Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 22

Encouraging admins to enforce Civility/Anti-harassment
As you know, incivility/harassment/wikihounding/off-wiki opposition research/etc. are definitely the biggest turn off to new and old users leading to editors leaving. The refusal of admins to enforce civility and anti-harassment has become a bigger and bigger issue lately. And User Talk:Jimbo Wales has been filled with those discussions the last few months. When a couple related discussions happened at Gender Gap task force page recently all hell broke lose and I'm still not ready to attempt rational discussion there. Is that possible here?

The big question is, to what extent can Wikiprojects organize editors to get admins to enforce clear policy? Obviously, the most direct approach is to encourage editors who value civility and collaboration to become administrators and to remove administrative rights of those with a record of enabling uncivil harassers or of being chronically uncivil themselves. Any thoughts?

My first one is that since this obviously would have to be a word of mouth thing, how about a template editors could put on their pages and share with other editors, something like this (Do not Edit - suggest other language below):

Or how about an off-wiki petition? Would that be disallowed? (NO! Not at the White House website!) Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Where's the evidence in support of your opening sentence? Eric   Corbett  16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, with Wikipedia's consensus model, admins can only enforce what they perceive to be the community's consensus views on standards for collaborative interactions. However, amongst the small subset of Wikipedia editors who weigh in on the various discussion boards on this matter, there is a wide diversity of views. Wikipedia's decision-making process has a few key shortcomings: the views of the silent majority is largely ignored, since they are unknown, and consensus decision-making, as in the real world, means changes are very difficult to put into effect, as a vocal few can stall progress.
 * To address the first issue, more editors can be solicited to participate, perhaps through surveys, but it's always a struggle to get people to engage in discussion, particularly in a volunteer community. The second issue though is thoroughly engrained in current Wikipedia culture; it has its strengths, particularly when all those involved are willing to compromise, but it has its pitfalls. Even leaving aside the issue of editors unwilling to bend, good-faith editors can fail to reach an agreement simply due to different underlying principles (for example, two editors might disagree on the desired reading level of Wikipedia—neither is wrong in their views; they are just proceeding from conflicting base assumptions).
 * The best approach I can currently think of is to recruit more editors. Get your friends who write well to spend a bit of time improving articles they are interested in. I realize personal recruitment may be a double-edged sword, but I think it is the best way for a good-faith editor to help raise the level of discourse on Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also no functional way to remove admin privileges (I don't consider ArbCom to be functional in that regard), which means you will have one class of user that is more or less exempt from the idea. Intothatdarkness 17:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators does have procedures but the problem, of course, is not enough editors are willing to chirp in on problems. Of course, to enforce it's Terms of Service on Civility the Foundation should be advertising them in the advert place. It should be running ads to encourage editors to speak up for civility and that sort of thing. A lot of people walk away from bullies and I don't blame them. But there's safety in numbers and the numbers already exist, they just haven't felt they had a means of acting together. Canvassing rules were not created to prevent members from helping the foundation from enforcing its terms of service! Ignore all rules that contradict the desire to survive. ("Yes, let that tiger eat you. We don't have civility in this jungle!") Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused; my suggestion isn't related to admin privileges. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think IntoDarkness replying to me and me to both of you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that members of the Foundation have engaged in uncivil behavior, I'm not sure that appealing to them would result in much action. I've also seen admins get away with profoundly uncivil behavior without an eye being batted by their fellow admins. But at its core much of this comes down to what is going to be considered uncivil. I, personally, tend to find pedantic babbling and endless blue-linking to be uncivil but don't have as much of an issue with profanity. Others are the opposite. Superficially civil hounding can be extremely detrimental to editor retention, but might not be considered uncivil at first brush. The issue isn't as simple as a banner and a slogan. Intothatdarkness 18:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been bullied and blocked by POV pushing Admins working as a (sort of a) team. They even argued aggressively and very unpleasantly among themselves about how long I should be blocked for. But there wasn't a swear word in sight. I don't go near articles on guns in the USA any more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it's an individual's choice. I've taken alot of bumps & bruises over the years (of which I'm to blame), however I never have & never will retire. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This thread is pointless without an unarguable definition of incivility. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's always been, and will continue to be, one of the main issues. I'd say close this like the previous discussion. Intothatdarkness 18:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Civility in any situation is made up of a lot of different factors, as indicated at WP:Civility, including the the severity of the incivility, the number of times it's done, the number of people done to, if done as part of POV pushing or harassment or jealousy or whatever, etc. What we needs is a check list with scores that could be applied to each complaint. Then the over all views of the (assumedly neutral) Admin would be clear. I like drawing those sort of things in tables, so give me 24 hours. This conversation has barely begun. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't see a scorecard as being anything more than another problem, honestly. Intothatdarkness 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Scores won't work. Some believe swearing is never acceptable. How do you score that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously admins have to be honest about their views on important issues when they are asking to become admins. Maybe admins who are applying need to answer a scorecard too. I guess those of us concerned with these issues have to start paying more attention to the process and who is gets adminships. (And then there's term limits, another great idea.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wannabe Admins should be required to commit to being willing to censure, sanction, block and ban other Admins who misbehave. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What proportion of admins have blocked another admin in the last year? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No idea, but I've seen none. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There was and attempt [| an attempt here] (and modified here evidently) to deal with an admin, but it turned into a confusing brouhaha. And I still like that scorecard idea and even got a table matrix built. Will report when done. And someone did report they like the box idea - but not the graphic, which FYI is just a place holder. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the box/template thing too. And yes, the graphic in it (yellow person with confused eyes and deranged smile) looks like someone tried to recover from the after-effects of drinking several pints of scotch, by taking a mixture of LSD and Ecstasy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read much of this, but there are some seriously flawed ideas flowing here. You are suggesting scorecards for prospective admins, yet we can't get enough people to run for admin to cover admin who leave as it is.  And the idea that what is civil and wasn't being obvious is falling victim to our own WP:BIASes.  If I've learned anything in the many years that I've been here, it is that civility is usually in the eye of the beholder.  A comment that would make one person scream bloody murder at ANI might make another person laugh.  You ask for and expect civility, you exercise it, you try to teach it and of course your encourage it, but you can't block someone for incivility because there is no single, worldview definition of "civility" to judge against.  It is also just a waste of time, as most incivility is just one or two people get too hot in a discussion.  Mediation is all that is needed, if anything, under most circumstances.  You can't expect people to participate here without bumping heads, this isn't utopia, it is a place to build a world class encyclopedia.  And no, I have never and will never block for simple incivility, even if enwp lost it's collective mind and made it a policy, as admin can't be compelled to use their tools.  If you want to start running off our best editors, start blocking for civility, so it would be a nightmare for retention of our best and brightest.  Dennis 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators need to build a consensus among themselves as to what is & isn't a breach of WP:CIVIL. Until that time, differing interpretations by them, will only add to any civility problems in the community. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's just say it's a multifaceted topic that needs much thought and discussion, if not necessarily here. But I was in a "let's find a simple solution cause can't take it any more" mode when posted. More relaxed now that some admins are dealing with issues of interest. Also have been reading some historical stuff, old cases didn't know enough about, and it all does make the head spin!! Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are some editors who can only see incivility in others not in themselves and conflate dissent with personal attack. I thought this project was for discussing broad issues not a place to elicit "simple solutions" for individual forum shoppers. J3Mrs (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Every editor retention issue starts as a small issue for one user, yet may be the acorn that grows into a mighty oak. (Who thought this would lead to such a mobilization of energy?) Every solution one editor comes up with for one issue can create ideas that motivate better and larger issues for more users. I still like my proposals, but they were a bit premature and not integrated fully into the larger strategy now under formulation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Admins can't build a consensus among themselves, that would be a gross violation of the trust put in them by the community. Our job is to exercise the will of the community on their behalf, based on our judgement of what the community on a whole wants.  The only reason we get the tools is that it isn't practical to give everyone the tools, so the community picks a few of us to act solely on their behalf.  Making up rules within a clique of only admin would cause a riot, and rightfully so.  I don't want that power anyway.  And there is nothing wrong with discussing the ideas here, I've always welcomed discussion on anything that affects users on the whole here, I'm just saying it isn't as simple as it might look at first glance.  So discussion is fine.  We don't do polls here, we don't make change from here, we simply swap ideas and learn from each other here.  WER has no official authority in any way.  It is just a big chalk board for anything remotely connected to editor retention.  So when I speak, it isn't from a point of authority via WER nor with any extra authority via the admin bit, I'm just another editor, albeit with fairly extensive experience on the topic.  Dennis 13:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW - I'm neither advocating or discouraging such a practice by administrators. Merely pointing out, that the Wiki-community is (naturally) less likely to develope a consensus on how to interpret what is/isn't a breach of WP:CIVIL. My years of observation has also given me the impression that if an editor has a strong 'support base' (see Beeblebrox's essay - The Unblockables) she/he will always fair better when his/her conduct is reviewed by the wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an unfairness that is true both on and offwiki. Around here, however, the ones with the biggest fan bases tend to be the ones that are the most prolific at writing prose and not just popular for hanging at the admin boards.  That doesn't make it "more fair", just saying it does tie into the idea of a meritocracy, where people that do the most good are often tolerated more when they do singular bad things.  I don't think that is all bad.  If an editor A spends all their time creating new and useful articles, while editor B just hangs out at ANI offering tidbits of their wisdom, it seems obvious that editor A is more valuable towards the goal of building an encyclopedia than editor B.  It also seems natural that people might cut them a little extra slack when they occasionally tells someone to piss off.  Lets face it, often, some of the biggest pains to deal with around here are the very same editors who are brilliant and prolific at generating usable content.  I don't think it is coincidence, and I would bet a month's salary on it.  I won't labor the psychobabble, but the idea that artistic types are temperamental is hardly new.  Personally, I would rather have a bunch of sometimes rude people churning out tons of articles than a bunch of polite people who mainly hang out at admin boards and policy pages. Dennis 15:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In agreement with you. Of the Five Pillars, WP:CIVIL is likely the closest to the Real World. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Dennis, there are artists and there are people with profound psychological problems. And there are people who add quite a bit of good material, and remove a lot of crap, who take immense amount of grief and incivility from those whose POV differs or just enjoy bugging the editor. In other words, your narrow dichotomy isn't too relevant to the real world of wikipedia editing.
 * Similarly civility depends not just on what is said or who says it, but the situation: is it trying to bully editors to keep in crappy edits; is it to drive off editors you don't like; is it cause one gets fed up with policy violations and puerile game playing; is it because of sexual or job or internet connection or interpersonal commication frustrations; is it because you are hate/love Media Viewer and are upset about the commotion; etc etc etc - and various combinations of the above. The world is ever so complicated. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why a scorecard can't, in itself, be used to evaluate civility; by its nature, it won't be able to deal with the greater context. isaacl (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I posted above. It depends on the size of an editors fan/support base, as to what he/she can or can't do on Wikipedia. Truly, that fact is very frustrating, but that's the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can come up with rough estimates of some items; how many watchers on their pages (though that might be mostly non-fans) or retired editors; how notably often they talk about some form of personal frustration; how many ANIs they brought in what category and why (which is already considered, and not necessarily in a systematic fashion, more by "impressions" or even "accusations"); sure it's going to be subjective, but at least it's an attempt to by pass administrator's personal prejudices and make them look at all the factors.
 * I know of a situation where two admins said something was OK, someone did it, another one known for being a hard head (and who might have significant POV issues) then blocked the individual. The admin refused to listen to the explanation until the admins themselves pleaded the case on his talk page. That's prejudice and forcing admins to look at multiple angles either a) helps overcome prejudice or b) make prejudice clear if the scorecard is made public. But this is really all just a draft in my head with a matrix to be filled in. Once I start I may decide it's a crazy idea after all.  But just in case someone in the real world has used such a system thought I'd put it out there. And I bet I can find some working models online. Maybe from sports.  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll neither support or oppose your efforts, of course. It would be unwise of me to get too involved in such endevors :) GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Carol, you and I both want civility here, and we agree that the more civility there is, the better the place is. We both agree that civility should be encouraged, and when someone is incivil, it should be brought to their attention.  The problem is, we really can't police it because it isn't black and white.  100 people can read the same sentence, and see it 100 different ways.  Personal attacks aren't that way and are usually obvious, but philosophically speaking, the whole concept of "civility" is nebulous to begin with.  Now factor in all the different cultures, and you a situation were all you can do is focus on the positive, that is encouraging them to not be rude.  As for admins and prejudice and such, Wikipedia isn't any different than the real world, except there is NO training for admin, NO singular set of laws, NO singular mind set.  To be honest, Carol, admin are 10x more polite and gentile than they were 8 years ago.  Anyone that has been here that long knows that they would just block you and tell you to piss off back then, and few would have argued against them.  There has been a huge improvement in many areas. But we still screw up regularly because we are human, and this is just a hobby. In short, editing here requires a LOT of tolerance, and policing out all the incivility would cost us most of our best editors, quite literally. Dennis 18:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To add, in your example, if I told an editor that an action was ok and another admin blocked them for it, I would instantly unblock them. If that same admin reblocked, they would be dragged to ANI or ARB for wheel warring. Wheel warring is very, very rare because the price is very, very high.  I can only guess there is more to the story because that should have been a five minute block/unblock.  Every admin I know would have done the same thing, if only to protect the integrity of their previous comment saying an action was ok, ie: the blame should be on the admin, not the editor. Dennis 19:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If one looks at my brief block-log, one can easily tell, I don't have a strong support/fan base. But, I'm still here, with no intentions of retiring :) GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Incivility is when 100 people read something and 90 say "that was uncalled for." I've been called uncivil for reverting a non-sourced and non-sourceable WP:OR statement; for polity asking people to review a policy and providing a link; for pointing out that a certain statement was unsupported libel (with someone else removed for just that reason); for asking someone to provide a short summary or quote regarding the point they were making in a too-long-didn't-read-it diff; for bringing an AfD of an obvious attack bio which was removed for that reason. So I certainly know that things most people would consider civil can be considered uncivil. But everyone knows the difference between writing "reverting a non-sourced and non-sourceable WP:OR statement" and writing "User:Name is an idiot so I reverted their incredibly asinine non-sourced and non-sourceable WP:OR statement" - and then maybe going to the article talk page and their talk page to repeat that statement. Those who do the latter over and over and over again are a problem, especially when they defend such behavior as "free speech." If they do it 2 or 3 times a week, they probably drive off at least one editor a month, and some of those might have developed into good editors. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocking someone when 100 people read something and 90 say "that was uncalled for" can be an example of cultural bullying and our systemic bias in action. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Calling someone an idiot stretches into WP:NPA territory. Those are easy to spot and deal with.  It is the small stuff that is hard to nail down, things that one culture might say is just a bit rude, and another says is completely over the line.  Just the way Brits and Yanks few phrases like "piss off" or "fuck off" is radically different.  Brits see it as rude, some Yanks lose their minds over it.  Then again, some people find being told to "fuck off" worse than being called an idiot, even those (by Wikipedia standards) it is a lower "offense".  Civility enforcement just isn't black and white.  I used to think it was moreso black and white until I got the bit, and was answerable for every use of the tools.  You don't block over an "offense" that the community is split on.  Admin can only act in ways that are clearly within consensus: any use based only on personal opinions is considered abuse, rightfully so. Dennis 21:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Like nearly always Dennis, you're full of pontificating BS as though you know what you're talking about. You love pies in the sky. Get to concrete examples, here's one: admin The Bushranger blocked me and it was disputed personal opinion (not to mention other aspects of lack of equity or consideration of context). There was no time or standard about your "within consensus". (So by your standard, it was "abuse". Great. You let me know how to follow up on that admin abuse, since no one has responded to my request for help, will ya??) After the block that admin also went to my user Talk and reinforced how he thought I was a "classic narcissist". (Hey, does that meet your 90 outta 100 test!? You and Dennis can work that out please.) Oh! Here's another, is this a personal attack?: "Good luck joining the human race someday." (You gave walls of excusing text to excuse an admin saying that slur to a reg editor. An admin who recently had an ANI CIV case against him which you closed without action, saying in the same timeframe: "I just like the guy." And BTW when I asked that admin on his Talk "what's going on" about another admin calling me the above-mentioned name-slur, he responded with "So what if you're a narcissist?") Oh! How many times has an admin told me to "Fuck off" or "Fuck off my Talk page"? (The way you're pontificating here, is as though what admins do in the face of civility enforcement of the regs. When there is enormous civility infractions committed by admins on this site ... those who are supposedly trained and educated to know better, and "held to a higher standard". I don't know why you are answering Carol as though she is a newbee -- I don't know her level of experience but if she is so green as to warrant your pablum spoon-feeding, then this verifiably belongs at the TeaHouse not on this project page.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And then there's this, a quick unblock of an indef'd editor who threatened violence against wikipedians in his town. Sure, he was provoked, so it's ok!! Of course, us ordinary mortals aren't allowed to see what he really wrote. Read the ani and see if you figure out what it was. I originally thought Jimbo Wales idea of super-administrators to oversee this sort of thing was going to far, but considering the double standards of favored "good old boy" editors vs. those who may not be "clubby" enough or who might have some "disability" (like born female or non-white anglo, for example) get blocked. What are the chances I'll get blocked for saying that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Admin aren't "trained" in any way whatsoever. They are ordinary editors who pass through a crappy and sometimes rigged gauntlet, and if they manage to muster enough votes, they get some extra tools.  If you expect them to be any less flawed than the average person, this would be a mistake.  They tend to be more experienced than average, but not less flawed.  And I don't block anyone for simple incivility, admin or not, for the reasons I already outlined.  Sorry if an admin told you to "fuck off", IHTS.  I've been told that 2 or 3 times by fellow editors myself, including one whom I knew was socking (CU confirmed) and could have blocked for sockpuppetry, but didn't.  They are probably floating around in my archives somewhere, as I didn't even revert.  So yes, like I say to others, I ignore a degree of incivility (ie: singular events). You have to be able to take a little heat.  I didn't say I liked it, it is just the practical reality.  We are all rude sometimes.  Dennis 22:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya couldn't pay me to be an administrator. Mind you, I could never pass an RFA anyways. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverting to the start of the thread, we can be pretty sure that few newbies are lost to incivility as few are around long enough to encounter it. Reversion of edits and deletion of articles lose us lots of editors, some of whom I believe we would be keeping if our systems and documentation made it clearer that they need to cite sources when they add info to articles if they want their edits to stick. My suspicion is that we lose more newbies to edit conflicts than to incivility, but that would be hard to measure without access to stuff like edit conflicts that may not even be logged. As to how big a factor it is for more active editors, I suspect we need to rerun the survey of former editors and even then there will be skews and people whose perception of others behaviour is less tolerant than it is of their own. It is possible that the way we handle edit warring may lose us more regulars than incivility does. What should reduce the impact of incivility would be to handle more of the feedback for perceived incivility on a one to one basis. In real life if you want someone to change their behaviour or rephrase something you ask them one to one. I suggest we try a little more of that here, especially for those who have enabled email.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These are all good comments, especially about making it really clear you need high quality refs. (Eight years ago no one really explained that to me for at least the first year, so I had a lot of naive fun!!)
 * The problem is the chronically uncivil and the wikihounders who target anyone who annoys them, disagrees with them, has a different POV than them (as a libertarian I've taken a lot of sh*t from a dozen or more editors over the years who hate libertarians), and/or thinks they can have an occasional meltdown and not face the same sanctions as ordinary editors because of some privilege or other. I still think the best solution is just having a number of people call them on it when they do it, not just whoever they are choosing to be uncivil to/wikihound this day, week, month or year. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WereSpielChequers has nailed the bigger problem, well enough I will just say "me too". And Carol, there is a difference in cronic incivility (hounding, harassing, following you around) and singular acts, when you get in an edit war over a particular sentence and someone says to "piss off".  We handle the chronic stuff reasonably well (more or less) at ANI, because you can provide a trail of diffs.  It is some paperwork, but I can't see any way around that part of it, and you have to back up claims with diffs.  We probably agree on more than you think, including politics.  That is the "leave people alone unless what they are doing is genuinely affecting others" part of me when I say to ignore singular acts of incivility.  But no, a pattern is something that needs one on one attention, preferably before it becomes harassment. Even then we have to realize that Wikipedia just isn't for everyone, and some simply can't be civil enough, and at the same time, others have skin that is just too thin. Dennis 13:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't disagree with Dennis above. The important thing is to be able to discuss the issues openly and to get a hearing when you say that someone is aggravating you like crazy for B.S. reasons. While I've only started watching ANI on and off the last 3 or 4 years, I've seen enough cases where small incivility gets knocked and big incivility excused to know we have to keep double standards and cronyism, for whatever reason, a highlighted issue. It makes it easier for the sensible admins to do the right thing, one way or the other, without worrying themselves about getting attacked or worse. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the idea behind WER. We won't always agree, but I started it back in July 2012 because there was no centralized, editor run place to just drink coffee, complain, compare ideas, etc.  Some gripe because they don't see concrete things come from WER very often, but I think that misses the point.  Here, people let there hair down and just say their opinions without filtering, and that has tremendous value.  Everyone is equal at WER: me, you, an IP that posts, etc.  I learn something new every week, and it has shaped my approach to being and editor and admin.  And still is.  I still have a long way to go.... Dennis 20:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey and Mediation
There is mention of a survey of former editors. I think that what is needed is a survey of both current and former editors, to identify at least the view of the current editors on civility enforcement, and what frustrations they have, and the former editors as to what frustrations caused them to leave. I described my ideas on Talk: Jimbo Wales twice, but that page is archived quickly, so I am about to copy my ideas into user space (whether or not that is more visible than archive space). My idea, in response to Jimbo's questions about what the WMF can do, was that, in addition to his idea for the appropriate use of mediators to deal with civility, was that the WMF should use its resources to conduct a properly designed survey. (The WMF has resources. It needs to use them appropriately.  Otherwise they are likely to try to fix software that isn't broken.)  One question that I have in particular that could be answered by a survey is what the view of the overall community of editors is about the enforcement of civility. We know what the view of the WMF is, that civility is important and is not enforced adequately. We know what the "consensus" at the noticeboards is, that incivility is a low priority and is often overlooked. Where is the disconnect? Does the consensus at the noticeboards reflect the larger consensus of the editorial community, in which case the WMF should realize that the editors like a noisy anarchic workplace, or is the "consensus" of the "community" at the noticeboards unrepresentative, in which case some sort of WMF action is appropriate? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated, and I agree, that for the WMF to hire and train "community organizers" as super-admins would be disruptive. He has suggested hiring a smaller number of trained mediators, who could in turn also train volunteer mediators, and who would deal with those types of incivility where mediation is appropriate. I have noted that mediation is not an appropriate response to chronically uncivil and disruptive editors, because reducing the frequency of personal attacks by half legalizes personal attacks. (Dealing with the conflicts that result in personal attacks, such as content disputes compounded by article ownership, is a better use of mediation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Having mediators is not a bad idea, nor is training, although it depends on the quality/philosophy/participation rate. I think separate mediators, not above admin, could be useful and most admin would accept not blocking or taking action as long as a mediator is on the case, as a generally accepted courtesy. (except in the most extreme cases)  Most of the good mediation comes from non-admin, to be honest.  The "to do" list for admin is such that it is harder to find time to mediate once you get the bit, as ironic as that sounds.  People want you doing things that require the bit: deleting, blocking, protecting. I've done a fair amount of mediation over the years, but certainly would benefit from better training. I would gladly accept extra training if it was meaningful, high quality training.    Dennis 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, mediators! The one time I did it with a couple people up against a high powered admin used to getting his way, it leveled the playing field and really helped bring together an NPOV article. A couple of us on either side of an issue tried another time but no mediator appeared interested, which was frustrating. I think it would cut down on a lot of problems because communications breakdowns are often the issue that lead to frustration and hostility. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 03:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Mediators, is an idea worth trying. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Project:Foundation should hire some trained mediators
HiLo48 wrote in thread below: "Angry language rarely happens in isolation." Same with some, not all incivility. That's why we need the foundation to hire 5-10 part-time trained mediators to do it and train volunteers in it. They could put a few thousand a month into that from their to million a year.

Most incivility comes from content disputes and a good mediator can cut through the games to the policy issues. I had an inexperience issue who had to start from scratch in the middle and she still did a great job solving the issues on the article. But couldn't get one the next time I tried. (And the time after the two problem individuals would not join the 4-5 editors who wanted it.) If mediation were more easily available, failure to enter a legitimate/issue based one should be taken into account in future discussions.

If this isn't the place to make this happen, what is? My first idea is a positive petition on Wikimedia.org. It's likely to be given more attention that the negative one vs. the Media viewer (discussion of mediaviewr off topic here.) Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

History of incivility issue on Wikipedia??
Reading some old threads I did see one that talked about a period when people were getting blocks for really minor issues. (And I wondered if part of that tendency was the ridiculous 6 month block I got in 2011, later knocked down to 2 weeks after community outcry, my recognizing my error and confessing and apologizing.) I know in 2012 editors got rid of Wikiquette noticeboard. If over enforcement was a problem in the past, it seems to have gone to the other extreme now where people can say and do all sorts of things and a lot of editors are willing to vocally say/shout "just get over it". Now the pendulum seems to swinging back as some say "Get over that? Are you crazy??" Are there details of past events it would be helpful to know for current discussion? Thoughts in general? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Muck raking over old history is of little interest to those who come to contribute content. If you look for trouble you will find it. This project should really be looking to retain editors who provide content not providing a platform for looking for editors somebody perceives to be rude. The past is done, will picking old sores really produce an encyclopedia? J3Mrs (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the bad Admins I've encountered are still bad Admins, and are still here. Are you asking us to pretend they're not? HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you had any evidence of that you would start a discussion somewhere in order to raise an arbcom case to propose removal of someone's admin rights. J3Mrs gave an excellent response to a forum posting—claims of admin abuse does not help. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Heaps of evidence. All seen by other Admins, who did, for example, reverse my blocks, but no consequences for the bad Admins. I have no idea how to raise an arbcom case. Nor should I have to know. I wasn't the offender. I did challenge POV pushers. And the arbcom thing is surely something the other slightly better Admins should have done anyway, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Hilo stands a much better chance to get sanctions for consistent incivility, either per WP:BOOMERANG o when someone finally takes him to RFC/P.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Look! There's one right there! ^ A Putin hating, POV pushing Admin who took me to ANI, and lost. LOL. Shouldn't be allowed to be an Admin. But suffered no consequence for his bad report of me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to respond to this, just to remark that the previous reply, as most of the things Hilo writes are, is factually incorrect. Last time he called me a "Russia hater", lol.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right. I made a mistaken assumption about precisely who or what you were ranting against. You pointed out the truth. I accepted that and acknowledged my mistake. A good thing, surely. But hating Putin still seems to generate a lot of POV pushing here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought I was referring to opening old wounds and seeking out editors who might use strong language. I didn't mention any sort of admins. Consider me baffled. But I'll tell you something for nothing, 80% of my time here has been spent on articles but since I've been feeling a bit brassed off since the dear leader decreed content doesn't matter, I've been commenting and have to say it's a lot easier than writing.J3Mrs (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Not the strong language thing again. There are far worse sins committed here than strong language. Anyway, I find it's an effective way of drawing attention to "civil" POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm approach is best. I tend to 'ignore' any editors (administrator or not), if/when they throw f-bombs or other (what I deem as) colourful language at me, on article mainspace talkpages or through their edi-summaries. Misbehaviour from any editor on my talkpage, is usually pointed out by myself & poster's 'unexcepted' words get censured. GoodDay (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * hits the nail on the head: If you look for trouble you will find it.  There are tens of thousands of editors who just  get on  with the job of maintaining  and contributing to Wikipedia's 4 million  articles and we never hear a peep from  them or about  them. It seems to  be always the same 200 or so names that keep cropping up at ANI or over civility issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I get taken to ANI because I confront the POV pushers. It's important that somebody does. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting into disputes, sure got me in trouble. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are tens of thousands of editors who just get on with the job of maintaining and contributing to Wikipedia's 4 million articles and we never hear a peep from them or about them. Yeah, I've heard this argument before (from Floq), but if you think about it for two or more seconds you can see how shallow/invalid it is: How many of the tens of thousands edit maybe four edits per month, compared to well-more prolific editors, including those who also struggle solo in contentious areas (e.g. User:Sitush) or have expertise and oppose Randies instead of folding to watch gray goo take over in fear of admins who typically support the socks and Randies in lieu of established editors!?. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * WP's sheer raw vindictiveness would put the Mafia to shame. Eric   Corbett  11:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I should have said ''in general terms" details, since I wasn't really looking for names and dates. Looking for something like "Some admins went too far and there was a brouhaha at ArbCom" or whatever.
 * In a similar vein related to such a query, it also seems a few years back anybody who said anything off Wikipedia critical of Wikipedia or critical of editing habits of certain Wikipedians would get in big trouble and I barely talk about Wikipedia at all myself off Wiki for that reason. Yet as I discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment

at a recent ANI] about an editor writing critical things about another editor's editing-only habits off wikipedia, an editor [Jayen466 at 19:15 April 8,14] made an impassioned speech for free speech and the closer didn't think off wiki criticism was a big deal. At the time I though it was all sexism, but now wondering if it's some historical evolution to some new free speech movement that I missed and which perhaps has its rough edges that are causing problems.
 * Re: getting pissed at POV pushers, been there, done that many times. I got fed up with the Putin haters myself and decided it was the better part of valor to just stay out of it til things calmed down and it was clean up time. (Or til the big nuke war makes it irrelevant.)  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Putin haters are like bad Admins in general. They are obvious. They stand out like sore thumbs. Which is the aspect that bothers me most. If they are so obvious, why are they still allowed to edit? What are the rest of the Admins doing? HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, nothing. "Bad" is in the eye of the beholder, and only Arb can desysop.  Filing at Arb when your "proof" isn't rock solid is a good way to make enemies and put yourself under the microscope.  I did author WP:RAS (with the help of a former Arb), and others have done similar, but the non-admin haven't wanted the authority to desysop anyone outside of an Arb hearing.  All efforts to make it so the community can desysop have failed, not because of other admin, but the community itself.  Dennis 16:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically in my case, I would resign as soon as I feel that the community does not trust me anymore. However, so far I only had two users who have been increasingly vocal about me, both with a non-empty block log. To me, this doe not yet sound as the community opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I challenged you over your anti-Putin POV pushing, something that is unfortunately common due to our pro-American systemic bias. You took me to ANI, quoting the fact that I had been blocked in the past in that cesspit of injustice, something that tends to happen to those who take on the POV pushers. You lost. You should have copped a boomerang, but as a member of the protected Admin species, you naturally suffered no further consequences. You empty block log simply means that being an Admin you escaped sanction. ANI stinks. But did you not feel that something might have been wrong with your behaviour, or do you intend to just keep popping up wherever I edit now, still trying to get rid of me? HiLo48 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was pretty clear that I am not going to respond to you. You may want to stop wasting your time.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your (lack of) response hardly matters. Telling the rest of the readers here about how Admins can freely abuse the system is part of this discussion. Your thoughts are obvious, and help to reinforce my point. I embarrassed you, but that's all. The sad thing is that you suffered no other consequences. Nor do other badly behaved Admins. We cannot have such a powerful, protected species here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the best forum for hashing out differences in a specific situation (one I know nothing of, and have no opinion of). This is an example of where a mediator *might* be helpful. Speaking only in general, admin do get cut extra slack in some circumstances, and actually less in a rare few. Not all that can be blamed on the admin getting the extra slack, however, as we all will grab a rope when handed to us.  Human nature and all. ie: the issue isn't individuals really, it is systemic.  I'm not saying that applies here (I really have no idea), nor excusing any admin who receives that extra slack, just stating the obvious that this falls under "life isn't fair", and if the community as a whole ignores something, there isn't much recourse.  At ANI, most of the participants and drive by commenters are not admin, after all.  For every admin ignoring something there, there are at least 10 non-admin doing the same. Dennis 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's the Admins who have the authority to do something about it, not the non-Admins. At ANI, the Admins ignore bad behaviour from all but the accused, with the occasional exception of a boomerang for the accuser. (So long as that accuser is not an Admin. They can simply run free.) Dennis, I was trying to depersonalise this matter in my previous post, but one particular badly behaved Admin seem to be following me around. It's hard to ignore him. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I won't get involved in that (nor marginalize it). But I do think that in general, you are generalizing a bit.  I've two years of patrolling ANI, and god knows I'm not perfect, but what I've noticed at ANI is more randomness than anything.  If you pick the right cases, you can conclude anything.  As for admin looking mainly at the accused, well, there are usually diffs providing evidence against the accused and not diffs showing problems with the accusers.  That means we have to go look, and sometimes we miss stuff.  The one filing (whether it is because there is an ax to grind or legit reason) will typically spend more time researching than others.  Again, not saying it is "fair", just saying that when you are an admin reviewing a case and trying to find a solution, you WILL miss stuff from time to time.  We really can't help it.  We can't spend 3 hours on a case doing extensive background searching, and some editors are so prolific, that is what it would take, as they have many, many edits per day, and most are pretty good edits.  Not an excuse, just the reality of the situation.  Even the most experienced admin is still an amateur/volunteer.  We aren't professional investigators.  Some of us have investigator experience and training, but not here.  We err.  Dennis 22:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Admins are amateurs/volunteers, but they sought the job. One must always wonder why. There was no conscription. Some wave the Admin flag a lot, telling the world how important that makes them. Some use it to threaten others who disagree with them on article Talk pages. (I reckon that as soon as that happens they should be immediately blocked for a very long time.) Some responsibility to look beyond the surface must come with the fame and glory some obviously see in holding that rank. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Death toll
Well Jimbo has planted himself firmly at the hard core end of politically-correct civility enforcement and harassment on Wikipedia. The death knell has started ringing for serious content builders and perhaps this project. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Wikipedia is constantly changing site. The only thing that could kill it is lack of donations. PS: Not all serious content builders are the same :) GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By this project I meant WikiProject Editor Retention, not Wikipedia itself. That will survive, just fail to reach it's potential. It will be a lovely playground for social networkers. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how Jimmy's opinion is going to change this project, he is one person, one voice, and one voice who is slowly walking away from Wikipedia. That doesn't mean his opinion isn't valid, I'm just saying I doubt Jimmy is going to go off and play dictator on this issue.  That said, I think  and  make good arguments there, as do others, and as I often do, I disagree with Jimmy's perspective.  It isn't that we want incivility, but we think there needs to be an even playing field, which includes everyone tolerating a little incivility every now and then.  Our goal needs to first be equity, not a harsh line in the sand, or a shot across the bow by banning Eric, the poster child for civility.  At the end of the day, this isn't an experiment in creating a society, we are here solely to build an encyclopedia that is free (as in speech and beer) for the world to use.  Everything takes a back seat towards that goal, and should.  You start choking down on editors for minor incivility, you will lose a great deal of editors, perhaps myself.  Dennis 23:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the gender page, which I wasn't watching, and I'm currently not watching ANI. What a mess.  Dennis 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the first things I came to realize when I started here was that Wales' opinion on most subjects is worthless, and this is no exception. What often gets missed in those discussions is the use of policy by some people to silence those who disagree with them and manipulate the system into something they desire. Wikipedia's overly dense web of policies, essays mistaken for or applied as policy, and the ability of some to use that web to provoke and then silence others is the greatest obstacle to the encyclopedia reaching its potential. More policies aren't what we need... Intothatdarkness 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't always agree with Jimmy, and he may turn out more PC than me on civility, he certainly seems to think it is more important than I do. There are some who think that if we deal with the project's incivility then we solve our editor retention problems and won't need this project; I think that grossly overstates things and that there are more important problems to fix. Others are under the misapprehension that one can't be both civil and a serious contributor. My assumption is that if we could be genuinely, fairly and consistently a more civil place then in the medium to longterm it would be a net positive for editor retention, and I hope that the few who would need to would learn to curb their tongues rather than go. True to my personality type, I'm not really sure how to get there other than striving to keep my own postings civil and gently having a quiet word with people when appropriate; but a good place to start would be to try and define and agree the minimum standard of civility we want.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't be done. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically which of the three do you think can't be done? Me being civil, having a quiet word with people one perceives as incivil or defining and agreeing a standard for civility?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreeing on a standard for civility. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've tried, I've seen others try, but the global nature of the place makes it very hard, WP:BIAS and all. I would love to see a simple set of rules on civility that was reasonable, flexible and could be applied to admin as well as non, too, but I'm simply not smart enough to come up with it.  For me, WP:NPA is the gold standard, as it is easy to judge most of the time, easy to understand, and it applies universally.  Raising the bar from there has proven quite difficult, but not from a lack of trying.  Until then, I'm forced to (try to) treat non-admin the same as we treat admin when it comes to civility, so if admin are tolerating something from fellow admin, then we must tolerate it from non-admin, or we are being hypocrites.  Dennis 10:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think NPA is lways easy to apply, as people seem to have different opinions what a personal attack is. (Again, English is not my mothertongus, so that I may be closer to the sideline here, but I certainly seen many situations when A and B clash, B gets offended, and A thinks there was nothing offensive said at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * if admin are tolerating something from fellow admin, then we must tolerate it from non-admin That seems to be in contradiction to expectation of admin behavior to be at "a higher standard" and implies it is at lower standard (then adjust the standard lower according to how low admins go). Also, assessment how admin treat other admin as a basis what level of civility reg users must abide, is skipping the observation how admins treat reg users (why skip the biggest area of complaint from reg users?). Also, WP:NPA is [...] easy to judge most of the time, easy to understand Instead of soft abstractions, how about specific examples (e.g., PA or no?: "I notice your postings are nasty toward others, I think what you do is damaging to Wikipedia, and that you should just leave the site."). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean that as a base standard, ie: if admin can do it, then at a minimum, non-admin can do it. "Higher standard" is on the other side of that, and best left for a separate discussion.  For admin, I think the higher standard mainly refers to the frequency of transgression more than the type, but again, another discussion.  And your quote, I would not call that a personal attack by any stretch.  It is a blunt observation and opinion, and if pursued beyond the single statement (or made at an admin board) should be backed by diffs as it is an extraordinary claim. That is not all the same as saying "You're an idiot.", which is rude and somewhat mild by NPA standards, but an obvious line in the sand. Dennis 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not call that a personal attack by any stretch. Well, I agree with you (i.e. clearly no PA); but, that quote was just a copyedit and essentially no different from this comment by a user, which was labelled "personal attack" by admin The Bushranger here. Also in the same thread admin Drmies seems to be suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong please ) that the user's comment was one of several valid enough reasons for an indef-block. (So it seems Dennis, your view re "easy interpretation" and "universality" of comprehension of WP:NPA isn't shared at all by your other fellow active admins. [And this just one example happened practically while you were so-saying!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with another admin, we admin disagree with each other more than you realize. We even get rude with each other and argue policy; we just do it in email, out of professional courtesy.  I tend to agree with those two more than disagree with them, but we have all publicly (politely) disagreed with each other.  Drmies is saying that the rude comment is part of a pattern and this diff  is probably the straw that broke the camel's back, a legal threat.  While not the most serious sounding, it is specifically what WP:DOLT is about, we can't allow that to stay on a page.  But as for, no, I wouldn't call that a personal attack. Honestly, it wasn't really rude, it was just a blunt opinion.  Again, I don't have the context and only looking looking at single diffs, so this isn't a statement against anyone.  You know me well enough to know that I wouldn't have even reverted it off my talk page, and probably would have just manually archived it after a few days.  It really isn't strong enough to even use as part of a pattern, unless that pattern was harassment of that person. Dennis 2&cent; 12:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies is saying that the rude comment is part of a pattern No, that is not what he said, this is what he said: Of the half a dozen or so valid reasons to indef-block this person, Acroterion chose "legal threat". The point is your assertion WP:NPA is the gold standard, as it is easy to judge most of the time, easy to understand, and it applies universally implying that NPA compared to other CIV policies is somehow easier to apply or more able to be applied less inconsistently or less contentiously than others, doesn't pan out in practice. (But do you really think those admins interpret NPA such that the user's comment met the criteria?! Because what I think is quite different -- that admins will use/misuse/twist/abuse policy any way they please to achieve he results/sanctions they want to impose.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what Drmies said might be open to interpretation, it really depends on how you read it. I took it as him lumping them together. I haven't read it all, forgive me for being very general.  An not every admin reads NPA the same way, I already know that.  Most would consider me quite liberal when it comes to enforcing civility, or just blocking in general (outside of sockpuppetry).  Can admin twist things around and block prematurely? Of course, and obviously some do.  Those that do regularly eventually get the boot.  I can't really change that, and trust me, I've tried.  Not every knee jerk reaction block is "abuse", however, sometimes it is just bad judgement or misreading the tea leaves.  I really wish you had the admin bit for a few months.  It wouldn't change your mind about abuse and such, but it would help you understand how easy it is to simply make a mistake, and why sometimes we just don't want to get involved with a particular issue.  Being an admin isn't nearly as much fun as you might think, enough so that more admin are giving up their bits twice as often as people are lining up at RFA.  I've seriously debated it myself, and had it typed out at WP:BN once, but didn't submit.  Not to quit Wikipedia, but just so I wouldn't have to deal with the hassles.  Even now, I love to read Wikipedia, but typically do it logged out so I don't have to see notifications.  Being an admin has sucked much of the joy out of being here.  This doesn't excuse bad behavior, nor does it contradict the idea that abuses happen, but walking a mile in an admins shoes might help to understand how something might look like abuse when it is something different.  It's a bit more complicated than I can explain within the context of this discussion. Dennis 2&cent; 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. I would not call that a personal attack by any stretch. And I agree with you. And I don't think any reasonable person would match that user's comments up to WP:NPA. Your logic is bad for two reasons Dennis, first, you're assuming all admins are like you and would not relish their power-positions on WP and enjoy abusing them. (There are people who let their extra powers here go to their head, and have relished being abusive with said powers. And you say that if they regularly do that they are routinely de-sysopped, when everyone knows just how difficult and rare that is to bring about. And the topic is appropriate for this project, since there are many editors driven away by admins over-reaching for the block button -- that is beyond any doubt and could be diff'd galore.) The existence of admins who relish their positions to abuse others for their own satisfactions on the WP is appropriately labelled corruption. You seem to be excusing all admins, characterising abuses with "oh gee they are tired/burnt-out, you would understand if you were in their shoes, and we should all try and understand them better". (That's why I say hogwash. You could excuse any admin for any abuse with that logic.) Second, to say or assert that you and The Bushranger just have a "different interpretation" of WP:NPA, where that user's comment is a far stretch from a PA according to you, and a PA according to The Bushranger, is ... too much to swallow. (Are you really saying people would maintain a straight face, to see The Bushranger try to logically and reasonably explain and defend how he labelled that comment a PA??) Again, hogwash. (And defending him with "oh, he's tired, you must forgive him" is BS, Dennis. It is a voluntary position. No one demands that they be here, or be active here. They can take a Wikibreak. They can choose to exercise/flex their admin muscles more conservatively. You've many times acted as apologist for admins who've been abusive so as to be a pattern from you, Dennis, and that's not good, especially for the founder of this particular project.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not apologizing for anyone. I haven't researched it enough to take a hard stance, however.  I did say I disagreed with categorizing that as a personal attack.  Not sure what else I can do unless I jump in and get involved, something I'm not really expecting.  There is a big difference between not being sure about someone's action and suggesting caution before blocking them, and being an apologist.  I haven't agreed with anything anyone has done, I've just said I don't have all the info.  It would be pretty irresponsible to jump to conclusion, whether they were admin or not.  In that respect, I would say I'm treating them the same as anyone else.  I have called out other admin, mainly in private, but also in public.  In public, I'm the one that gets called names, with the real apologists saying I should have my bit stripped.  I'm more than familiar with the drill around here, perhaps more than you realize.  Dennis 2&cent; 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You've managed to overcomplicate a simple thing. The Bushranger's claim the user's comment was a PA, was BS, and you don't need a thorough research to draw that conclusion. (Ditto Drmies's followup, suggesting the comment was alone deserving of an indef-block. [I know you said you didn't "interpret" what he wrote that way, but hey I was just using my understanding of English excuse me, and isn't Drmies some sort of professor whereby he has command of the language as revealed also in his discussions w/ Eric!? Sheesh Dennis -- no apologist -- sure!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I already agreed with you that the Bushranger comment wasn't a personal attack, a couple of times. The other, I would have to look at the other issues before jumping to conclusions but didn't say you were wrong, just that I didn't have enough info on Drmies' comment.  That isn't remotely complicated.  You're arguing with me after I agreed with you on one point and refused to argue with you on the other because I simply don't have enough info. Dennis 2&cent; 12:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that a tightening of WP:CIVIL is coming our way. There's a wave building up & things are gonna be rough for awhile, as we'll have to make adjustments to our conduct. Indeed, some editors will (regretfully) retire, but there'll be newbies to replace them. Thus the nature of the project, it's always changing. GoodDay (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Eric   Corbett  22:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you're right. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually am. Eric   Corbett  22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" but you should always bet that way. Dennis 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I betted that the community would demand my site-ban be lifted, back in Oct 2013 or atleast the restoration of my talkpage privillages. Neither happened, oh well :( GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GoodDay: You keep alluding to a ban but have not said if it was for incivility and if the incivility was anything as bad as that which has been discussed all over WP:ANI the last few months. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bad"? Unfortunately, that's a subjective word too. Some editors see swearing (at least their definition of it) as being far worse than anything else. I don't. And I suspect others are like me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Subjectivity is the Achilles Heel for admin, and again, why it is only responsible to use the tools in areas where there is little ambiguity. To bolster your point, HiLo48, if you told me "your writing on some article is shit.", one person would call that a personal attack, another would call it gratuitous use of swear words, I would probably snicker and say "give me an example", and then if needed, argue with you over grammar/commas/US usage vs. AU usage/etc. Or I might say "Yeah, prose isn't my thing, I'm more of a researcher and meant to polish that but forgot." I would take it as a blunt assessment, with the wording chosen to get my attention.  If you did that all the time, yeah, it would get old, but not singularly.  That is an instance where two people would be calling for you to get blocked for different reasons, but the "target" person just seeing it as being blunt.  Probably not a good idea to say to editors, but sometimes it is reasonable to be that blunt.  Sometimes.  Dennis 2&cent; 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What if someone said "you vomit bullshit excuses for maximum incivility?" I've had the like thrown at me. Does that sort of thing meet your threshold?  Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not the best example, particularly being an admin. I will just say that I have had people say worse to me and I just ignore it.  Part of that is just being how I am, confident enough (or arrogant, I will let you decide) that I'm not particularly moved by other's opinions of me unless they are someone who is directly involved in my life.  The other part is being an admin, you get thick skin.  I might get a bit pissed when I see Editor A call Editor B a name, but seldom do I get bent out of shape by someone calling me a name.  Hounding me, yes, that gets old, but that isn't a singular thing, a concept I've talked about at length. I've been called an idiot, told to fuck off, etc. lots of times.  Delete someone's pet article, and some will flip out a bit.  I don't take it personal, they don't know me enough to even make it personal.  To be honest, your phrase confused me more than anything.  You aren't very good at being incivil ;)  The point being is that the same phrase will affect different people differently, which is why I try really hard to simply ignore single comments, so if someone said "Carol, you suck", I wouldn't say much except maybe to ask them to tone it down.  If they come after and start reverting all your edits with the summary "lies" or similar, then I would block them for WP:DE - disruptive editing, instantly. That isn't a singular issue, that is a pattern of harassing, which I personally won't tolerate as that makes it miserable for the editor who is on the receiving end.  That doesn't mean that the singular comments was nice, or fair, or civil.  It just means I can't know how you took it, if it was a joke and I just don't get it, or what their motivations are.  When they follow and revert, their motivations are much easier to demonstrate. We can't and won't take action on every infraction, just those that are clearly and obviously affecting others.  Dennis 2&cent; 23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the context too. Angry language rarely happens in isolation. Such a comment would obviously be a response to something that had gone before, and it's possible that it followed something far worse (probably not from you, Carol), or perhaps less dramatically nasty, but persistent over months or years. It's latter that's the far bigger problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I found in my experience that mediation helps defeat the POV pushers/uncivil insulters etc. because it cuts through their games. (See section above.) The worst thing about games and insults is that after a while they seem like "normal behavior" and others adopt them unthinkingly. The bad editors drive out the good, minus smart third party intervention. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * POV pushers are time bombs anyway, it is always just a matter of time. My observation is that most admin (and the public at ANI) are quick to indef a POV warrior for the same infractions, because the POV is a compounding factor demonstrating it isn't likely to get better, and the act of POV is itself disruptive.  They is demonstrating they are a POV warrior, not just someone that has a different opinion.  That usually means seeing the same edits over many pages/articles.  And they tend to be quick to anger, because they aren't interested in the truth, they are interested in The Truth&reg;.  It's also one reason I try to avoid articles with religious overtones.  As for other seeing it and thinking that is ok, this is one reason it helps to comment about their actions with some gentle but firm authority, but not to actually use the admin tools. It's not a great solution, just the best I have. Dennis 2&cent; 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at all the BLPNs, NPOVNs, ANIs, etc a few of us did throughout 2013 to deal with two POV pushers (who also were wikihounders) and see how Admins refused to deal with it and it was pushed up to a higher authority where finally the 5+ and several neutral parties made it clear POV pushing had to stop. It was stopped, though the Wikihounding continued til the admins finally dealt with it. It's the kind of thing that makes super-admins look good, and there was nary a gun barrel in sight. ("Gun barrel" being the new code phrase for admins who let "connected" editors get a way with just about anything.)
 * Hey, here's a slogan for this project: "For a new Wikipedia, SANE and SAFE." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd still say, having a thick skin is the best approach. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We should always be looking for sanity anyway. And I'm not sure what the word SAFE means in that context. Maybe it's a cultural thing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Safe can mean things like Wikimedia Foundation stopping death threats from coming though their email system before they reach 500, instead after they reach 1000. It could meant editors not standing up for "gun barrell" threats and thinking 24 hour block is enough. It could mean not having to beg ANI, arbitrators and admins for a year to get a harasser off your back until you almost stop editing. Little things like that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hang in there, always
My hope is that editors who get discouraged with Wikipedia & have retired or are contemplating retirement, will view me as an example of dedication & perseverance. I hope they'll be inspired by this Wiki-gnome & hang in there :) GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * They can visit User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Collaboration.—Wavelength (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominees require seconds
Editor of the Week seeks to recognize underappreciated content contributors for their outstanding contributions. There are currently two nominees @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations that await seconding. We are always concerned that we maintain our queue of accepted nominations at a "Don't worry" level. Do you have someone who fits the criteria to be Editor of the Week? If so, consider nominating them here. ```Buster Seven   Talk  17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:GoodDay for his quick response. The ink wasn't even dry on my request and he answered the call for a second. As usual, we can always use a few more nominations. ```Buster Seven   Talk  17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)