another contributor.  Period.  That's not ok. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to give you so much reading, but I ask you to please click on this diff, and especially on the diffs it contains. That will show you the strongly negative view of admins on civility blocks, and on the consequences of such blocks. Note that these are the considered opinions of highly experienced admins whose names you probably know—it's not a poll or vote, which is deprecated on wikipedia. Compare Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Or has polling rather suddenly become an ok substitute for consensus, as you seem to suggest above? "Perhaps we can work together here to formulate a poll question to propose to the community.—followed by a horrendously loaded question, (one of the hazards of polls). See also this current Civility Poll—a barefaced substitute for discussion if ever I saw one. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Break V

 * Your interpretation of the situation is different from mine. Let's have a poll, as I have suggested?  I think the reason you refuse this is that you know that you are not right in this matter.  No one agrees with you that we should change policy to make cursing at people a non-blockable offense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway. Policy is what we do. It's not what is encoded in written policy, and not what you pronounce as GodKing, but what the community does. In the ANI archives, it is amply illustrated that the admin community does not do, nor approve of, what you did, which was to block somebody for losing their temper once, and upon provocation. I did lose my temper with Daedalus969 (who you bathetically call "my victim"). I will only mention the most uncontroversial and factual aspects of Daedalus' behaviour, since I obviously shouldn't argue with a user who doesn't have access to this page, but I'm sure you will click on the factual diffs I provide. Here is just one example of the many WP:ANI threads started by Daedalus, and here is a comment on it by Lar. Here is the thread where Daedalus' grudge against me is born. He articulated that grudge by insisting on putting and keeping a "retired" tag on my friend Giano's page. Since I was already upset about the Giano affair and his disappearance, Daedalus' mischief was quite effective: I shouted bad-temperedly at him. That was wrong, especially for an admin. But do you notice the difference in response by the onlookers to my anger versus your anger? We may call it the GodKing Difference. You blocked me for "Incivility unbecoming an admin." Casliber, on the other hand, very mildly criticized your own word choice, but obviously did not dream of reproaching—let alone blocking!— you for "Incivility unbecoming a Founder"... . When I lost my temper it was wrong, as I have stated in several of my posts already ("not ok") When you lost yours it was still more wrong. More, because you claim to hold yourself to a higher standard; and more still, because a block is far and away more damaging than a cussword. I hope you, too, change your mind about the way you act. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I repeat a few questions that you may have missed, to do with your purpose with the block. I think them rather important, since they go to our central disagreement (=whether the block was good or bad).
 * 1. Could you explain the relaxation-stress conundrum, please? It sounds rather as if you meant the block as one of those deprecated cool-down blocks. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * I think that you should apologize to your victim, and I hope and I am sure that in the fullness of time you will agree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Err... and that has what to do with the question..? Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * 2. Did you take any advice about blocking me? (Doing so might have helped provide you with more sense of context.) Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Yes, I did. I have been advised to block you permanently.  I declined to follow that advice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Feel free. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * 3. And my big question: "What the block actually did achieve... was to assure that my previously clean five years of block log will carry a smear forever more. Was that the purpose of your action?" Let me elaborate, quoting WP:BLOCK: "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." A humane point. But you used a block in the punitive and humiliating way described, since it stretches credulity to suppose that you blocked me in order to stop me "disrupting" the encyclopedia. Three hours is merely a way of marking my log, nothing else (even if I hadn't been asleep at the time, six hours after the event). You have not addressed or explained this action. If you will, I invite you to do so, and to address the other questions. Bishonen | talk 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC).


 * The block achieved something very important: a principle that it is never ok for an admin to curse at people. Simple as that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith gesture, my user rights
(After it was pointed out to me that this was "pre-coffee" and not as clear as I might like, I am rewriting it significantly. The older version should be ignored.)

I pledge not to block anyone for 6 months as a good faith gesture to you. This pledge is unilateral as a good faith gesture.

In return, I hope you will state very clearly: admins who curse at people should be blocked for 3 hours (or more) for doing it, and should be at serious risk for losing their adminship. If you can agree to that, then we're done here, I'll be satisfied that you agree with policy. And if you can't, then I don't see any reason to continue the dialog, as I find your position incompatible with fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I am happy to continue, though, if you see a useful way forward, but it is not clear to me how we can reach common ground in that case. There are many middle possibilities, of course: perhaps you can reframe the principle on what our expectations should be about admins cursing and insulting others in a way that I will agree and you will agree - in at least this, we will have made some useful progress. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Thank you to KillerChihuahua for pointing out that I could make this more clear. Another question that KC raised, though, used the language of "punitive" versus "preventative". I didn't use those terms, and don't find them relevant to the question at hand. Up above I went through the 4 principles in the existing block policy, and those are what I meant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty discouraged that you interpret my motives as tricky and bad, after my efforts to clarify them in this long and elaborate discussion we have had. "I think the reason you refuse this [=your suggested collaboration between yourself and me to formulate a poll question] is that you know that you are not right in this matter." It makes me wonder what exactly you take me to be at Wikipedia for: malice? To exude my inborn viciousness? Obviously, I can't "refuse" polls as such, and haven't tried (did you notice where I pointed out a current Civility Poll designed by Casliber? I don't indeed approve of Cas' poll; and you should not insist that I must approve; I think as my conscience dictates.)  I can however "refuse" your suggestion that you and I formulate a poll question together; and you are wrong to press me with accusations of bad faith when I do. It was very handsome of you the first time you offered for you and me to create a poll together; but an offer loses its value if it evolves into coercion. I choose to decline your offer because I think the poll questions you have suggested so far are impossibly loaded; we are so far apart that it would be hopeless/disagreeable for us to attempt collaboration. And also because I'm taking a wikibreak, which I hope to be able to develop into leaving the project—that's my present goal. These are my real reasons, though I note with disappointment that you don't accept them. I hope you will wrestle a little more with the notion that people can be honest without necessarily sharing your way of thinking, or doing your bidding, or playing the courtier to you.


 * It's pleasingly coincidental that you should propose we end this discussion, because I was just going to suggest the same thing. I appreciate your taking the time for it, but I don't think we're likely to get any further, certainly not in this medium. It seems to me that I fully understand your views, and I hope you understand mine. Thank you for talking.


 * As for your non-blocking pledge, it goes without saying that you must follow your own conscience and principles; I don't regard myself as in any way involved in those. Nor do I care for you to involve yourself in mine.


 * (Could you please avoid inserting your text in this post? Please, I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, but people have been telling me they have trouble parsing my posts all chopped-up.) Bishonen | talk 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Actually, I don't understand your views at all, I'm afraid, and so I'd like to continue a bit longer. To be clear, I think you can be honest without sharing my way of thinking, doing my bidding, or playing the courtier.  I am not happy that you continue to say those kinds of things to me after all this.


 * I really would like you to answer the question, put very simply. Do you think we should change policy to make what you did a non-blockable offense?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)