User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 168

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

→

Google's Impact Challenge

Jimbo, good job volunteering for the Google "Impact Challenge". However, are you aware that someone who said they have worked with employees of Google may have been violating the WMF's Terms of Use recently, when they added this content to Google.org without disclosing that they are paid by Google (if we can assume they are paid by Google, which is hardly a stretch)?

In 2013, Google.org created [http://g.co/globalimpactchallenge Google Impact Challenges]—a grant competition for nonprofits using technology. The public votes for winners on the Google Impact Challenge website. Google has held Impact Challenges in the UK, India, Bay Area, Brazil and Australia.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://google.org/global-impact-awards/challenge/}}</ref>

Fortunately, a bot quickly reverted User:Emilykettering's spammy links, so Wikipedia's integrity was protected. But, as long as you're at the Impact Challenge now, maybe mention to Jacquelline Fuller that it's not appropriate for Google employees to directly edit Google.org (or for that matter, the articles about Andy Rubin, Susan Wojcicki, Cynthia Kenyon, or Hal V. Barron, who are all employed by Google or subsidiaries). We know your track record on this is untarnished, that you'll advise anyone and everyone about the Bright Line Rule, regardless of your personal or professional affiliations. Keep up the good work! - Spotting ToU (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. 2001.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to know my IPv6 address, so we must assume you ran a CheckUser without going through the proper channels. AN/I for you! (Just kidding.) You're welcome, by the way. Maybe the WMF should hire a former paid editor to exclusively ferret out undisclosed conflict-of-interest editing being done by any vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates of the Wikimedia Foundation. It could be a 10-hour-per-week contractor role, for 1/8th the salary of Lila Tretikov ($60 an hour, approximately). Think about it. - Spotting ToU (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I support the foundation hiring someone (but I see no reason to think that former paid editors have the right skills for this) to assist the community in combatting all kinds of spam - of course including any done by vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates. And you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding, and maybe I missed an inside joke or something, but is it appropriate to mention somebody and how much money they make? That seems like pretty personal information in my view. I don't know who Lila Tretikov is, so perhaps I'm missing something, but I know I would not want my name and financial info put out like that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipediocracy staff, including the one who started this thread, have been engaging in that (and worse) since the day she was appointed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

>so we must assume you ran a CheckUser without going through the proper channels

>I don't think Jimbo needed "CheckUser glasses" to behaviorally discern your identity. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Horrors! You mean to say that people responsible for Wikipediocracy have engaged in looking at Form 990 documents that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to file as a tax-exempt organization, then repeating this publicly-available compensation information... in public?! And then you weasel in an "(and worse)" to make us believe that even more heinous things are taking place at Wikipediocracy than looking at government-mandated documents? Someone should call the FTC and get Wikipediocracy shut down. - Spotting ToU (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just found out who she was (Thanks Viriditas!) and so I'm a bit embarrassed, lol. I actually thought Sue Gardner was still director. My apologies for my ignorance. Still, we should try to keep the five pillars standing, and do our best to present good examples to others. If I let slip someone's financial information when handling a new account request, I would lose my account creator responsibilities and access to the tool, so I'm a bit hyper-aware when it comes to those things. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To chime in regarding the edit(s) in question, there was a misunderstanding on my part and this should not reflect on the Google.org or Google team as a whole. Thank you! - Emilykettering (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-tenured administrators

Just floating a thought here, prompted by one of the comments above. What if administrators weren't tenured? There are very few tenured positions in the real-world, and other aspects of Wiki have undergone periodic reviews as requirements have tightened (eg FA, GA), so why not something similar for administrators here?

Administrators every 3-4 years could undergo a brief, mandatory community review, something like an RfA, in which their behavior and decision-making over that time span is reviewed.

Advantages

Administrators may be more cautious when acting in disputes, and more careful and professional in what they say, without the freedom to run rough-shod over civility in the name of brevity.
Contentious administrators that do not reflect community consensus or appear to be immune from other forms of review may be removed over time
This time period will be sufficient to address the issue of admins who straddle the boundaries of civility, sexism and stirring the fire
May improve the quality of administrators, as they are forced to be responsive to the community of other editors
Mirrors the removal of tenured positions in real-life due to these same above issues (namely improving quality and ability to remove poor performers)

Disadvantages

May impact the ability of administrators to resolve 'controversial issues' -- however as we have seen, if anything the tenured position of administrators makes divisiveness more likely
Will be stressful, and may decrease our administrator levels -- however, I think this may actually expand the user base by improving the atmosphere
The process may be equally as divisive as the current circumstances -- however, the admin group as a whole will likely become more civil and professional

This is not a comment about any admin in particular, but a statement that the community may be improved by removing the tenured position from the admin role. I mean a mandatory maximum term after which admin rights are removed, not the semi-voluntary self-review that admins may choose to engage in. This idea could be trialled for a few administrators and then expanded to the full group. What are the thoughts of other users? 129.94.102.201 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Term limits for administrators has been up in the past and like all attempts at reform in the past seven years or so that I have been around here, has been shot down. I once supported the idea but now feel the systemic problems run too deep to be fixed without WMF intervention. Jus da fax 07:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for this. We just need to be more willing to block admins who use their tools contrary to community expectations. If they unblock themselves they can be desysoped. If they are blocked often then there is arbcom.

As it stands if an admin is blocked they tend to be unblocked right away by another admin and the blocking admin is abused, regardless of the validity of the block. Chillum 07:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If the community provides unambiguous rules to admins on how the tools should be used in a particular instance, and an admin refuses to abide after being informed, the community and/or Arbcom is generally pretty quick to deal with it. But there has never been consensus to establish such rules when it comes to civility/NPA. Instead, we rely very much on Admin discretion to deal with the issues, and then a bunch of people get upset however that discretion is used. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It would be interesting to hear from people familiar with the Swedish Wikipedia how the system of one-year term limits is working there. Are they generally happy with it? Is there a perception that it has made admins more cautious? More likely to curry favour from other admins and try to be friends with everybody? @Peter Isotalo: ? Bishonen | talk 13:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

I will note that any lessons or experiences that we attempt to draw from svwiki (Swedish Wikipedia) should be taken with great caution. Enwiki (English Wikipedia) has 1407 administrators; svwiki has 69. For annual reconfirmations on svwiki, there are 5 or 6 reconfirmations each month; on enwiki, there would be 120. (Even if you stretch out to 3 year intervals, enwiki would still see an unwieldy 40 reconfirmations per month.) The pool of Swedish admins is far enough below Dunbar's number that a significant proportion of editors (including other admins) are likely to be able to contribute constructively to reconfirmation hearings. (To a greatly oversimplified approximation, it remains a "small town" where "everyone still knows everybody else".)

On a related note, the pool of Swedish speakers in the world at large is much, much smaller, appreciably less geographically diverse, and more culturally homogeneous. To take one silly issue we deal with at enwiki, Swedish speakers don't have to deal with endless bickering over U.S. versus UK versus Australian versus Canadian English. Svwiki doesn't have to face the same scale of nationalistic and ethnic disputes that would be imported into an enwiki reconfirmation process.

Svwiki experimented with an Arbitration Committee for a couple of years, but abandoned it in 2008. Enwiki has had an ArbCom since 2004 (or thereabouts), and has established policies, procedures, and experience for dealing with admin misconduct. Because of our size (and out of necessity) we have developed institutions that svwiki could not support—in the same way that we could not support the burden of reconfirmation circuses. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of those consequences of the difference in size and diversity, as they have been widely stated before. I just thought my particular queries might still be of some interest, mutatis mutandis. But thank you for preempting the need to answer them. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

I figured that you would be aware of those differences, but the same probably couldn't be said for everyone participating in this discussion and I thought it relevant to mention them. It's best to be clear from the beginning when we are having a philosophical discussion versus when we are considering a policy proposal, as it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference.

Though truth be told, I didn't know some of the details until I went looking a few minutes ago. The precise size of svwiki's admin corps, for instance—if pressed, I might have guessed 30 or I might have guessed 150. I wonder if their annual review procedure was instituted when that corps was smaller, or when it was about the same size as it is know, and I do wonder if there are concerns about what will happen if it grows larger. Or another example—I don't know if svwiki has any mechanism (beyond 'ask a steward') for desysopping admins who misuse their tools; I didn't know that svwiki doesn't have an ArbCom, and I didn't know that they had experimented with one. (And I don't know why it shut down six years ago.)

I certainly don't see anything wrong with hearing answers to your questions. Even though their policy solution wouldn't work here, we could still learn something useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I generally agree with your analysis. From my limited experience with admin nominations on Swedish Wikipedia, I have come to the conclusion that the regulars over there really, really dislike discussions about other regulars that are critical of behavior, even if they are reasonably constructive. To some degree, it's a result of the small size of the community, but also the debate and discussion culture. There used to be a regular desysopping procedure like here, but as far as I know bred irritation, dispute. And, believe it or not, a majority vote was required to to depose someone. So "sitting" admins could keep their positions with less support than new nominations. Limited tenure for admins was as far as I know a pragmatic solution to get away from the old rules and to avoid having to put any user in the awkward position of instigating a vote against someone.

And I should add that Swedish Wikipedia has no functioning dispute resolution process beyond raising issues at the Village Pump and normal talkpage activity. That means that long-running grudges between regulars, or between regulars and outsiders and newbies, tend not to get resolved. It's part of the reason why I recently decided to leave Swedish Wikipedia for good.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about adminships being tenured here, but you're right. And to ask if that "policy" (is it a policy?) should be reconsidered is a good one. And the fact that it might not work on the English Wikipedia as it is administered on the Swedish WP is no reason to dismiss it without due consideration. How about any administrator who has received "X" number of formal complaints in a 12-month period needs to go through a review process. "X" could be a set number, or a percentage of some other number. It could be total complaints, or it could be "E" number of editor complaints and/or "A" number of admin complaints. I don't know. These are off the top of my head, but I think that's what Jimbo is looking for, right? Let's throw some ideas out there and really think about them. Lightbreather (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, many of these things have been discussed previously and the entire concept is listed as a perennial proposal. There are some linked discussions at that link that provide some of the arguments in support and in objection to these ideas. Reso lute 15:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is not tenure, but that we don't have enough admins to handle the flood of spam, hoaxes, bad AfCs, and AfD closures.

If so, perhaps the answer is to encourage administrators and those with similar rights (e.g., Arbitrators, even Jimbo) to start nominating long-term editors to be Administrators. Once there are enough, periodic recertification can be reconsidered. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If privileges were to be unbundled and then redistributed in rational and targeted ways to experienced editors who want and are properly equipped to use them, then there would be no problem at all handling "the flood of spam, hoaxes, bad AfCs, and AfD closures". Instead, the vast bulk of the privileges that have been assigned are not used at all, because they have been assigned inappropriately to legacy admins, many appointed in the distant past when they were school boys. The problem is not that we need more admins. The problem is that we have far too many ineffectual admins who don't use, and wouldn't know how to use most of the tools they have been given. This is one of the reasons for the lack of professionalism we see in the Wikipedia administration. But admins as a group will never voluntarily relinquish their life tenures, which is why progress can never be made in improving the administration until the current overprivileged admins are excluded from voting against change to the system. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can reasonably say that because someone (or some-many) chooses to use only part of the tool-kit that we are "wasting" privilege on them. If we have "ineffectual admins" then we can resolve that by recruiting "effectual admins" - there is no pot of admin-juice that will run dry.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

I would think there are enough editors annoyed at enough admins to get a good consensus in favor of a term limit of say one year, with a mandatory six months off before they can do it again. Also, it should be easier to "encourage them to take a break" even sooner for substantive reasons. It would be good for admins and prevent quick burnout and would be a check on those who might be in it for the power trip or to push a POV. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that an administrator who does nothing controversial, but constantly passes the buck will get reelected, but one actually willing to make hard decisions will not. There are some problem areas on Wikipedia that break our rules. There's lots of Theosophy articles that present very, very out there beliefs without framing them as part of the Theosophical religion. Alternative medicine has issues with having far too many articles to monitor, leading to what are, effectively, WP:COATRACKs. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming survives by having the people who support its POV-pushing be much quicker to oppose deletion arguments - and because admins who, fearful of a controversial decision, close as no-consensus deletion debates even if it's not justified. We need admins willing to enforce Wikipedia policies, with some modicum of protection if they do so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were to reform itself and operate a rational administration system, one which was seen to be fair and allowed content builders a genuine voice, then the common sense shown by the average content builder just might surprise you Adam. Many of the worst controversies and resentments revolve around the sense of helplessness experienced by content builders when unskillful admins make idiosyncratic and destructive blocks. Of course Wikipedia needs a decent system for policing the behaviour of committed content builders, but it needs to be something quite different from what we have now. Perhaps the discipline of long term content builders would be better controlled by a panel specially constituted for the purpose. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The most frustrating thing to me over most of 8 years of editing is Admin's refusal to deal effectivelywith chronic BLP violations and violators. I knew there were some BLP-related arbitrations and finally earlier this year WP:General sanctions was set up to make easier to identify those Arbitrations which hopefully will help. I haven't been dealing with BLP issues since, so don't really know. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no way forward with the current admin system, where admins often seem to lie in ambush on the sidelines until they can pounce and block content builders who step out of line because of the frustration and lack of support. Ask an admin to intervene and they will tell you it is a "content issue". But again, if we had a panel specially constituted for the discipline of committed content builders, that panel could also be empowered to resolve chronic BLP violations and the sort of POV issues Adam mentioned above. The members of the disciplinary panel would contain some of our most able admins, and some are very able indeed. At the moment, the best of our admins suffer as badly as the committed content builders from the resentments generated by the current system. Like committed content builders, able admins should get proper support and be able to work with some dignity. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Question from Colorado

Jimbo, what do you think are the reasons why your story about the founding of Wikipedia is so different from Larry Sanger's story? Note, I am not asking about whose story is more accurate, but rather your insight into why there is such divergence. Thanks, and I'll be smokin' through a bowl in your honor this afternoon. - 69.241.73.94 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are any significant differences, actually. There may be some minor differences in the way that there always are, due to different people's perspectives, having witnessed slightly different things, etc. There is a disagreement about terminology. But the essential facts are not in dispute.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Armenians asked to write Wikipedia entries to promote culture

Armenian government officials are encouraging Armenians to contribute to Wikipedia with the "One Armenian, One Article" television campaign. According to The Guardian: "[Misak] Ohanian estimates that of the 20,000 Armenians living in London, around 40% can speak either language [the Eastern or Western dialect], and only 10% can read and write in them." Therefore, I think an opportunity arises for the English language Wikipedia to connect with English-speaking Armenians, with an overall benefit to the encyclopedia.

Do you believe enWP should be involved in the campaign, and if so, what outreach should we give? Seattle (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Have an essay that makes it clear that the most effective way for them to improve articles on the topic is to learn Wikipedia rules so they don't end up frustrated when people who know the rules revert some of their material. Link to the most useful Help and Policy pages. And/or do a wikiproject if someone wants to do the work. Make sure the promoters know about it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedians in Armenia and Category:Wikipedians interested in Armenia

and Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia and Category:User hy.—Wavelength (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is a joke

The tolerance of the Wikipedia community in general, and you in particular to behavior such as this is the reason that conscientious contributors leave your project and never consider it either unbiased or uncensored, and that only POV-warriors remain. 97.93.139.201 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree that WP:V is too often a joke. People write random nonsense or even good-faith but erroneous material and it stays on the site for years. 188.27.81.64 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If insisting that material be properly sourced is 'POV', then it is a POV that is required of contributors - and one would have to assume, one that our readers approve of. Or do you think they'd prefer we just made stuff up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I went over to the article to see what was going on and it looks like it was blanked because of a misinterpretation and incorrect application of WP:BLP. I essentially expressed this opinion on its talk page Talk:List_of_pornographic_actors_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films#BLP_and_sourcing. The present state of the article is that it has been blanked. Not clear why the OP User:97.93.139.201 didn't discuss it there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It is now at WP:ANI and does not seem to be to leading towards any conclusion; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_pornographic_actors_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films Tutelary (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Some editors are commenting, Jimbo, that we dont need to reliably source people for inclusion in a list of people who have both been porn actors and appeared in mainstream films. They say the fact that these living people have articles is itself proof that they have been porn actors appearing in mainstream films (it apparently has nothing to do with the original research of the editors who have chosen these people for inclusion with no requirement apparently to reliably source their inclusion). It seems to me that having an article on wikipedia is not evidence itself of involvement in porn. Describing attempts to enforce BLP compliance by removing living people from this list because they are not reliably sourced as "blanking" fundamentally attacks our BLP policy, as do claims that these removals are "censoring" porn as if somehow porn lists mentioning living people without reliable sources is somehow acceptable or better than shorter reliably sourced lists. We know how difficult it can be for living people to remove themselves from such lists (or the encyclopedia) but this is because our watermark is reliably sourced information and I despair at all these editors claiming that porn lists are BLP exempt, without of course ever quoting policies to explain why this might be so. Quite apart from all the incivility its been depressing that we have to struggle so just to get BLP right on sucvh an important and potentially controversial subject as is porn. How can we defend our porn coverage on this site unless we get BLP right 100% of the time here? My first priority is the living porn workers, my second priority is wikipedia as an encyclopedia and my third priority is improving our porn coverage by making it more excellent in quality. I trust BLP will prevail. I have also been inspired to do this BLP compliance work now partly is inspired by comments on this page about getting more women involved in the project. IMO getting BLP right on our porn coverage will help attract new editors and more women to the site, quite the opposite of what the anon who opened this thread is claiming. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing for including a wikilinked article in a list is not the WIkipedia article itself, or the fact that the Wikipedia article exists, but in the article's own sources. Requiring a citation after every link in a list of blue links may be appropriate for certain lists where the inclusion criteria are difficult or contentious, as it may well be in this article. That has certainly helped another difficult article I work on, List of Internet phenomena, and it may be appropriate here. However, extending that requirement to all lists of people would be a major change in practice and would require an approach a lot more thoughtful and less disruptive and destructive of content than blanking all the lists. I am sympathetic to the original poster that self-styled policy vigilantes who get kicks out of disrupting other people's work while threatening, lecturing, and scolding them, is indeed a problem that scares the newbies and drives away productive editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that porn=inherently contentious or sexuality=inherently contentious is a problematic bias if applied to the entire encyclopedia, and does reflect a specific point of view that not all share. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting we have this conversation going on Why_is_working_in_Porn_contentious? On the Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The real problem seems to be that some people seem to think that a blue link to another article is some sort of 'reference' that gives a get-out clause for WP:BLP policy requiring sources for contentious material. It isn't. We don't cite Wikipedia as a source. That established contributors are unable to understand even elementary policy when it comes to issues as significant as WP:BLP is frankly depressing, and makes me wonder whether we should be writing about living people at all. Not that the list in question is exactly encyclopaedic anyway. Porn actors who have acted in non-porn films? What next? Actors who have appeared in comedy films and westerns? Actors who have appeared in war films, in westerns, and in films featuring chimpanzees? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The blue link is not the source, nor is wikipedia the source. The sources are in the article. Like it or not, the public and their faithful journalistic servants have a fascination with porn star going mainstream[1] so it is arguably a notable subject. There is indeed plenty of interest in other forms of crossover, such as Bollywood actors in Hollywood, Crossover (music), and so on. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy says that contentious material must be referenced. A blue link to an article is not a reference, end of story. We do not cite Wikipedia as a source. Ever. It isn't a reliable source for anything, per policy. If the original article contains a valid reference, add it to the list, and ensure the article complies with WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The BLP policy also says, explicitly, that citations are not required in the list because they are to be provided in the article. End of story, as you say. You are advocating for a change in policy by asserting incorrectly that it is already policy. That is fine, anybody is entitled to propose changes in policy, even to be wrong about them. The "joke" the original post refers to is when you edit war, threaten, scold, etc., those whose content you are trying to change. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It says no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So you are causing grief to the project based on a personal interpretation of the policy page that is not generally shared. The particular section of policy reads: ""the case for each content category must be made by the article text and its reliable sources...these principles apply equally to lists." - Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right - "the article" - not another article 'referenced' by a blue link. The article in question is the list... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't say, that, does it? You're reading something into the policy that isn't there. The only article with text and reliable sources (plural) is the article that contains the actual content about the subject of the link, list, category, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It says that contentious BLP material must be referenced. The list is an article. It must be referenced. Claiming that because the list doesn't have references it doesn't need them is a novel argument, but not a convincing one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To cut to the chase, BLP policy says that the inclusion of items on a list or category must be sourced, and it also says that the place to source them is in the article text. It does not say anywhere that the sources must be attached to the list. Claiming that the BLP policy page does not mean what the words say is the novelty, or to be more generous, a novel interpretation. You're free to differ but that ought to be a discussion, not an edit war to blank articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A stand-alone list is an article. Articles must be sourced. Removing violations of WP:BLP policy is not edit-warring, though restoring such violations certainly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Inline citations have been rejected as a practice already, wikidemon. How is demanding BLP compliance of porn articles exactly "causing grief to the project"? It is not based on a personal interpretation "not generally shared" but a straightforward interpretation of BLP as it affects real living people. And these lists are articles in their own right and thus subject to BLP, OR and all the other policies we have. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Currently I dont have any interest beyond porn lists, Wikidemon. I think BLP should always be a priority and potentially contentious subjects like porn (and many others) even more so where BLP is concerned. I dont have any doubts that demanding 100% BLP compliance for all porn articles is a reasonable and achievable goal. On the other hand calling people "self-styled policy vigilantes who get kicks out of disruptiving other people's work while threatening, lecturing, and scolding them" is an uncivil personal attack against people who "dare" to enforce BLP over the clamours of those who claim that they have the right to make up these lists with zero requirement for any reliable sources to guarantee their claims are not just made up. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold mirror. Look at self. Repeat. Please do not flop. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It has just been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing for this list is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet you won't explain what makes someone who works in the adult industry contentious which is what you're basing your assertion upon. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)

22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that it is entirely evident to anyone with an ounce of common sense why making unsourced assertions that individuals appear in pornographic films is contentious. As indeed is making assertions that people have appeared in pornographic films based on a source (unreliable) that says nothing of the kind. I have yet to see an explanation from you as to why you did that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You stated here that "The list in question asserted that multiple persons were porn stars." Actually the list asserted nothing. In reference to WP:PORNBIO which states that Notability of Adult industry performers can be established by appearances in Mainstream media, its a collection of mainstream films and television productions that are listed in the articles for these performers; in other words its the WP version of Data analysis. The assertion that any of these people is involved with the Adult industry is in the individual articles which were/are clearly linked in the list.

Furthermore, Werldwayd's analysis here also refutes your application of BLP. I added refs for the movies that these people have appeared in and you reverted it here. I didn't think anyone was ignorant enough to challenge that they are in fact working (or did) in the Adult industry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) :) 23:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What? You're Wikilawyering over the fact I used the word 'star' rather than 'actor' now? As for the IMDb refs you added, I have repeatedly pointed out that at least two (I only looked at half a dozen or so) didn't state that the persons concerned were pornographic actors. You have yet to explain why you did this. And why you were using IMDb at all, given the fact that WP:RS explicitly describes it as "largely not acceptable" as a source. Along with WP:RS/IMDB and Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb. And numerous threads on WP:RSN... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice attempt at deflection Andy, (I'm picturing you waving your arms erratically while I read this) I don't see where I'm WikiLawyering or making any distinction about "star" versus "actor". IMDb is fine for a persons work history, it wouldn't have over 70,000 instances of reference to it on Wikipedia if it were not. I'll say it again, "I added refs for the movies that these people have appeared in". For most Users here on WP, IMDb seems to just fine for just that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Werldwayd's analysis certainly does not offer a coherent explanation of why BLP can be ignored when it comes to porn lists nor does it mention the problem this might bring to real living people who are mentioned in these porn lists nor does he lament the loss of verifiability as a pillar of wikipedi which BLP exemptions for porn would bring in their wake. Scalhotrod has already stated he wants to see me topic banned, presumably with the same intent of thus avoiding BLP complaince and verifiability. I would obviously never agree to such a topic ban but this is coming from an editor who has consistently re ADDED material which has been identified as BLP non compliant so I dont take this too seriously, all the same the community needs to take a stand on BLP and require reliable sources for all porn lists of living people when challenged, and indeed all lists involving living people when challenged. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeak, I'll put Werldwayd's 180,000 edits up against your record any day. WW also does a nice job of explaining how bad your behavior has been. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WMF support for citation tools. Forthcoming?

As Wikipedia is rather different from academic publications in that almost everything in an article needs a citation, which results in much higher citation density than elsewhere, I find that without good supporting tools for formatting/generating citations, writing anything in Wikipedia is too much of a chore, as I'd spend more time formatting citations than writing the text itself. Three tools that I think are very useful in this regard are:

User:Citation bot—expands {{cite doi}} and such
reftag—useful for citing from google books, although there's more copypasta/manual actions involved than with the citation bot.
WP:REFLINKS—for citing web pages in general.

Even though they're much more important to me as an editor than much other stuff, all of these have had maintenance problems. Reftag less than the others because it's hosted as a Google App. I think it's rather unconscionable that the WMF doesn't provide full time developer support for these and instead leaves them to volunteers to maintain. There's also the issue of having to deal with 3 different interfaces for these tools; I'd like to see them unified. JMP EAX (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Design/Reference_Dialog#ISBN_cases. I raised the question of where all that cross-reference data is going to come from and how sustainable that dependency was. From the response I got, it seems that I misunderstood my own question. Deltahedron (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For co-creating Wikipedia (and Wikia) MicronationKing (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law

One lucky person is about to win the wooden spoon award for being the first person to set off the Streisand effect by removing a search engine link to a Wikipedia article under the terms of Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González.[2] Who will it be? The Guardian article does not say, but has the Foundation received a notice with the name of the article concerned, or will we have to find out by trial and error?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm far more interested in knowing what article they wanted censored so I can read it, improve it, etc. Tutelary (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just another reason to enforce blp policy on all those articles that are 1/4 or 1/3 opinion piece quotes from WP:RS on why some one who does not share one's political/ideological/scientific/etc. views is "(put WP:Undue personal opinion of persons failings here)". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougie McDonald might be worth watching in search engine results. He has already had various links to his 2010 controversy removed. This meets WP:WELLKNOWN and it is not the same as saying that a person had a minor brush with the law years ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be feasible to have a bot crawl through all the Wikipedia articles and see which ones have been suppressed in Google results. Though as I understand they tend to be pretty harsh enforcing restrictions on bots, I think it was 3 searches per second absolute maximum; if true that would be more than a month to go through all the articles. If the Foundation gets word from Google it would only be as a courtesy, since Wikipedia isn't directly subjected to the regulation (at least, not yet...). Wnt (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Foundation is working on a response and lots of people are in transit to London so they've asked me to refrain from commenting for a couple of days.

The one thing I will say based on what Google has told the independent advisory panel that I'm on - in Google's view they are unable to share *who* requested the censorship because... that would be processing someone's personal data after they've asked that it not be processed. But they have taken the stance that they can tell webmasters what URL is not being linked to - just not what search term. This leads to potential confusion as in the case of Robert Peston's column - it turned out that the complainant wasn't the main subject of the article but someone in the comments field.

In the case of a Wikipedia entry, the right method to determine who asked for it (to some degree of precision, although there are potential errors in this process) you have to find every name (of a living person presumably) in the article and see if the article is listed in google for that search term, in the relevant language (i.e. which language version of google the requester complained about). One big flaw in this is that to *really* know, you'd better have before and after search results, but we are unlikely to have those.

Let me just say that everything I've said above is of a general nature and based on published press reports. A more thorough comment will come on Wednesday morning, UK time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

One weird feature in all of this is that the "offending material" could be removed if it is found to fail Wiki guidelines, yet the article might remain on the blacklist regardless. It would be far better to know which article has caused the problem, and for the person involved to follow WP:AUTOPROB. Wikipedia articles will change over a period of days, months and years due to the dynamic editing process, so it is foolish to assume that one particular version represents the final word.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

forgotten anon

Have you already forgotten who this "anonymous applicant" was: [3] Or perhaps you can tell us who it was? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC) ... apparently, someone said about Wikipedia, that "It's completely insane and it needs to be fixed."

One news story about the "right to be forgotten" that deserves more attention is by Tom Cheshire, the technology correspondent on Sky News.[4] He writes: "A couple of weeks ago, to see how the service would work, I asked Google to remove a photo taken of me for a university prospectus six years ago. In no way is that information inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant (maybe a bit embarrassing), yet Google duly removed it." This tends to confirm the theory that Google is saying yes to many requests without proper oversight, possibly to save time and money, or to show that the scheme is unworkable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if someone will come up with a way to automatically add the censored Wikipedia articles to a list somewhere. Given whats known about the way Google is doing things, it should be totally possible, and not require anyone with inside information to reveal it. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Somebody has already had this idea. There is a website called Hidden From Google which lists known examples and asks people to submit new ones.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't wait for "Forgotten From Hidden From Google" and "Hidden From Google By Wikipedia and then Forgotten." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

George Orwell's memory hole from Nineteen Eighty-Four has finally come true, thirty years later than planned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had one of them memory holes once, but the bottom fell out of it... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How about Category:Articles that may not be listed by Google, yes I know it's quite POINTy, but it's funny too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just blame the boss... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Knowing" someone through Wikipedia

I came across this pretty song by a Moroccan French artist Mister You. He read some remarks about himself on Wikipedia after a turbulent past and run-ins with the police and he protests how this effected his relationship with his love. Accused of many criminal activities, he protests in his song "A toi" (meaning "To you") (See music video): "Laisse moi t'enlacer, habi laisse moi t'embrasser / Laisse moi te montrer à quelle point je suis un mec censé / Qu j'ai envie de me caser, non, ne te fie pas à mon casier / Et n'écoute pas les médias / Qui te font croire que je suis un gobeur / qui me connaissent que grâce à Wikipédia!" Rough translation of this part of the lyrics: "Let me kiss you and embrace you / Let me show you how a considerate man I am / I want to squeeze you / Don't believe in my [criminal] file / And don't listen to the media / That made you believe I was a druggie / that just know me [thanks] to Wikipedia " - The precious "Wikipedia reference" is at 1:21 of the video... It just shows personal life sections on our various musical artist pages are well read and considered as given truths. LOL werldwayd (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead by example

Editors work on articles, if there are questions or disagreements the talk page is there to help us figure out what to do. When it fails us we have user talk pages, RFC, notice boards and wiki projects to aid in that. This usually produces advice from long term users. Users who have been around for many years and have an edit history with many thousands of entries. More often than not they have some sort of idea how to progress. One writes articles, one uses the talk page, makes use of the other tools. Lather, rinse, repeat: The end result is an editor who has a damn good idea how things work and an equally good idea which things are useful and which things are not in that process. Ask such an editor for advice and they would have a useful opinion on how to progress the article. (How could they not?)

My point being, this mechanism stands and falls by writing article content.

For example: You write articles[6] [7], use the talk page to figure out how to progress[8][9] and gradually you've learned how to Wikipedia. People even ask you for advice, and again and again, and then some. I imagine you must have days when you are sick and tired of people asking you for 10 more things per day than any mere mortal could possibly address. It works like that all the way down the hierarchy. (so to speak) Before one is aware of it one becomes the advice guy. Not that such a position is not fun, it is however increasingly further away from the basic article writing process. Given that things change all the time one cant help but loose track of the actual content creation process.

Giving advice is very hard if you don't know what you are talking about. You might be able to do it, most people cant. The issue is hardly ever brought up except when considering a potential administrator, this doesn't go far enough.

Earlier I was having a disagreement with a number of deletion only quality control type of editors about the proper use of a talk page. Together, over their combined last 10 000 contributions (rough estimate) I can hardly find a paragraph of content created. They do have endless talk page contributions, these are not necessarily in error but they are universally antagonizing constructive editors, all without they themselves producing any content at all. In my view the talk page is to discuss content, I will use the guidelines, I'm open to advice on how to do this, but not unlimited amounts of critisim from people who are universally unsuccessful at bringing a talk page discussion to the point of main space content.

What is needed in my view, is for everyone (you, arbcom, administrators, long term editors and perhaps even the wmf employees) to put their head on the proverbial content creation chopping block themselves for a change. There is no substitute for experience. Improving the wiki starts by giving the right example.

I always edit from my IP (by choice), I cant remember the last time my effort was not refused or deleted. Why is not relevant: In all possible scenarios the long term editor gets the benefit of the doubt. Just like the administrator gets the benefit of the doubt when disagreeing with users, arbcom gets the benefit over administrator and everyone is always wrong when complaining about the WMF. This is necessary, would it not work like that everyone would carefully avoid doing the work required from them.

If people are to be taken serious in this process it would be tremendously helpful if they did some content development besides from telling others they are wrong thousands upon thousands of times in a row. It is comical how they become infallible: As long as they restrict their interaction to complaining about other editors they themselves are never the topic. There is nothing more refreshing to that mindset than being on the receiving end of the ~~complaints~~ advice. This can't happen if they don't write articles.

If I can be permitted a joke: If you are the King, nothing is better for moral than to lead the minions from the front.

Regards!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Lead+by+example&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go 84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Rebooted discussion

And I'm writing here just to say that I'd like this discussion to continue but with concrete proposals for improvement rather than the fight that was going on.

As for me, one proposal that I would make - just to open brainstorming - is to ask "What can the Foundation do?" and answer it with a hypothetical (which I neither support nor oppose but think worthy of consideration): imagine if the WMF hired community managers and gave them mediation training and asked them to help the community deal with civility problems. The idea here is to say: look, here is a problem worth solving, and resources to give good people time (a full time job in fact) to help solve it can be useful. There are obvious potential objections to this idea: what powers will these new WMF community managers have? Will this be a tyranny of staff? What recourse will the community have if the mediators aren't behaving properly themselves? Etc. I think it's not too hard to devise a plan which overcomes such objections. Please discuss and although Wikimania is coming up, I will read with great interest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's an excellent idea. I have my granddaughter this morning, but I will think about it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a mistake to think that language has unexplored territories. These terms are not expressive. Beyond a certain point, which has long since been passed, it is not the terms which matter but rather the overall message. This is a discussion about words, is it not? But nowhere in this discussion, unless I overlooked it, is there a discussion of wider communication, i.e., what is one is one trying to say? I think you will see that nine times out of ten the same message can be said without resorting to the questionable terms discussed. Therefore—why are questionable terms used? I don't know if questionable terms should be banned, but their use should be frowned upon. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the reason I hatted the original discussion is that I think discussion about whether particular words should be banned or filtered is not a very fruitful approach. The problem here is not that particular words are magically bad, but that aggressive and abusive communication (whether using questionable words or not) is a huge problem. The negative impact is disproportionate across different demographics as well, which negatively impacts the quality of the encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Or, don't bite the newbies. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Give these CM regular priveleges, including the possibility of RfA, and maybe a dedicated noticeboard where they can post and discuss and uninvolved admins can act on them as needed. The CM's should be subject to the same possibility of admin imposed sanctions as anyone else. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, I honestly believe one of the problems Wikipedia has is separating content disputes from personal conflict. There seems to be a somewhat uneven handling of conflict, incivility and personal attacks on Wikipedia. Many times there can be a very quick response to tell editors to have a thicker skin one moment, and the next outrage that something stronger isn't being done. The uneven reaction is understandable...that is just life, but in a group or crowd sourced editors we do need a more standard approach. But a standardized approach can be difficult to achieve with so many people of differing opinion. Lightbreather had asked about a civility board, but your suggestion of paid mediators sounds interesting as well, although I would suggest these not be editors. It might be better if these were mediators that were independent of the project.

A centralized board for personal attacks sounds like a difficult arena to control, but...perhaps if we were to accept that along with dispute resolution....we should be attempting some sort of Conflict resolution the project can move forward. I just feel that, some editors cannot understand the difference between a "dispute" and a "conflict" and I am not trying to split hairs here. I truly believe that generally, disputes are over content and conflict arises as a personal issue or attack on the individuals or groups.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to rescue a snippet by Wbm1058 from the hatted section that I think is very smart: "Doesn't it seem to be a double standard that we have an Orwellian friendly space policy for in-person events, but are like the Wild West online? Some balance needs to be found." — That is very true. There needs to be a reasonable place between shrill, ultra-PC, bureaucratic micromanagement of every word, thought, and action on the one hand; and intentional loutishness by those who feel they simply can on the other. The problem we face is that by attempting to write formal proscriptions of the behavior of the latter (small) group of people tends to create the first-mentioned situation, which leads to the censorship of all. And, speaking for myself, I don't find that outcome at all acceptable. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not one word of Eric Corbett's comment in the edit summary would ever end up on a list of "blacklisted words", if such a list were even desirable. Yet, the manner in which these innocuous words were fashioned into a sentence were clearly in violation of the foundations Terms of Use. To paraphrase, the terms state: "You are free to: [participate] Under the following conditions: • Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users." There is no ambiguity in those terms, and the foundation is egregiously remiss to not enforce them; verging on culpability. Civility needs to be elevated to the same level of enforcement as "no legal threats" and because so many administrators are willing to exploit the "second mover" advantage, wp:office is not ill-advised. The terms of use are a legally binding instrument by the way, and trampling them contemptuously as I have too often seen erodes our institutional standing in lawful commerce. So tell me, why should wp:office be out of bounds as a corrective measure?—John Cline (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: because as soon as WMF begins meddling in the daily activity of the community, there are no logical limits to their intervention. They have inspired no confidence with their so-called Friendly Space Policy, which takes "civility" to ludicrous (and offensive) extremes. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In the lead of the policy WP:NPA is the following sentence.[10]

"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone."

Could this have been used in the example where someone was referred to with a vulgar word? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion re: this question moved to side discussion WP:NPA discussion per WP:TPOC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Jimbo Wale's original proposal which was: "imagine if the WMF hired community managers and gave them mediation training and asked them to help the community deal with civility problems. The idea here is to say: look, here is a problem worth solving, and resources to give good people time (a full time job in fact) to help solve it can be useful."

What if it was far more limited: WMF hires mediators to do mediation and to train and monitor volunteer mediators. Mediation would be voluntary but it is likely Admins and Arbitrators would not look well on those who refused to engage in mediation or obviously did not take it seriously once they agreed to it.

I was in one mediation around 2007-8 on a really controversial topic. The mediator was inexperienced and had to start over at one point; but it still was extremely effective and greatly diminished edit warring among a few editors over several articles. However after that I couldn't find mediators for a one or two issues that had been accepted for mediation because no moderators were available, so I didn't try again for a few years. When I did four people wanted it; two refused on questionable grounds. The issue went to arbitration but Arbitrators didn't take the mediation issue seriously, perhaps because it was known that there aren't many mediators or they aren't effective.

In short, I don't think people could find fault with such a limited mediation proposal, but it could be extremely effective in chilling people out, making them think rationally and keeping them involved in editing instead of just going away mad and disgusted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not sure if this BBC-link to the moderation board full FAQs will work outside the UK but anyway... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Early response from BHG & LB

Jimbo, that's an interesting proposal. I think that a mediation approach could be very valuable in some contexts, and useless in others. But I wonder if it wouldn't be better to start by breaking down the problem?

My thinking is that there are several different situations in which incivility occurs:

Generally civil editors who snap when having a bad day, or find themselves in a situation more stressful than they are used to
A disagreement (whether about policy, content or conduct) where the conduct of two or more parties progressively deteriorates down a slope from "I think your edit was inappropriate" to personal abuse
Editors who fail to consider how comments which may be acceptable to people like them may be offensive or threatening to people from a different demographic (racism, sexism, *phobia)
Editors who have a persistent pattern of aggressive, rude or abusive behaviour

(Others may identify a longer list)

I think that the ability of mediators to respond to those situations would vary by type. Hopefully trained mediators would have the skills to engage effectively with people. They should be able to point people from #1 towards resources on how to identify when they are reaching their flashpoints; #2 needs guidance on techniques for structured non-accusatory discussion; #3 needs someone with a lot of skills to try to build some empathy and explain how the world may look very different from someone else's shoes; and #4 is probably unamenable to mediation.

But in each case, we need the ultimate backup of sanctions against editors, which is where the community currently fails.

Personally, I would support adopting the full wmf:Friendly space policy; it is no more than what applies in the workplace of most responsible employers in the developed world. But the problem we have is that a vocal minority of the community repeatedly opposes upholding even blatant breaches of our current relatively weak policies on civility and personal attacks.

If an editor reject the approaches of a mediator, what then? Unless they have power of sanction, then I fear that the best any mediator can do is to engage with the least problematic type of incivility. The sort of editor who replies "**ck off" to an attempt to engage them about civility is one of the most corrosive on Wikipedia, and those are already the type who the community is least effective at restraining (not least because they seem to attract an über-loyal fan club).

Every web forum or email list I have ever been involved with has avoided this sort of problem by having someone empowered to draw a line by curtailing the access of people who cross the line; the visible evidence of that enforcement reminds others to restrain themselves. The best fora have skilled mediators who can help people avoid draw back from the brink or improve their approach, but their carrots are backed up by a stick.

Sadly, en.wp currently has no stick, so my reckoning is that without effective enforcement, mediation only tinkers with the edges of the problem. Sorry to appear negative, but that's my first take on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes! Brainstorm on the problems. Identify commonalities. Define problems that are relatively easy to address. Handle those first. The others require deeper discussion.

Misuse of edit summaries. Make all or part of that article policy. My personal experience and observation is that abuse of edit summaries is one of the top easily-addressed problems re: editor conduct.
WP:PERSONAL is already a policy, but it's not consistently enforced, that I've experienced or observed, especially WP:WIAPA. I have seen numerous editors accuse other editors (not just me) of being "tendentious" or "disruptive" - without evidence. Saying it doesn't make it true, but the more it gets said, the more the sayer and his/her audience start to internalize it. WP:TENDENTIOUS is an essay with a long list of "Characteristics of problem editors." Allegations of tendentious editing are serious and should fall under WP:WIAPA bullet 5: Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
Have online, self-paced harassment training, followed by a simple test, that editors are encouraged to take. Taking it is voluntary, unless civility has become an issue for an editor; then, it would be required as a condition of keeping editing privileges.
Allow civility blocks to be punitive, not just "preventative." Allowing someone to behave uncivilly sends a strong message to others: Incivility is tolerated on Wikipedia. Punishing those whose conduct runs afoul of workplace civility policies (after first receiving a warning, if the behavior wasn't egregious) will make a whole lot of editors think twice about behaving similarly.

(I chose to add the last two items here to keep my ideas together.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BHG, that conference Friendly space policy is a great overall policy. The whole thing, including contact info is a little over 300 words. And you're right, it's comparable to a bare-bones, plain English workplace policy. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. The so-called Friendly Space Policy implies the existence of an inner circle of (politically correct) censors who are to make determinations about the limits of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" speech. It also implies a specific and inevitably expanding list of formal behavioral proscriptions. For example, whoops, nobody even mentioned age discrimination! Add one to the list. And the NYC conference took the bold and silly step of including "favored copyright license" as a protected class! This will go on and on... Eventually, we are all oppressed victims carping over interpretations of the laundry list behavioral rules, enforcement of the laundry list of behavioral rules, the composition of the body policing the laundry list of behavioral rules... Which is fine if you want to have a picnic of like-minded people at a charming conference in New York City or something (where the FSP document was filed as unnecessary), but not so good in the real world of haggling about writing an encyclopedia — in which some of the most valuable contributors are also the grumpiest. Carrite (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC) —Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite, could you put your concern into a form that meets Jimbo's request (as host of the discussion): I'd like this discussion to continue but with concrete proposals for improvement rather than the fight that was going on. Lightbreather (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I read Carrite's comments as an endorsement of the status quo, where some editors are effectively given carte blanche because they write good content. Jimbo specifically invited discussion based on the fundamental premise that we do have a problem, and that some people should be banned for it. If Carrite does accept that premise, they should make that clear. If not, then as Jimbo wrote, they are in the wrong discussion.

@Carrite: the cries of "censorship" are getting a bit old. People who want unfettered speech are free to go set up their own website; but any collaborative project has boundaries, and the Friendly Space Policy (FSP) just spells them out in an inclusive way. The current policy on en.wp does not properly describe practice ... because the practice on en.wp is that some boundaries (such as racism) are clearly marked and vigorously policed, while other are vague or non-existent, such as the tolerance of sexism and transphobia, where complainants usually get more grief than the offenders.
No magic inner circle of interpreters is required, just a commonsense interpretation of good manners which doesn't stop at the things which personally offend the young men who predominate amongst editors. What we have at the moment is a different sort of inner circle: a small and self-appointed group of a few dozen cheerleaders for a particular type of aggression.
The claim that tightly enforced civility somehow impedes open discussion about writing an encyclopedia is simply implausible. If someone is genuinely capable of writing a fine encyclopedic article, then are also quite entirely capable of expressing disagreement without resorting to obscene language or accusations of brainlessness, and capable of ending a discussion politely. If they are capable of fine writing which adheres to NPOV, then they are also capable of understanding that some language is unacceptable to others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, BHG, in recent days it finally sunk in that despite the policies, if someone has been unofficially (maybe it's official?) awarded the valuable contributor award, then their conduct has earned less scrutiny. I actually read this in a discussion yesterday: "[editor] is an enigma: he can be so course, yet he writes amazing prose, one of our finest by anyone's standards." While I do appreciate good prose, no-one is irreplaceable. In a collaborative environment content ≥ conduct. Lightbreather (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. I am sorry that you feel discussion of the implications upon free speech of the so-called Friendly Space Policy is "a bit old." That argument is not going away. I personally think that complaints about "obscene language" and demands for "politeness.........or else" are a bit old. Those are not going away either. The fact is, the Orwellian-named "Friendly Space Policy" is already pretty much the law of the land on-Wiki and has been for years. See: WP:WIAPA. Of course, be sure to read that carefully: the banned behavior are attacks made against an editor or group of editors; and there is no universal consensus here about the limits of such things. There is always going to be someone making the call and someone not happy with that call and at that point the food fight begins. Sure, it would be swell if smart people with rude streaks would bite their tongues. Sometimes they don't. We have procedures for dealing with that, and the consensus is what it is. I'm a realist. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite, en.wp is not and never has been a "free speech" zone. The terms and conditions make it very clear that some types of speech are unacceptable, and what I find old is the repeated desire of some editors to uphold a principle which is not and never has been policy.
As to realism, I am a realist too. The reality is that some editors are behave disgracefully because they know that they will get away with it. I am quite sure that they are well capable of behaving responsibly when they are in their employer's office or talking to a cop or to the grandmother; they choose not to do so here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. Ah, yes, let's return to policy. Excellent idea. An objectionable statement was made. A complaint was filed. A discussion was held. Consensus was rendered. Then the forum shopping and drama began. Consensus is what it is. Carrite (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite, that brings us back to the nub of the problem, which is that by leaving these issues to the consensus of the young white men who predominate on Wikipedia, our civility policy is filtered through the lens of that demographic. That dominant young white male group has repeatedly shown a consensus not to uphold the civility policy.

When we have an admin openly expressing a view such as this, without apparent fear of sanction, then we have a problem which the community is unable to resolve through its usual mechanisms.

Leaving this to a consensus of the currently active community of editors amounts to the appointment of young white males as the arbiters of what constitutes good and bad practice in creating an inclusive environment. I know of no other context where that approach has has successfully overcome a gender imbalance, and am unsurprised at its failure here. That's why I believe that the Foundation should actively intervene, just as it did over BLPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - You express an axiomatic belief that the gender imbalance is a direct result of the failure to create of an inclusive environment. Well, I suppose that could be, although you are guessing. Let me repeat here a little story for you that I have told before and recently repeated on Wikipediocracy......... During the 1990s I did a punk rock label. I put out a lot of stuff — across all formats, something like 100 releases. I was active in the national scene for my subgenre, pop-punk. We are not talking about shirts-off, ultra-macho, fights-in-the-slam-pit hardcore here, but rather the most melodic and accessible form of punk music. Think about Green Day and The Ramones, there ya go... Anyway, I promoted local shows, I went to a fair number of shows in the state of Oregon. The gender of the crowds? Eh, maybe skewed a touch past 50-50, male:female, but pretty darned close. But my mailing list, sent out to 1200 or so record buyers around the United States — that ran about 85:15 male-to-female almost as a constant (+/- 2%) throughout the entire 7 year history of my label. I know because I tracked gender on my database, I noticed the disparity ("gender gap," if you will) almost immediately, and I was interested in it. [Digression: my #1 customer in terms of dollar sales was a woman, interestingly.]

Now why was this? The live shows had gender parity, the record buyers had a gender imbalance almost precisely the same percentage as that of Wikipedia... Why? There was nothing misogynist about it, the printed catalogs were neither more nor less "impolite" than the language used at any live show or at any high school or university anywhere in America. My own personal-political background included a year sitting in on meetings of the New American Movement, a self-described and actively practicing "socialist-feminist" political organization. I don't have any hesitation in saying that I identify with the feminist tradition. There was absolutely nothing that I did or said or wrote that caused the gender imbalance of my mailing list — it is something that simply was... So you will have to forgive me for being sanguine about this situation, to forgive me for doubting the basic premises being advanced here. I do believe that aggressive obnoxiousness can drive away good editors. That's obvious, and it can be proven — see, for example, the case of User:Khazar2 cited above. But I absolutely do not believe that the attitudes and decision-making of "young white males" are necessarily (or even very likely) to be the cause of the gender disparity at WP. It is an interesting phenomenon, to be sure. More study needed. best, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (52 years old, white, male). /// Carrite (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Carrite, you are falsely assuming that attending a concert = being a fan, rather than attending = being a fan or being friends with a fan. Looking at your numbers, I'd assume that two-thirds of the women present at your concerts were there because their boyfriends wanted to attend. (Presumably the next weekend, they'd both be at a concert that the girlfriend wanted to attend.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing — Well, that's an interesting theory, and it might explain some small part of it. But it was more than that, since it wasn't usually one male and one female coming to a show together, but three females and a male here, and four males there, and three females there, and so on. They were not there out of obligation, they were punk rock kids at a show. The mailing list's gender mix was simply not shaped even closely to the fan gender mix. To your point, maybe a little bit, probably 90% of the people IN bands were male, and there were doubtlessly a few present out of duty to boyfriends in bands. But that's only a minor part of the phenomenon. The bottom line is this: more males than females are record collectors, by a huge margin, and creating an "inclusive environment" isn't going to to change that fact, then or now. And, I would argue, for a set of reasons — some of which are not yet fully identified or understood — more males than females are driven to participate in the Wikipedia process and creating an "inclusive environment" is not apt to move the needle much in this regard. (To wit: All of Sue Gardner's efforts didn't do much to close the gender gap, empirically speaking, did they?) Carrite (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to look at that Khazar2 situation more closely before you attempt to draw any conclusions from it. Eric Corbett 17:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What are the correct conclusions to be drawn from that Khazar2 situation? DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite: you claim that I express an axiomatic belief that the gender imbalance is a direct result of the failure to create of an inclusive environment. Not actually so. My evidence-based belief is that change in this area is a necessary but insufficient step in closing the gender gap.
Plentiful research which shows that the women are less likely to participate in collaborative activities (whether employment, voluntary projects or social gatherings) where aggressive and.or sexist behaviour is tolerated. More specifically, studies of Wikipedia have shown many factors behind the gender imbalance among Wikipedia's editors, but one factor is that some women find that the levels of aggression and sexism exceed their tolerance levels. Women learn how to live with that sort of conduct in many aspects of our lives, but when there are many ways of spending free time, women tend to prefer to do so clear of such behaviour.
The studies are v clear that there is no single solution to increasing the participation of women. My point is that one crucial part of the solution is tackling the aggression and sexism which flourishes in some corners of Wikipedia, and which is repeatedly sanctioned at ANI.
We have just had another instance of a wholly inappropriate behaviour being not approved, but actively cheered on even by administrators. Male administrators have pronounced at great length and in extraordinary numbers about their right to make such personal attacks, and to use gratuitous obscenities. An extraordinary number have gathered to denounce requests for an end to aggression and obscenity as "censorship" or as a demand for "special privilege". I have now gathered diffs on at least half-a-dozen cases of male editors engaging the classic patronising put-downs of women who object to inappropriate behaviour, denouncing the complainant as "emotional", "irrational", etc ... and we even have an administrator who openly advised those who don't like these systemic breaches of policy to leave en.wp.
One piece by former WMF ED Sue Gardner identified Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia. And elsewhere (I can't find the ref right now), she expressed concern that recruiting more women editors was not a great idea if they were then driven away by the community's social dysfunctionalities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@BHG. You seem to imply some sort of semi-organized mass reaction as a mechanism for preserving some sort of gender-based privilege. That is off. Actually the issue is not one of gender at all, it is one of civility. Those who frame it as a gender war and rail against "male" editors not only miss the point, but they draw battle lines. Nor have you even considered the free speech implications of an external "civility" authority. In my humble opinion, that is what is driving about 75% of the defense of the current consensus on the Civility Question. As for the gender gap, it is almost definitely the byproduct of a whole array of contributing factors, many or most of which remain to be identified. An essay by Sue Gardner is no more authoritative than the post on the topic I just put up on WPO. We do not agree on much. There is news percolating of serious academic study of the question this week; that's what is needed. That also has little to do with the current brouhaha. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Carrite: I have no idea whether the reaction is organised or simply a group of people with a similar outlook and interests; my guess is most likely the latter.

I stand by my point that this is in part a gender issue. Conduct such as that displayed earlier this week is much more likely to be offputting to women than to men, and I repeat that many chunks of it followed a classic pattern of sexism and misogyny. The belittling of women's objections; the trumpeting of obscenities; the depictions of calls for more woman-friendly conduct as "special privileges" (as if male patterns behaviour was the human norm). I am not drawing the battle lines; I am pointing to the battle lines which have been drawn by those who practice and support sexist and misogynist conduct.

I am bemused that you claim to know that I have "even considered the free speech implications". A more constructive approach would be to ask my views on that. Since you merely presumed rather than asking, I will spell out my views.

Wikipedia is not and never has been a free speech zone, nor has it ever claimed to be. Some editors appear to believe that it should be, and some may even have persuaded themselves that it is such a place; but encyclopedia-building is not usenet. Wikipedia is a collaborative project with many boundaries, and there are many many restrictions on what may be said. Unrestrained speech lets the loudest and most aggressive voices drive out the others, as happened to usenet.

As a general rule, I prefer the notion of a self-managing community, tho not strongly so; it is self-managing only in a rather illusory way, as it operates with externally-set limits. However, those who want to maximise self-management and fear intervention need to ensure that it operates with the broad support of the community rather than privileging the voices of the most aggressive men. Otherwise, self-regulation loses the confidence of the wider body of editors (90% of whom stray well clear of ANI), and creates a self-reinforcing community in the image of its vocal bullies. (The more that aggression and sexism are tolerated, the less likely that those who prefer better conduct will participate, which strengthens the position of the aggressors).

So the community has a choice: clean up its own act, or face external intervention.

If it wants to keep these matters internal, the community needs to start enforcing the civility policy, clampdown on gratuitous obscenity, and tear up the free passes of the big beasts. It can devise a mechanism whereby exclusionary problems like sexism and racism are examined by people who have at least some basic training in inclusivity and non-discrimination, rather than by gangs of angry white men who make a loud noise at ANI. If it succeeds, then there will no case for external intervention.

OTOH, it the community continue as now it will reach a point where external intervention very quickly becomes unavoidable. The UK has just been through a prolonged exercise of this type with its media: decades of pleas for self-regulation were destroyed by a cascade of evidence of systematic criminality within the media. Result: Leveson Inquiry and statutory regulation.

Something similar could very easily happen here. All it takes is for a few prominent write-ups about Wikipedia as the place which praises editors who uses the c-word when talking to women and denounces those who object or try to restrain them, and the Foundation suddenly has a serious credibility crisis forcing it to make a rapid intervention to reassure its donor base that their money is being spent on building an encyclopedia rather than running a Bro Code festival or a usenet refugee camp. I hope that the Foundation will not wait for such a crisis to break, and will try to act pre-emptively.

I believe that community-only-regulation of civility is sustainable only with major reform. Those in the community who abhor external regulation need to understand that the choice is not between the status quo and big brother: it is between reform or a ceding of some control. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As some one who could be really uncivil and insulting in the Wild West of various anarchist and libertarian email lists over 17 years, I had to learn to chill it here at Wikipedia. However, a lot of male editors here are a heck of a lot more sensitive to uppity female snipes than guys on anarchist and libertarian email lists and will go yelling "WP:NPA" at the slightest hint of an insult, even if it's just their imagination. (Maybe it's the idea that some female - or anybody else for that matter - actually can rewrite or delete their work. On email one only can criticize.) I'm ambivalent about having learned to bite my tongue here and be more diplomatic. I respect diplomacy and consider it more effective than flaming. On the other hand, if the guys are allowed to have all that fun of insulting and flaming, those women who want to act like jerks and do it too should be allowed to. So please decide which way you want it guys, no double standards. Because what's good for the ~~goose is good for the gander~~ male gander is good for the female goose. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe a respectable established editor here would write "However, a lot of male editors here are a heck of a lot more sensitive to uppity female snipes than guys on anarchist and libertarian email lists and will go yelling "WP:NPA" at the slightest hint of an insult, even if it's just their imagination", with no example, no diffs, no evidence whatsoever against any or all of those male editors who're in the habit of yelling "WP:NPA" at the uppity female editors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carolmooredc, please don't just toss out extraordinary accusations to relieve your feelings, if that's what you did, because it's precisely such polarization that drives wedges between groups and makes the "civility wars" so toxic. As User:Seraphimblade said at the current request for an omnibus civility arbitration case, "being uncivil doesn't require the use of foul language". No, it doesn't. Your omnibus accusations are highly uncivil and can only further inflame the discussion climate. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen - People see what they want to see sometimes. My own impressionistic impression is that the number of male Wikipedians actually obsessed about "uppity female snipes" is tiny. But there are some who see the world through the lense of "gender ~~war~~ struggle" and they are apt to naturally interpret behavior through that prism. Similarly, just to illustrate my point, my background is in radical politics and left wing economics, and I am apt to see the world through that prism, as a struggle for primacy between self-interested castes or classes. That doesn't make anybody wrong or right, it's just that every person has a framework for conceptualizing the world, and these frameworks are going to shape perceptions. Your fundamental point is on-target, however, that espousal of what some Marxists might call "vulgar reductionism" — all men think A, all women think B; or, all capitalists think X; all workers think Y — does little more than dig trenches from which to fight a war. Carrite (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems most people are writing here in terms of their own personal experience. It’s not an article. I wrote “ a lot of" about male wikipeida editors, not all. Depending on personal experience “a lot of” can mean 5 if they seem to always bother oneself. Or 100 out of 100,000 if those 100 seem intent on bothering women in a high profile way. In my case “a lot of” means I have worked in more controversial areas where editors in general are uncivil against those who they disagree with, and more so if they are that single woman editing on the article. If feels like from my personal experience that they focus on attacking the women as if to say to the guys, “why do you editors agree with this stupid female? Are you stupid too? MAN UP!!” Or maybe that's just the way they get their jollies. I don't know. But this is just “from my personal experience” and trying to figure out what is going on and how to deal with it, the purpose of this whole big thread.

One thing that is clear is that incivility against editors, when it doesn't just drive them off, tends to shut down rational thinking, leading to long meandering discussions mired in defensiveness, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, etc. It totally disrupts the project. Figuring out the causes of incivility and showing how bogus they are will help get rid of it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WMF arbitrator for incivility cases

Regarding the idea of the WMF getting involved, I suggest having a WMF arbitrator with enhanced administrator powers, that editors can go to for help when they encounter an uncivil editor. The decision of the arbitrator could not be reversed by administrators or other editors, although an administrator could appeal to the arbitrator to change a decision. After a case is closed, the involved editors (plaintiff, defendant, and possibly a regular administrator) have the option of giving a brief review of the arbitrator. WMF management could periodically look at the editor reviews and case histories, and discuss with the arbitrator as needed.
This arbitration system for cases of incivility could be done on a trial basis for 6 months. Near the end of the trial, the Wikipedia community would have the opportunity to comment on whether it should be continued. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable suggestion, K31416. An alternate possibility would be a threshold for escalating to ArbCom - for example, if three or more administrators disagree with the decision of another administrator, then the issue at hand is automatically moved to Arbcom. That might help reduce the divisiveness of some of these issues. --129.94.102.201 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've found much incivility arises from content issues, in which case good mediation can be helpful. When it's an individual who just constantly uses clearly insulting words/phrases - especially clear slurs and curse words - admins just have to be strong and deal with it. But as I can see from the recent ANI thread "Conduct unbecoming of an administrator" discussed here, when all sorts of personal relationships/histories/etc. get involved it can be hard to have a neutral individual figure it all out. Maybe hired mediators also could have private conversations with individuals to try to figure out what the problem is. Hopefully they would not have developed various allegiances and the knowledge that a real person might talk to you some day (in a sympathetic and rational fashion) might be enough for people to control themselves a bit. The human touch, and all that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I posted some comments about the BBC's message boards, which have paid moderators, in the opening of this discussion (just ahead of the sub-section Early response from BHG & LB), which may be useful. It seems to me that there are - broadly - two ideologies, the 'toughen up' ideology and the 'duty of care' ideology. What I don't hear from the 'toughen-ups' is what we do about hearing the voice of the vulnerable, for instance those with mental health issues or those who have suffered from abuse in the past, who have valuable contributions to make. In the future, more and more developing nations are gaining access to the internet, many live in places where survival of the fittest and issues such as gender-disparity and discriminatory laws are matters of life and death / persecution etc. Shouldn't Wikipedia provide a light in the dark for them with a 'duty of care' attitude, rather than just more darkness? If not here then where? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask the women?

The first step would be to create an environment in which editors feel free to raise concerns.

I was quite interested to read in the recent interview of Lila Tretikov that the interviewer claimed to have had contact with more than one female editor who revealed their gender to him privately, but not on-wiki.

I too have had women identify themselves to me privately, when their public identity was not known. I am not really up to speed on the topic of gender, but here is a collection of comments given to me by women editors Offwiki.

On editing

It is dominated by men. Everyone is assumed to be male.

There are crude, sexist jokes among administrators and any objection is ignored.

Topics that in any way involve feminism or men's rights are dominated by men.

Then toss in harassment of female editors, who then end up in this place where male editors can tell them to fuck off, question their reading skills, question their language skills, tell people they should be editing... all while doing very little of their own content work.

Women who start contributing at a certain level have to be perfect while dealing with harassment. Anything else is not acceptable.

I'd guess that the level of women amongst elite editors is even lower than the 10% estimates because once you get to that point, women bail to get away from the toxic editing environment.

Admins have repeatedly been willing to count votes and articles getting more traffic as a way of circumventing WP:NPOV in terms of treatment of gender segregated sport. This has a huge potential impact on female editor retention because it sends a message that NPOV is secondary, and when women or editors of women's sport bring this up, it can get really ugly.

On articles

Articles on topics of interest to women are often required to have better reliable sources, which does not apply to topics that tend to be of interest to men.

Images of women on WP are too frequently pornographic and in some cases sadistic.

Women who are BLP subjects are much more prone to have difficulties having irrelevant information about them taken out of their WP articles.

The categorization system on WP is sometimes used to separate women novelists (fill in anything to replace novelists) from the category of novelists.

Women of notable achievement in all areas are less likely to be in Wikipedia than men; irrelevant muck is too often drug up when there is an article on a notable woman.

In sports naming conventions (because only one topic can be at a particular title), a non-neutral position of preferencing men's teams over women's teams when it comes to national teams where they are by rule segregated by gender and both represent the country at the national level.

How could this be addressed?

It probably can't. At this point women either have to edit WP as a man or as a gender neutral name or they have to band together to get their proper edits to stick.
Ridiculous. I do not edit as a man, and have never really felt a need to do so. Yes, there are a few jerks on Wikipedia of all genders and backgrounds. Let's not begin man-bashing, just because it might be popular and politically correct in the context of this thread, its too easy for it to turn into a whiny "I'm a woman and the men are holding me back, poor little me!" I have been working with the men on this project for about eight years and have never felt ganged-up on because I am a woman. Yes, there is the occasional jerk of course, (of all genders), and they are best handled on an individual basis. There is no cabal. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

well said Sue Rangell, and glad to hear of your experiences here. --Malerooster (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sue Rangell. I'd love to hear your tips on how to edit without being subjected to the variety of problems listed above, including wikihounding, harassment and being subjected to double standards. And how to deal with them should they occur. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force wants to generate some good essays on that topic and your insights probably could be valuable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do Carolmooredc, and very happy to help out any way I can. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of my own suggestions

Participation of at least one woman admin in gender-topic situations, as in the three-admin closing of the Hillary article. Agree on the names of closing admins in advance.
A specific policy for respect, tolerance and acceptance stating that comments that demean any person—whether a fellow editor, an article subject, or any other person on the basis of personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression—are unwelcome, and are grounds for blocking, topic restrictions, or other sanctions. The ArbCom has already come to terms with some of this in the Manning naming dispute case.
I have read somewhere in some Wikiproject that WP:Mansplaining is still a redlink. ~~Someone should fill it in.~~ striking because of explained objections> I'll leave it up to the readers' sense of irony to see if it is edited first by a male or female user. See Splaining. —Neotarf (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I can haul it to AfD to see whether it's a Non-Notable Neologism, as I presume it to be... Carrite (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mansplaining was created by Sue Gardner in August 2013. There's a redirect from Splaining. PamD 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And, to quote from the article, "In 2010 it was named by The New York Times as one of its "Words of the Year." PamD 22:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's an easy pass of GNG from footnotes showing... Learn something every day. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who or what this mess of epithets is directed at, but I have left a note on the user's talk page to the effect that its removal is in order. —Neotarf (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've replied declining as the intent is clear in the comment that I am not singling anyone or group out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So, it's ok to be a jerk, just as long as the jerkishness is directed at everyone? Tarc (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well let's try it this way...sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you. If you haven't the ability to see the message behind the words, I'm sorry I can't help you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

<Sigh.> —Neotarf (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh you deserve a barnstar for the most cowardly and passive aggressive ANI notification I've seen in almost 4.5 years. Congrats. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You got a ping, isn't it bad enough to have all that embarrassing stuff on your talk page as it is? That's more consideration than you show for anyone else. —Neotarf (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So, Hell in a Bucket...can I drop the c-word on your mom? Your grandma, wife, sister, girlfriend? Would you tell any of them to just shrug it off? Tarc (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We're told that often enough as kids to ignore the bullies or people that call us names. Do we just forget it just because we are adults? Sorry but that's a non-sequitor Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You're an adult? If they told you that as a kid, they lied. —Neotarf (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I guess the beard didn't key you off on that...guess that explains a lot about the person I'm dealing with...and in reference to your excuse on why your passive aggressive ani notice about wanting it to be nicer then having it on my page...bullshit you have been here long enough to know that notice means shit. You posted it here in hopes that more people here would see it and comment and thus stir up the pot more. Nice try how's that thread working out btw? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

~~I'd still like to see the internal wiki WP:MANSPLAIN version go bluelink, maybe with some DIY tips. I bet in time it could replace WP:DICK and WP:DIVA in popularity.~~<striking because of explained objections> —Neotarf (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

All very valid points, and gender problems do contribute to overall civility, though I'm still pondering how to address this on WP. I was invited to join the Gender Gap project just a few days ago, but within 48 hours of my joining, another editor joined whom I do not trust at this time. When I mentioned this, and why, a couple of male editors on the project chastised me - so I withdrew from the project. My focus now is overall WP civility. Maybe when that improves, individual projects will seem safer and more female friendly, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What I just wrote is in response to the larger issue you described, but your first two suggestions above are spot-on and do-able. In fact, the second one is just about covered by the first item in WP:WIAPA:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

It just needs to be enforced! Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Enforced by whom? Carrite (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Who enforces BLP policy? Or en dashes? Formerip (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The concept of WP:Mansplaining is a hateful and sexist neologism and amounts to an ad hominem attack against men based on their gender. I will MfD any incarnation of that page. There is no room for discrimination on Wikipedia whether it be focused on women or men. Focus on the central point of an argument, not on the argumenter.--v/r - T P 23:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then what about WP:DICK? —Neotarf (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If Mansplaining becomes standard use in 100 years and is part of our vocabulary, I'll grudgingly accept it as an essay peice like I grudgingly accept WP:DICK. I'd prefer a discrimination free encyclopedia though.--v/r - T P 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's already in common use in various corners of teh interwebs, and is certainly a shorthand way to conveniently explain a set observable behaviors, but in any case, I won't be the one to start it, at least partly because of your strong reaction to it.

But for the way the phrase can hit the nail on the head, see this heartbreaking combination of obvious good will and "don't worry your pretty little head about it because I know what's best for you-all lady folk". —Neotarf (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It is in use in certain areas of the interwebs activism and it can stay there. It's a neologism that amounts to telling people to shut up. Regarding your comment about Dennis - you'll have to prove Dennis wouldn't talk to anybody like that and that his comments are motivated by gender before I'll accept it as evidence of 'mansplaining'.--v/r - T P 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Then, TParis, you don't understand it, because it has nothing to do with motivation. Try this one. —Neotarf (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Neotarf, you don't understand. And sadly, you never will. 'Mansplaining' is entirely hateful, sexist, discriminatory ("Mansplaining is when a dude tells you, a woman, how to do something you already know how to do"), and diversionary. You arn't bridging a gap by perpetuating the neologism here, you are widening it. You mine as wlel be one of the other editors saying the "C" word, because you are having the exact same effect.--v/r - T P 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can just agree to use the word "patronizing"? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have no problem describing the behavior. I just don't want us to pretend to be talking about gender equality by using gender discriminatory words. Patronizing is good with me.--v/r - T P 02:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm late with this, but I agree. Patronizing is the (much) better word. Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

These proposals seem to be targeted more at gender bias on WP that at incivility. There is overlap between the two, and there's no doubt that there is gender bias on WP. But the proposal for mandatory women closers has nothing directly to do with incivility, and I doubt that "mansplaining" is much of an issue here (it could even be argued that it would be a sign of progress for male editors to talk down to female a little more, since this would at least be a form of acknowledgment that they exist). Formerip (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is being framed as a hostile work environment issue. The c-bomb especially, repeated at least ten times on that thread alone, is being seen as a dog-whistle message for women to get out of Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it's terrible and you should focus your efforts there. I'd be your biggest ally.--v/r - T P 01:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When places like AN/I are filled with hostile and garbage advice that women editors should hide the fact they're women or they forfeit any expectation of non-harassment or equal treatment, as shown in this gem or reasoning, then it's going to be viewed as a hostile environment; at least until there's some indication these viewpoints are more broadly repudiated by the general population of editors. Anonymity is a great as a choice, but it shouldn't be an expected requirement. There's a lot of people worried about civility concerns somehow restricting their freedom that then have no problem demanding other people live under a code of silence. That's a bit of "Liberty for me, but not for thee."__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There was also the admin who invited[11] women to clear off if we find the place too male-dominated or too rude. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: try reading what I said, not some warped interpretation of it. I never said women editors should hide their anonymity. I said that everyone has that option. Yours is typical of the bias: reading things that are not there an then labelling them as hostile, garbage etc. The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, if there aren't groups of people talking about problems facing women editors, then there won't be problems facing women editors. You have fascinating ideas. Maybe if you stop sharing the things that bother you, then you will achieve a similar harmony for yourself? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? You've not addressed your original misinterpretation and you've not addressed the dreadful naming of GGTF. All you've done is cast an unwarranted aspersion and made an illogical assumption. Class act. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How did I misinterpret? You said: What gender gap? This is all BS promoted by, mostly, a vociferous group of people who, if they chose to apply the anonymity that they are entitled to, could just get on with doing what we're supposed to be here to do. Hard to interpret that as anything other than something like "people who complain about bad interactions from people who know their gender had the right to hide, and if they didn't, they don't have the right to complain". Am I far off your intent? (As for naming a task force somewhere, that's some strange red herring you've brought up. Demanding I address it is just weird. Did people somehow hurt you when they named it whatever they did? In any case, that's not me.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have an observation about the use of the "c-bomb" (the four-letter "c" word) in recent conversations. It was repeated about 15 times by eight or nine male editors. (One female editor used it five times in one post. Seemed a bit much to me, but she had her point to make, I guess.) Anyway, I used the word "cocksucker" in my original post to Jimbo. No-one repeated it. Talk amongst yourselves. Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPA discussion

In the lead of the policy WP:NPA is the following sentence.[12]

"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone."

Could this have been used in the example where someone was referred to with a vulgar word? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and in this case the post was removed and the editor that made the comments just put it back.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for that? Eric Corbett 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence in the policy WP:NPA is the following.[13]

"Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

Could this have been used when the editor repeated the attack? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What attack? Eric Corbett 23:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Who was referred to with a vulgar word? Eric Corbett 21:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is no longer a valid argument. I defended the remark, only because you have said it to many people. But, should you be saying it to anyone? I mean after all, your very own words could be used to describe your behavior...could they not?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've said what to many people? What about answering the question I asked just above your evasive reply? Eric Corbett 21:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My reply was not to evade. I think you know the answer to your own question and I find it a little odd being asked by you. Seems rhetorical to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What I may or may not know is not the issue here, so why not answer the question? Eric Corbett 21:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked a question you are fully aware of, even if you don't agree on the details.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to press you, because you're propagating a lie. Who was referred to with a vulgar word? It's a simple enough question to which I do indeed know the answer: nobody. Eric Corbett 21:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Other editors and for the derogatory word see:[14] [15] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You as well eh? So which "other editors" did I refer to with a vulgar word? Eric Corbett 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The wording is "derogatory about", and the editors would be the ones you sought to advise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As evasive as ever. Which editors were referred to with a vulgar word? Eric Corbett 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric, if you're looking for an example of you referring to editors in a vulgar fashion perhaps this edit summary will suit? It took less than five minutes to find. 81.171.97.186 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I was actually looking for an answer to my question, which you and others here are for some reason desperately trying to avoid answering. Eric Corbett 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've answered your question 'So which "other editors" did I refer to with a vulgar word?'. Or are you now going to try to say that your edit summary wasn't directed at an editor? Moral fibre indeed. 81.171.97.186 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The policy concerns "derogatory comments about." The editors you advised in your comment is not evasive, that's who you were addressing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I get it that you don't have the moral fibre to admit that you're simply dissembling. Eric Corbett 00:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't mistake yourself. I'm just reading the words other people have written. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

For reference: diff that introduced the word cunt to the subject discussion [16]; diff that redacted it [17]; diff that restored it [18]; link to the discussion section for context [19]; link to corresponding WP:ANI section of complaint [20]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of the above diffs — An editor used a word that another editor considered offensive and a personal attack. The two editors could not settle the issue between themselves. A complaint was filed at WP:ANI. No administration action was taken. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Entrenched sexism

Wikipedia isn't alone in having a toxic work environment. There are a lot of real-world examples of organisations that have successfully dealt with this issue. Why doesn't the WMF partner with, or solicit advice from other organisations as to how they changed? One example that comes to mind is the ACLU, whose key mission is to educate, and who I'm sure would be able to give some very useful advice, but I'm sure there are many others. The issue of entrenched sexism is not unique to WP and I think it would be very helpful to learn from others in this circumstance. 101.116.91.82 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the evidence for the existence of "entrenched sexism" in WP? Eric Corbett 00:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just have to look - anyone can do it - [21] and [22] .. [23] -- Moxy (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This source doesn't describe it as sexism, but it does analyze the gender imbalance on Wikipedia:

Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender imbalance =/= sexism. Just think about it, anyone can do it. Eric Corbett 00:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your observation is noted. Have you read the paper yet? Or the other links? Or maybe done a little research yourself? Can I get you a cup of coffee? Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What research do I need to do to know that gender imbalance =/= sexism? What research have you done to prove the case for your claim of "entrenched sexism"? Doesn't seem like you've done any. Eric Corbett 01:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Its hard when people are not willing to even consider others POV. A better rebuttal would have been this link. Wikipedia is made up of people from all around the world and many come from places where women simply dont have right or are consider less able .....this is reflected in attitudes towards women here. They bring up problem and get even more humiliated for being considered to sensitive. We have to ask ourselves - are there just a few bad apples we need to toss out or is it a bigger wide spread problem? -- Moxy (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably both at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen no "entrenched sexism" on Wikipedia. I see the odd (in both senses) individual, just as there are for anti-Semites etc, but not some institutional ethos. That seems to be more a case of some people making illogical leaps. Like Eric, I've got on well with various contributors who self-identify on-wiki as women but I really couldn't care less that they are such and & it is evident because I cannot name names off-hand. They are no more special here than someone who self-identifies as a man. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems your personal experience with it has been great then. Thanks for self-reporting how fine you are with women.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm, or whatever it is you were aiming at, won't get you anywhere. I am still waiting to see proof of the entrenched sexism. You and others are shouting loudly but you are not providing proof. Which is typical of many pressure groups and of at least one specific person who is at the heart of the GGTF. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How about looking at our content? Female-oriented content is barely visible, while male-oriented content makes up most GA and FA work. Start there. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've no metrics for that but, yes, it might be true. However, all of the shouting is about civility, not content. If the GGTF (better renamed}} was intended to promote more coverage of those topics then I'd support it. I know that they do mention that aspect but their main purpose - encouraged by radical real-life activists like CMDC - seems to be more "anti-male" and civility-based, intended to sanitise and censor rather than improve. I'm probably not saying this well: should have been out of the door & off to work five minutes ago, sorry. You don't have to be female to cover female-related topics, of course. - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what female-oriented content is. J3Mrs (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You can start by reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists ("part of Wikipedia's systemic bias is that women in science are woefully underrepresented"). Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

But I find anything with women in the title so off-putting. Why would any editor want to be directed there? If you think that's what women come to edit then I'm not too surprised at the lack of take up. J3Mrs (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell if you are being purposefully obtuse or if you are in denial of the gender gap. You've been given evidence, yet you still deny it. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Obtuse? Not deliberately but I really still don't know what it is. What proof is there that closing the gender gap would produce this "female-oriented" material? I think there are more women here than some suppose, writing about all sorts of things that interest them, art, history, geography, literature, biography, industrial archaeology, who knows. Editors will edit whatever takes their fancy and should be judged on the quality of the content they produce, not whether they are male or female. I've produced, with help, some GAs but I don't see them as being oriented in any direction, male or female. Volunteers will do as volunteers please, thank goodness. J3Mrs (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A thought or two on "Don't ask, don't tell"

I'm wondering whether "DADT" might be a viable solution for the sexism problem on WP. I's sure most well read editors will be aware of the application of a DADT policy in the US military establishment w.r.t. sexual orientation and the problems that have consequently arisen/not been solved. However, the online environment is different because "nobody knows you're a dog". We don't (or at least don't need to) reveal our actual identities/characteristics at all - an editor's WP-persona is whatever they say it is. If nobody on WP knows that I am a 40-something, white, South African, English speaking, male, wheelchair user - it is impossible to subject me to any of the "-isms" that arise out of those characteristics. I would be immune to sexism, ageism, racism, disableism, etc. because a potential insulter/discriminator won't know which "-ism" to use against me. Has any IP editor ever complained of sexism/racism/etc? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually proposing the implementation of a failed policy that was recalled in 2011? Seriously? So when discrimination does arise, we should just ignore it? That's your solution? My gosh, is it 2014 or 1914? Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, sometimes on Wikipedia it looks more like 14BC :(

I wonder whether people who make suggestions like this one ever stop to consider what their life would be like only if they took care never to disclose some core attribute of themselves, such as their gender, race or sexuality. Have they ever considered what it would be like to be fired from your job because someone became aware that you were -- whisper it -- heterosexual? Or that if they disclosed the fact of being male, they had nobody but themselves to blame for abuse or discrimination or hostility which followed?

Hiding those attributes doesn't make hostility to those attributes go away. It just means that people are unable to disclose the impact of denigrations of those attributes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:BrownHairedGirl I fully realize the hostility doesn't go away - but by not revealing that you have the attribute the hostility cannot be aimed at you - someone can't be stoned if there are no stones. I'm not saying blame the victim, but maybe if the victim stops actually giving the haters the stones, they won't be able to throw any. Just like WP:Deny seeks to disarm trolls, if there are no easily available targets for the haters here, they can't exercise their hate. Again - this is cyberspace, nobody really needs to even have a race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not proposing anything, I'm just putting an idea here for discussion - this is Jimbo's talk page, not WP:VPP. As far as I know we have never had such a "policy" so how could it have been "recalled in 2011"? You seem to be missing the key point - if nobody knows that I'm male/female/white/black/gay/Muslim/atheist/Australian/Russian/whatever it is impossible to use it as a basis for discrimination. That's where the US military policy failed - in the face-to-face world it is basically impossible to hide characteristics that form the basis of discrimination. Here in the online environment people only know things about me that I have actually revealed. BTW the WP:Advice for younger editors page does in fact recommend exactly this strategy - it advises young editors not to reveal their age to make it impossible to victimize them for being young. Has any IP editor ever complained of racism/sexism/homophobia? No, because an IP editor is just a number, an IP has no gender, race, nationalty, religion, etc. - maybe we should all just be numbers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, isn't the argument more around what in European discrimination law we call "indirect discrimination" e.g. an atmosphere/conduct that repels women, preferencing topics that find more favour with men etc The disclosure of gender only has a bearing on "direct" discrimation. I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the foregoing - just that this suggestion wouldn't address much of the alleged problem in any case. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

IPs complain about racism/sexism/homophobia all the time. You want examples? "I don't want to take part in the community aspects of this website, particularly as the area that I edit in has a lot of openly sexist editors and it means forming an identity with them --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)"[24] Dodger67, please try to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. You couldn't be more wrong about your characterization of IPs and how to best deal with discrimination. Hiding our heads in the sand is not the right approach. And as for victimizing people for being young, that's somewhat of a joke. In the real world (such as not on Wikipedia) people are victimized for being old, not young. Unlike other countries, in the United States, for example, youth is prized above all else in every facet of life. This kind of youth-obsessed culture didn't really exist in the US until the 1960s. And if you do the slightest bit of research on the subject, you'll discover it's a long-term marketing campaign intended to provide a fresh supply of consumers who will demand that their parents buy them the latest x, y, and z. So if you're looking for victims, look no farther than the old people who have been discarded by society at every level because they are no longer hungry consumers and productive creators of junk. Young people like Frosty who think it's unbearably funny to refer to women as cunts are victims of their own immaturity. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah....because DADT worked sooo well for the US military it surely will work as well or better on a civilian, international, encyclopedic website? (In case anyone missed that...it was sarcasm) So what....you gonna ban everyone who uses their real name? Force us back into the "closet"? This was just not thought through very well, but I trust the good faith of the OP. The issue isn't our characteristics, its the problem of allowing others to discuss them as weapon or a blunt object to beat over an editors head.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Don't ask, don't tell" only would work if a) people weren't allowed to use names that indicated gender and b) those who had done so before be allowed to change their user names and start editing from scratch with just a note that they had a previous editing history and were an editor in good standing, with maybe a "stamp of approval" or something. But what a step backward in human consciousness that would be, eh? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of WikiLove and WikiPeace

How about we let go of all this pointless hositlity, join hands, and sing a lovely ditty?--The Loving Kindness Advocate ^{♥ ♥}23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hall of fame quality troll, vanishing in five - four - three - two... Carrite (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I like the way this Devil's Advocate thinks. ~Frosty (Talk page) 01:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Which proves my point. Your user page says you are only 18 years old. You don't yet have enough experience nor knowledge based on experience to understand this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well ain't that just a beautiful (and inappropriate) ad hominem. KonveyorBelt 03:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the context of proving my point (which is discussed on Lightbreather's talk page), there is nothing ad hominem here. I maintain and continue to theorize that all of Wikipedia's so-called gender bias problems can be attributed to its young, immature demographic, which just so happens to be male. In other words, older males are less likely to fall afoul of the gender bias, and we've seen this to be true time and time again. Young males like Frosty up above, who openly praise and admire trolls who make fun of women simply don't have the necessary self-reflection that comes with experience and age. Physiologically, his brain hasn't even finished developing. To address the gender gap, therefore, we must first address the immaturity of our editors. I've recommended on Lightbreather's page that we should focus on education and strategies over and above noticeboards. This means doing exactly what Lightbreather is doing, calling editors on their bad behavior whenever it appears and offering insight and strategies for dealing with and getting along with other editors. So, nothing ad hominem here at all. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, nope, under Big Brother's Friendly Space Policy™, you have just committed an ageist attack and you are gone. The Thought Police (pro staff of WMF) have so ruled. There is no appeal. Thank you for your service to Wikipedia! Carrite (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You've evidently never been to Silicon Valley, the Solar System's leader in real, institutional ageism. It's worse than Logan's Run. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with real ageism, racism, sexism, ultra-nationalism, or religious hatred, ad infinitum? This is all a gigantic diversion. Civility can't be policed with Civility Police, it takes a common will of the entire community to show provocateurs of all stripes the door. This issue should have ended with the first ANI decision. The next step would have been an ArbCom case. Instead, we all have made Orville Redenbacher (kindly deceased front man for ConAgra) into a rich man with forum shopping, idiotic epithets, involved blocks, non-consultative unblocks, abruptly terminated ANI debates, and on and on. The mess traces back to the original verbal bomb-thrower and the aggrieved party who refused to accept community consensus and follow standard protocol for an appeal. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, 18 is quite advanced in catfish years.--The Ichthyology Advocate ^{tlk. cntrb.} 05:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Refocus indeed?

I would like to point folks back to the initial response by DangerousPanda to the initial post (all now hatted), where DP laid out the forum-shopping background to the OP and suggested there was some WP:SPIDERMAN action going on here. I want to go back a step further than DP did. Just prior to launching the civility/sexism crusade that DP describes, Lightbreather received a topic-ban from gun-control topics at Arbcom Enforcement, which you can read here. As far as I can see, and as I tried to point out to her here, Lightbreather has pretty much zero self-insight into the behavior that led to that topic ban, and instead of taking the topic-ban as a wakeup call, has shrugged it off and redirected the advocate's zeal that got her topic-banned into a new crusade.

It is crazy to me see all the whirlwind that has been created from such a beginning. They make movies about stuff like this.

And the discussions and drama that have unfolded point up the difficulties of enforcing Civility as a pillar. The aspects of Civility in action that matter most, are very hard to clearly define, and when violations arise, it takes a lot of work to sort out what happened between other editors, and it is so, so easy to put one's own spin on things and just hear what is important to you, and so hard for so many of us, to see the plank in our own eye. Which one can observe a lot of, in what has unfolded. And these are the some of the reasons the community's efforts to enforce Civility have collapsed in the past. ~Maybe~ it is worth putting some structure back in place, but it needs to be done deliberately and wisely. By insightful, experienced editors who have lived through past efforts and understand why the community walked away from them. Not in a passionate crusade.

And in my view, Lightbreather remains as unaware of her inability to leave advocacy at the WP login as the day she received her topic ban. The problem for her is still the speck in someone else's eye.Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to point out to her here, Lightbreather has pretty much zero self-insight into the behavior that led to that topic ban... Re: that link, I do hope everyone who's interested does read it: Jytdog's comments and mine. One of my favorite lines from him is: "Plenty of kind folks have you tried to help you see you what you have been doing wrong." Though I'm not too keen on the term, this is a good example of mansplaining. If you don't want to gum-up Jimbo's talk page, here's a space for you, too. [25] Please keep it civil. Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. That is perfectly normal to be said in the course of almost any administrative action. It has nothing to do with gender or incivility. Sometimes people just aren't listening. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh! And since Jytdog wants others to read DP's initial response to my discussion with Jimbo, I want others to read my response to DP.[26] Lightbreather (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog - Arbcom is not made up of perfect saints. WP:A/G itself states that the arbitrators "do not have much time" and they "care much more about product than process", which ensures that the majority of their decisions are at least controversial, if not outright inaccurate. -A1candidate (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A1, generalities aside, if you take some time and read the discussion and links in the AE, you will see that the outcome was apt. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I clicked the link to ArbCom, and the first thing that caught my attention was an inaccurate topic-ban of Herxue, but that's another topic for another day. As for Lightbreather, I actually took the time to read the bulk of the discussion, but I came out less than impressed. What happened was that EdJohnston first proposed a warning to both parties and everyone agreed. Then EdJohnston changed his mind and proposed an arbitrary (pun fully intended!) 6 month topic-ban and everyone agreed again. The ability to pause and critically evaluate an issue before passing a judgement was (and is) entirely non-existent. -A1candidate (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is an inaccurate reading. On July 2 already Ed brought up the question of who was making edits on other side of Scalhotrod's reverts, listed by Lightbreather, and said that if that was one person, that person would likely be sanctionable also ... 6 days later Ed said it was looking to him like both parties should at least be warned, and by July 12 Ed had looked and seen the edit war was the two of them and looked at the behavior of both of them at RSN that had developed since they had started deliberating, and found that "we have two one-note editors who are going to make edits favoring their own position on any mainspace articles", and recommended topic ban for both. Other admins were following the reasoning all along and consented. There was never a "change of mind" but an evolution as they looked deeper. It was deliberative and not rushed. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

But this is off topic in any case. The point I am trying to make is that enforcing Civility is pretty much impossible. Way too subjective, and way too often (present company included) folks are too busy looking at the specks in other people's eyes and not seeing the plank in their own. Especially on emotionally-laden topics. And even in pretty-clear cut cases, it is hard to get admins to read carefully through a bunch of horrible discussions and actually take action; what volunteer wants that job? It needs to be really screaming bloody murder - a real personal threat - to get action taken. And that is not what this crusade is about - it is about much more subtle things that are much harder to define, much less take action on. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Lightbreather’s topic ban isn’t really relevant. I admittedly know nothing about it, so will not attempt to comment on whether or not it was fair, but either way, it seems we should stick to the civility debate she’s brought to light regarding whether or not “cunt” is an appropriate word to throw around on Wikipedia and whether or not Wikipedia’s current norms and practices represent something similar to a “hostile work environment” for female editors. Currently, only about 10% of editors are female so this is a serious issue and I think it’s best we stick to the issues as much as possible and not make things personal regarding editors. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Having lurked at ANI for a bit and seen quite a few civility-related discussions come and go, it seems to me that the problem is that there are a few admins who very vocally oppose any action on civility and that this is interpreted as a lack of consensus to take any action. A related problem is that the probability of ANI action is generally inversely proportional to the length of discussion minus what has been contributed by the parties in a dispute. There have been a number of cases where there has been more-or-less consensus to take action but no action has been taken and my slightly-cynical assessment of the reasons is that no uninvolved admin could be bothered reading it all to assess consensus.

Presently almost any accusation of incivility on ANI is quickly shot down. Usually it is explained that action for incivility is almost impossible, citing some other particularly egregious case where no action was taken as precedent. Why this isn't dismissed as WP:OTHERSTUFF I don't know.

So it seems to me there are three possibilities for fixing this, if indeed it needs fixing:

Change policy to allow any single admin to impose a (perhaps limited) block for incivility. This would avoid the inertia of long ANI discussions but would be easy to abuse.
Remove responsibility for enforcing civility from the general run of administrators and give it to someone else (the Civility Board that has been suggested elsewhere). This would avoid the inertia of long ANI discussions but would probably lead to a lot of complaints.
Create lots of new admins who view incivility as a problem, effectively stacking ANI. I'm not sure this would really work - it's hard to get the right people, they would have all sorts of other powers we might not want them to have and it might actually make the inertia of ANI worse anyway.

GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As an afterthought to that, I also think that this discussion needs to be separated from sexism. Where it happens, sexism is a problem and a nasty one, but the problem of incivility is much wider than that and I don't think it's productive to frame it as mainly about sexism. Much of the discussion above demonstrates this. Even if every complaint of sexism above is an example of the worst sort of discrimination, it has nonetheless had the effect of derailing the discussion. Perhaps that in itself is even a demonstration of entrenched sexism. Nonetheless, I take the pragmatic stance that making progress toward our goals is more important than arguing every point to death out of principle. GoldenRing (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned in this discussion, I'd like to make a comment. The person who is campaigning for a means to ~~encourage~~ enforce civility on WP and presumably concurrently reduce sexism is same person who made a what I consider a sexist personal attack, twice, during an ARE proceeding and then later made a reference to it, though in a less direct way, on the Talk page for the Gender Gap Task Force when Lightbreather accused me of joining for no other reason than to annoy/intimidate/disrupt her. I asked about the original instance and it was acknowledged by an Admin that it was a "personal attack or close to it" [27]. I was advised to let it go because of the impending Topic Ban and did that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did I leave the Gender Gap project less than 48 hours after acting on an invitation to join? Here's the full story, in my own words: [28]. Lightbreather (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Administrators specializing in civility issues

Suggest having a registry where administrators can voluntarily register to handle incivility cases. Editors who encounter an uncivil editor can choose one of the administrators from the registry for help. After a case is closed, the involved editors (plaintiff and defendant) have the option of giving a brief review of the administrator to aid future editors in choosing an administrator for help. A link to the review history can be conveniently located next to the administrator's name in the registry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect those volunteering for such duty would include a wide array of personal-political POV pushers. One could choose their favorite agent of change and obliterate their foes in five minutes, QED. Actually the best people to remedy such conflict are apt not to be administrators at all... @Cullen328 (Jim H.) for example... Carrite (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A biased administrator could be identified by the history of reviews and would risk being sanctioned upon further investigation.

An alternative is to have an employee from WMF with administrator powers, instead of the registry. Such an employee would be subject to a performance review by WMF management which would include involved editor reviews as in the registry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is something I think could work....need not be admin and yeah...Cullen is an excellent editor for civility issues and I can think of a few more, but everyone has their detractors.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Re "need not be admin" — a non-admin would not have enforcement power. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility cases are almost invariably content disputes that get out of hand. Sometimes they are provoked as a POV-pushing tactic. Do you want a compromise negotiator or a dissident crusher? I'll go further the other direction: if we're going to have Civility Specialists, they should NOT be administrators. "Get the deal done or I will call in somebody and get you blocked" is all the leverage they would need. We've seen in this very incident how administrators can be quick to escalate to blocking when they get frustrated. The parties should have ZERO control over the selection of the Civility Specialist, otherwise this institution would almost immediately devolve into a simple POV warring tool. (Civility Specialists are not necessarily a horrid idea, but if done wrong it's a horrid idea...) Carrite (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Re "Do you want a compromise negotiator or a dissident crusher?" — Neither. I want the admin/arbitrator to look at the diffs presented by the plaintiff, get the views of the plaintiff and defendant, and determine whether there has been incivility. If the admin/arbitrator determines there has been incivility, the admin/arbitrator would remove it. If the defendant restores it, then the defendant will be blocked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bob K31416 - (redacting, I didn't read well enough...) In other words, no examination of the underlying editorial dispute which caused the outburst, no examination of the questions of past history, or stalking, or provocation... Just a couple diffs (out of any context) followed by a quick ruling as to whether on the face of it the comments were "uncivil" and "blockable"... A bright line, like 3RR, that shall not be crossed for any reason? I can't imagine a hardline mandate like that gaining widespread support even among the administrative caste. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Carrite redacted after noting the part, "get the views of the plaintiff and defendant". Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

My experience and observation is that incivility has become a POV warring tool... to the point where editors accuse other editors of being too civil. Civility is considered uncivil by some powerful editors and groups of editors. They might not lead with such an accusation, but if one stands their ground and keeps their cool? Yes. And then civility gets equated with censorship or tendentiousness. There is no policy that says asking another to keep their comments civil is censorship, or that standing your ground - if your evidence and arguments stand up under scrutiny - is being tendentious. Lightbreather (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead of special admins for handling civility I think it better that we simply insist that no admin take an admin action in an area where they are unwilling to or unable to understand and follow the consensus of the policy. That is to say if you think NPA should not be enforced then you should not be engaging in unblocks for NPA. Chillum 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Suppose Wikipedia:Civility/Noticeboard be created with a discussion to be held on its scope and methods of resolving disputes, whether by mediation or enforcements (IBAN, block, etc.) KonveyorBelt 15:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there was some discussion of that elsewhere. [29]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Past discussions re: WP:WQA and WP:PAIN, and why they were closed/shut down,[30][31] need to be reviewed, as do suggestions made here, but actually creating the board, with a "Coming soon" message would make it clear that there is intention to make this happen in some form, details TBD. Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this. For one thing the old WP:WQA was easily gamed, especially by fringe POV pushers, some of whom were prone to take criticism of their pet ideas personally. Cardamon (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Civility needs to be enforced by everyone, editors and admins alike. We need to stop thinking that the "tools" are going to change anything. At the end of the day it's just us, whether you have a block button or not. I've said it before and I'll say it again, people have to learn to be civil, and they need to be taught which strategies work and which don't. Wikipedia's biggest problem is that it doesn't spend any time teaching users how to improve their skills, from researching to writing to basic strategies for dispute resolution. Until we focus on how to make users better editors, we will be chasing our tail. There is no noticeboard nor any admin toolset that will solve this problem. The answer lies only in self-improvement, nowhere else. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be an admin noticeboard, rather I would hope uninvolved editors help, like in DRN or even sometimes ANI. KonveyorBelt 03:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that most DRN and ANI threads don't really need Administrative intervention. The proposed board will need an administrator to impose specific sanctions (IBan, TBan, Block, CBan) because these are cases where either by convention or by toolset a regular user cannot impose a sanction. By giving the sanction the authority of an administrator whom the community has vetted, it further demonstrates to the sanctioned how grave the situation is. Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the problem Hasteur, it is the solution. The proposed board would no more need administrators imposing sanctions that the DRN. DRN, as part of its guideline for volunteers, tells us that we are to assist in recommending the proper venue and if that be administrative action, it would be directed to AN or ANI. We even toyed around a bit be literally transferring threads over to other notice boards when it was just a content disputes or RS to the RS Noticeboard. Conflict is no different...it can be handled without the board needing an admin to do anything. None of the boards really work that way.

I know a lot of people don't want "yet another board", but some think this is needed...but I would not call it the civility board. I would model it after DRN because that has worked, but in a simpler form and call it the Conflict resolution noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think that habitually uncivil editors are going to suddenly shape up and become paragons of civility just because an editor at a noticeboard told them to behave, I've got some nice oceanfront property in the middle of Kansas that I'd love to sell you. At this point the rot is so pervasive that we need sanctions application/enforcement that sticks much the same way that ArbCom sanctions stick. Hasteur (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "yet another board": As I mentioned when I first asked about the existence of a civility board, I commented on how many other boards there are. Why have separate COI and paid advocacy boards? Or separate sockpuppet, username and vandalism boards? Those first two could be merged, as could the other three. Since we have civility policies, room ought to be made for a Civility board - to address civility policies only. (Make people take disruptive and tendentious editing, and other guideline or essay based conduct) to ANI or ArbCom, just as they do now, because those are harder to prove.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, It appears that your suggestion is to teach editors to be civil. How would you do that, especially if an editor isn't receptive to being taught? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

First thing I would do is improve and streamline new editor recruitment and retention by developing a slick registration process that explains the importance and necessity of civility, and explains where to go if you run into problems and how to deal with issues. Right now, we've basically got children telling adults how to do this, which is backasswards. So to summarize, the introduction for new editors should encapsulate this process. Second thing you do is spend 30 days analyzing the dispute resolution process and how to improve it and make it more efficient and more importantly, more effective. This means, essentially, that anyone who is interested in DR or goes through it, should come away with improved DR skills. For me, this is the heart of the problem. Users aren't learning how to be better editors; the site is more focused on "fighting" vandalism and reporting trouble. This is a huge waste of time for everyone. As for editors who aren't receptive to being taught, I've run into this several times, and for the most part these editors were highly educated and intelligent, but intentionally stood in the way of progress and behavior change. In at least one incident, the editor was indefinitely blocked and continued socking; in another, the editor abandoned their account and started a new one, but continues their bad behavior at this time. Putting aside the obvious mental health and competency problems that may arise, I believe that most editors are capable of being taught. Humans are, after all, learning machines. Although I am by no means familiar with educational technology or teaching in general, in my own experience, several factors can prevent learning, including a) bad habits, and b) poor listening (or reading) skills. If you can address both of those, then I'm sure we can make progress on this issue. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding new editors and civility, I've had similar thoughts. The basic idea is that trying to change the behavior of experienced uncivil Wikipedians may be impossible in most cases because they are set in their ways, but new editors would be more possible to influence before they join the uncivil combative subculture. However, I think that a large majority of new editors are civil and remain civil during their Wikipedia editing, so that it may be inappropriate to stress civility with all new editors, relative to the other four of the five pillars.
Regarding DR, it takes a special temperament and aptitude to engage in that, somewhat like a lawyer litigating for oneself. It may be hard to get around that. However, if there were volunteer Wikipedians who were willing to advocate in DR for editors who don't have the temperament or aptitude to do so themselves, that might level the playing field. I think almost everyone who comes to Wikipedia wants to work on articles, rather than to get into conflicts. The conflicts may be a very unpleasant surprise for new editors. It may start with the first of their edits that is abruptly or rudely reverted.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We're definitely on the same page. What's the next step? Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that your idea of teaching editors to be civil and the two bulleted items in my last message might be addressed by the same method, i.e. volunteer advocates who are skilled in DR and civil in their style. An editor (new or experienced) who encounters a problem editor could request help from such an advocate. New editors (and maybe experienced editors too) might learn how to approach problems with problem editors by the example of the advocate who is civil in style. The editors who are helped might eventually be able to handle future encounters with uncivil editors without becoming uncivil themselves. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the most serious problems is that that many of the people enabling and engaging in personal attacks and incivility are admins. What we need to do is become more willing to block an admin without a handful of other admins screaming bloody murder over it.

Call me crazy but I think if we all had the same treatment for the same behavior things would be a bit better. Chillum 15:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO eliminating the admin class would do far more towards creating a civil atmosphere and encouraging more women, 3rd world located ppl etc to contribute than any of the increasingly authoritarian approaches others are suggesting (such as desysopping those who dont agree with whatever the ppl at the top are saying, e.g. the terms of service proposal by BrownHairedGirl on this talk page♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This place would be encyclopedia dramatica if we had no admins. Surely this is not a serious suggestion? All we need to do it eliminate the culture that admins are immune to blocks and then block those that don't follow consensus. Chillum 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I am not suggesting doing away with wikipedia blocking people but at the very least the current admin system, with its 2 classes of wikipedians and endless power disputes, needs utterly overhauling so of course it is a serious suggestion, what does this comment of yours say about your openness to other and perhaps radical solutions? Can't even take them seriously, sigh! We need to look seriously at other solutions and IMO unless this voluntary work place starts to become less and not more authoritarian it certainly wont attract women and minority groups to participate more♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The admin class should be eliminated completely, and the various tools granted on an individual basis the way rollback, reviewer, etc., are done. In this way most Wikipedians will have the tools they need for those areas of the project that they work on, without anyone being able to feel that they are better or lesser than anyone else. Besides, the admin request process is a horrible horrible procedure that I wouldn't wish on anybody. It is broken and needs to be replaced with something better. Manytimes the requests are denied when the user really only wanted one or two of the tools. For example some have wanted the ability to lock pages as part of their anti vandalism duties, and have no interest in blocking or unblocking anyone, but they can't have it because they have to become an admin to get the one tool and simply don't want to go through that grueling process... --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Chillum (talk · contribs): We don't need the anarchy that is the current admin system. It is a major part of Wikipedia's problems. This huge body of loose cannon legacy admins, appointed for life, act on individual whim with no centralised control and not even a mission statement or constitution to guide them. Additionally, these admins have assigned for their own exclusive use nearly ALL of the additional tools that should have been distributed to the experienced users who need them. Most admins are not equipped for, and should not be given the ability to block long term productive content builders. Further, the views of incumbent admins should carry little weight in discussions on this matter, since they are too highly invested in the status quo. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Sue Rangell (talk · contribs): I entirely agree with your sensible comments. However these matters have been thrashed out many times before, and never get anywhere because the huge body of legacy admins, together with their retinues, always have the controlling edge when these matters are put to the vote. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Why is Wikipedia Sexist"

This is from a right-wing paper. Note that the question is not "Is Wikipedia Sexist?" but "Why is it sexist?"

The lede reads:

"The National Science Foundation (NSF) is spending over $200,000 to find out why Wikipedia is sexist.

"The government has awarded two grants for collaborative research to professors at Yale University and New York University to study what the researchers describe as “systematic gender bias” in the online encyclopedia."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones - Well, that's a swell POV headline. Here's how Yale Sociology professor Dr. Julia Adams, one of the grant recipients, describes the project on her own university page:

"In 2013, Adams was awarded a two-year National Science Foundation grant for collaborative research with Hannah Brueckner (Associate Dean of Social Science, NYU-Abu Dhabi) on “Wikipedia and the Democratization of Academic Knowledge.” The investigators are exploring gender-specific patterns of representation of scholars and scholarship. One of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Wikipedia." LINK.

Very reasonable. Then again, we could all get worked into a tizzy about a headline in the Washington Free Beacon, I suppose... Carrite (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to most people except a small, very loud group among us, that there is a problem. Jus da fax 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I could argue with equal validity that it seems pretty obvious to most people except a small, very loud group among us, that there is no problem. Eric Corbett 19:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Leaving this off-topic discussion of taxpayer financed research here but closed so that we can get back on track discussing the main issue.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Even so, it's our problem to fix. I object to my tax dollars being given to the NSF to "study" it and then do what?--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of study is not necessarily "to do" anything, it's to understand. Understanding Wikipedia has been an inquiry of study for awhile now. It's part of internet study, and it would be very odd if the internet or online phenomena were not studied by people at places like Yale and NYU. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A little over only 1 percent of income taxes funds all public science research in the US, including the NSF. You object to this pittance? Are we supposed to take this kind of reactionary view seriously? Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you don't get line-item veto power over NSF grants by virtue of being a taxpayer. Believe me, I wish I could exercise more discretion over my tax dollars as well. (For instance, Congress has spent nearly $54 million holding symbolic and ineffectual votes to repeal Obamacare, if that helps put the NSF's $200,000 in perspective). You can take heart in the fact that federal science funding in the U.S. has plummeted at an unprecedented rate over the past decade, though. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The only reason Silicon Valley exists in California and not in Buckinghamshire, where it should have flourished, is because people like Ukexpat saw no need to fund the dreams of boffins and anoraks. The same is true for the British space programme. They missed opportunities that could have made the UK a leader in technology simply because they refused to fund it. That's a historical fact. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the internet attracts a large number of young technically minded males who hold rigid views not only of gender roles, but of society in general. So not only does Wikipedia skew more sexist than would be optimal, but almost all articles on controversial topics provide far too much weight to fringe views. Also, the manner in which content is determined is highly confrontational. For example, if one editor insists on reverting to his preferred version, other editors must apply for a block in order to stop them. That environment is more attractive to confrontational people, who often hold rigid views on social issues. TFD (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Leaving this off-topic discussion of Marxism, Phillip Larkin, and so on here but closed so that we can get back on track discussing the main issue.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The real "reactionary" view is that people still think that sex and gender exist. They don't. They're just tools created by the capitalist classes to divide the people, pure products of biological essentialism and social darwinism. Humanity must stand united in the face of capitalist classes. Anyone that believes that there is such a thing as a "man" or "woman" apart from the simple "human" is a fool. This discussion that's been going on is sheer proof that the capitalist classes are succeeding in their misdirection of the masses. RGloucester — ☎ 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Serious? Are you saying that sexes did not exist before the capitalist class arose? How do you know it is your analysis, that does not suffer from a false consciousness? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884) by Engles. But actually, as far as Glouster's main thesis - I'll have to ask my wife :-) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

... and then they invented sex in 1963? - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

. . . Perhaps? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The English were a bit slow. In Ireland it was invented when we got television, which was on 31 December 1961. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hail me as human, and so shall I hail you. Hail me as woman, and how can I hail you but as man? Such is the efficacy of semiotic division. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex and gender have existed since before Homo sapiens and will continue to exist, until the end of time. They may become equal, bu differences will always be present beyond simple anatomy. KonveyorBelt 21:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, mine was an attempt at humour - Larkin's Annus Mirabilis says (approx) "sexual intercourse was invented in 1963, just too late for me". His This Be The Verse has long been a standard text in UK schools etc and, curiously given the present contretemps, contains a certain word in its opening line. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think This Be The Verse has ever been standard in UK schools. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who didn't follow the link, so was mine. The anti-semitic, fascist-sympathising politician Oliver J. Flanagan claimed that "there was no sex in Ireland before television". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I followed the link and had a bit of a giggle, thanks - that guy had passed me by. With all the recent kerfuffles, a bit of witty banter etc should be allowed even if we ain't a social network ;) Can we all lighten up a bit for, say, 10 minutes at least? - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Christmas 1914 :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Gloucester may be right. The Soviets didn't have sex until 1985, with the advent of Perestroika, learning about it from Phil Donohue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What seems clear is that a number of editors here are threatened by the question "Why is Wikipedia sexist?" With the growing popularity of the 'pedia in the last decade, and its obvious importance as an online source, pov pushers of various stripes established themselves here. I think for some, if not a majority of these types, a hostile "Wild West" editing environment serves their interests very well. Women generally tend to focus on viewpoints that don't represent the concentrations of power in our society, which often are headed up by males or profit them. Additionally, the increasing shootout mentality, only mildly ameliorated by the veneer of Wikipedia-en governance originally designed to uphold the Five Pillars but now riddled with corruption, allows the isolation and marginalization of feminist voices and viewpoints. I continue to advocate notihing less than a complete reboot of the self-interested administrator caste, which operates largely immune from sanctions or even meaningful scrutiny, with few exceptions. Admins who buck the trend, like BHG, are reversed with impunity. I additionally submit, Jimmy, that enforcement of the Five Pillars by the WMF through terms of service provisions and appointed facilitators is the sole remaining option to address the increasingly unpleasant editing environment at Wikipedia-en now effectively serving entrenched interests. Jusdafax 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- So essentially you believe a more authoritarian wikipedia will attract more women? Or am I misunderstanding you?♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not be so dramatic: it isn't clear at all, BHG was not reversed "with impunity" (the discussion about that action rumbles on) and as for "corruption", well, prove it. I think your feminist bias is showing and it really doesn't help your cause if you misrepresent things. You are, I hope, aware that there are many men who support reasonable measures that would aid female contribution here and also that there are many women here who do not subscribe to your feminist worldview: you run the risk of alienating both groups. Then - because of consensus - a fork for "feminist Wikipedia" might really be your only option and I don't think it would work well. It most certainly would have problems maintaining neutrality in its actual article content because it would have very little at all of the balancing effect inherent in contributions from a wide range of worldviews. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

...ah the classic put down "please do not be so dramatic." That there is a severe problem in the editing experience for women is not under debate, as studies are underway to find out why the problem exists. As for the "discussion" regarding BHG's reversal, it will be drawn out until it is judged stale, and tabled per standard practice here, and (to SqueakBox) the comment about "more authoritarian" is inaccurate inasmuch as I advocate dumping the entire admin corps, replacing them with selected volunteers and WMF-paid facilitators with a gender balanced makeup. We need to fix Wikipedia or lose it, and continuing on as we have been is no longer an option. Jus da fax 19:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jusdafax says I advocate dumping the entire admin corps, replacing them with selected volunteers and WMF-paid facilitators with a gender balanced makeup.

The admin corps already are selected volunteers. And the gender make-up of admins has a larger female percentage than the gender make-up of editors.

As to WMF-paid facilitators, this would indeed (potentially) be a good use of WMF funds, however a lower bar might be set by getting WMF to fund some proper facilitator, mediator and arbitrator training.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

User:Jusdafax, I agree about getting rid of admins entirely with some paid WMF members to perhaps do any blocking that is vital to the well-being of the encyclopedia and hopefully done in a way to minimize authoritarian attitudes which are never pleasant in a voluntary working environment♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's so clear cut that there's a severe problem then why has nobody yet been able to provide any evidence? Eric Corbett 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it a classic put down? You're being dramatic, making fictional claims and overegging the pudding. What is worse is that you have not addressed my challenge of two of the dramatic points you raised and you've dodged round the third. Would you prefer that I strike "so dramatic" and replace with "such a liar"? - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: I suggest that you invest in a dictionary or consult a free online one. Merriam Webster defines "impunity" as "exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss". The editor who used the c-word and dismissed the complaint as irrational and brainless was indeed exempted from punishment at ANI, as were those who supported his conduct. Yet you choose to apply the label "liar" to the editor who used the word "impunity". Are you trying to outdo Eric as a poster-child for community's failure to restrain even the most blatant incivility? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: there is a widely documented phenomenon that women who complain about inappropriate male behaviour are put down by being accused of over-reaction, hyper-sensitivity, being emotional, or (in its most extreme form) as "hysterical". I do not intend to post a pile of references here: go do some homework.

@Eric: your repeated demands for "evidence" are at best disingenuous. There have been plenty of studies in plenty of contexts demonstrating that women are less likely than men to engage in environments which include aggression, profanity and abusiveness. There are studies specifically of Wikipedia which document how women are put off by the behaviour of some editors. You choose either to ignore all that evidence, or leave your self unfamiliar with it. An editor who is capable of writing featured articles is quite capable of doing the mininmal research required to familiarise yourself with this, but you choose not to do so.

Eric and his defenders have been demanding specific evidence that their abusiveness has driven away identifiable editors. Eric's test requires that people who give up editing or decide not to start editing take the time to explain their reasons in some location easily accessible to Wikipedia editors. It takes very little imagination to understand why that does not often happen.

More fundamentally, Eric and his enablers are engaged in a FUD exercise of trying to invert the burden of proof. The repeated use of intentionally obscene and offensive sexist terminology is not tolerated in most workplaces or in most social settings, nor is blatant personal insult such as accusing other people of being both irrational and brainless. The onus lies on Eric and his enablers to justify their desire to behave on Wikipedia in a manner which would not be tolerated in other environments, and which in many would count as gross misconduct.

Despite being a skilled writer who repeatedly demonstrates his ability express himself clearly, Eric repeatedly chooses to express himself aggressively and/or obscenely, in blatant contravention both of Wikipedia's civility policies and the WMF's terms of service.

I have had enough of playing the game according to the rules set by Eric and his small but vocal band of enablers. The WMF has clear terms of service which explicitly require editors to support a civil environment, and it has a non discrimination policy which commits the foundation across all its projects to the principle of equal opportunity. Eric and his enablers are engaged in an entrenched pattern of action which breaches both the terms of service and the non-discrimination policy, and community processes have failed to uphold these policies even in the case of a flagrant and repeated breach.

The WMF has traditionally relied on the community itself to uphold Foundation policy, and that approach largely works well with BLPs, legal threats, privacy etc. However it fails with civility, and I could flood the page with diffs of editors (including admins) who explicitly insist that civility policy should not be enforced. That's why I want the WMF to find new ways of ensuring that its policies are upheld. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: ok, I see. In that case, for "dramatic" please feel free to substitute "such a liar", pending some informed suggestion of an alternate description. The claims made were false in one aspect, misrepresentative in another and unproven in the third. It's unfortunate that bluntness has to be substituted due to a completely unfounded characterisation of my intent. The only way to be sure of avoiding upsetting people here would seem to be to say nothing. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: As I noted above where you first chose describe another editor as a "liar", I suggest that you invest in a dictionary or consult a free online one. Merriam Webster defines "impunity" as "exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss". The editor who used the c-word and dismissed the complaint as irrational and brainless was indeed exempted from punishment at ANI, as were those who supported his conduct. Yet you choose to apply the label "liar" to the editor who used the word "impunity". Are you trying to outdo Eric as a poster-child for the community's failure to restrain even the most blatant incivility? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I came here to comment on Jimmy's page to Jimmy. The subsequent rhetorical hostility is exactly what I and others, including those now studying Wikipedia's editing climate, are referring to. Jus da fax 20:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it is just that the bluff in your rantings has been called? I know that there isn't a requirement to provide evidence here but, really, when you come out with the sort of statements that you have done it probably would assist your case if you did. And you haven't, at least in part because they're plain misrepresentations. If you think that I'm going to get a thesaurus and a "dictionary of misogynistic words" out every time I write something, just in case I would otherwise unwittingly offend you, then you have another think coming. Feel free to suggest an alternative, accurate word for "dramatic", though. And to amend your use of "corruption". You've gone way too far, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: words which cause offence degrade communication and impede resolution of the substantive topics under consideration. That's one of the reasons why they are banned in all forms of parliamentary proceedings and in most offices. A person who strives for effective communication does so in many ways, and one component in any context is to try to develop an understanding of what terminology causes offence, and avoid it. It is your choice whether you do that by studying lists of words or by learning as you go, but in a massively diverse environment like Wikipedia great care is needed. There will be plenty of occasions where terminology inadvertently causes offence, and those situations are very easily avoided: apologise, withdraw the remark, and move on. That is what a normal, functioning adult does in any society ... but sadly Wikipedia has a small but vocal core of editors who intentionally flout those basic social conventions. When challenged they complain of being persecuted or censored, and in some cases set out to wilfully repeat the offence -- as we saw with the editors who repeated the c-word.

One of the most notable things about all of this is that the editors concerned to take great care avoid those type of offensive terminology which the community does support sanctions against, for example racist or anti-semitic language. The fact that editors such as Sitush openly refuse to exercise the same self-restraint in respect of misogynistic terminology is very revealing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what it reveals is that some people are hypersensitive and perhaps even delusional. They are seeing things that are not there. For example, ANI is often referred to as a "drama board" - are there really so many female editors contributing to the drama there? I would have used the same word if Jimbo had posted that comment. - Sitush (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There's another diff for the collection. We are discussing the gratuitous and repeated use of a word widely defined as obscene, extremely vulgar and misogynistic ... and you choose to respond in classic misogynist fashion by accusing the complainants of being "hypersensitive and perhaps even delusional".

You brilliantly illustrate the case for WMF intervention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yuk. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Sitush to behave better or stay off my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why Sitush? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that just after your warning to Sitush, one of our best admins, Boing! said Zebedee, has blocked himself indefinitely with the parting comment "I don't want to be part of this community any more". --Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I would like to ask why Sitush as well, there doesn't seem to be a clear reasoning for singling out a single editor in this can-of-warms discussion. There are far better people who would deserve the warning, but even if there were, I wouldn't want you to do that in any case. Asking one party to stay away from the discussion they're involved in seems a bit out of place to me. Tutelary (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It rains. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The vague "sexist" headline conflates two different issues: imbalance among editors, and imbalance in coverage. I don't argue about the former, although the picture is much more even when you look at heavy content-creators (which it would be nice if these people could study), but I'm much less certain about the other. Before and after being Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society (the UK's National academy of science) I've been involved in events based around Women in Science, which tend to be a good deal more successful than such events on other themes. There is a lot of loose talk about Wikipedia's coverage underrepresenting women in science, but if this was ever the case it ceased to be so a good while ago. I set out the only hard evidence I know on the subject in my WMUK/WMF blogpost a couple of months ago. I'd be interested to see if they produce any other evidence-based studies, for example on the American academy. I'm sure there is imbalance in other content areas - fashion is very poorly covered, and I am (bizarrely to anyone who has met me) one of the more active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion. Though I've always thought Noam Cohen's Sopranos vs Sex in the City comparison completely useless - the former ran twice as long per episode, with about 8 times as many characters, all of whom had complicated back-stories, usually involving them or their relatives murdering the relatives of other characters, all of which needs some explaining. User:Wiki at Royal Society John/ Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, Sitush has asked what you meant by "conduct yourself with more honor".[32] I would like to know too. When you use your heft against an ordinary user with such phrasing, it would seem honorable to be prepared to explain what it means. To justify it, if you like. People ask others to stay away from their talkpage all the time, often with scant respect for the natural justice of letting people answer allegations against them; that's not such a big deal. But saying that a user is behaving dishonorably is different. Please explain. Sitush will leave a big hole in one of the most unmanageable parts of the encyclopedia if you drive him off. Bishonen | talk 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Jimbo, if anything Bish puts it mildly. If you drive him off, if your post is the proverbial straw, you have no idea how big a hole it will leave in an important area of Wikipedia. Those of us who work there know just how painfully difficult it is to maintain many of the articles with even a semblance of neutrality and verifiability. You should be thanking him for all his good work. You certainly should have made yourself aware of it, including the problems we are having with an organisation that claims to have thousands of accounts, before criticising him. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. The rush to defend Sitush is interesting. Seems very clear from reading Sitush’s above exchange with BHG what Jimbo was referring to….yet people are acting incredulous, demanding an explanation, and are acting super concerned that Sitush might be “driven off”. This is actually even more interesting in the context of a discussion regarding women editors being driven off in mass by the exact sort of conduct that Sitush engages in above and in the section Why not ask the women to the point that we have such an extreme gender gap on Wikipedia (approximately 90% male editors). I can't comment on Sitush's good work elsewhere because my contact with him is actually limited to the above exchanges and to his popping in on the gender gap task force page, not to address the serious issue of the gender gap, but instead to engage in off-topic insults and criticism of a task force member. [33] It’s interesting that people are so concerned with Sitush being "driven off" while the behavior he is being admonished for appears to be the exact sort of thing that often drives female editors off and Jimbo corrected Sitush in a more polite and civil way than it appears Sitush uses with others (at least with respect to above exchanges and his contributions on gender gap task force). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@User:BoboMeowCat: Huh what? I wasn't defending Sitush, I was criticising Jimbo. There was nothing polite and civil about his "correction" of Sitush, it was insulting and pompous. Correction is an interesting choice of word by you btw — shades of Victorian governesses and old-time heavy fathers. Is that the kind of authority figure you see Jimbo as, and pay deference to? But you're right to emphasise how little you know of the matter. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I was actually responding to multiple comments made regarding Sitush and not just you personally, but either way it seems Jimbo can ask people to behave better or stay off his talk page without it being related to "shades of Victorian governesses and old-time heavy fathers". This is his talk page. Personally, I didn't find what Jimbo wrote pompous and insulting, while I did find what Sitush wrote to BHG and in the sections I linked above to be pompous and insulting. I have no problem emphasizing that I don't know much about Sitush in general, as my interaction with him is limited to this talk page and to the gender gap task force talk page, but I think it’s notable that Sitush has publicly expressed interest in seeing the Gender gap task force disbanded [34]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree to a certain extent with his position on civility, but Sitush's general conduct on caste-related articles has been extremely civil; that is, he's consistently able to tell people why their proposals won't go without belittling them and quite matter-of-factly. All this in the face of sustained and deeply unpleasant attacks. Throwing the book at him does not suggest whatever's going on here will be very fruitful. Choess (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Choess is absolutely right - Sitush conducts himself with honor and civility in the fact of continued personal attacks, false accusations of criminal activities and even death hreats. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the annoyance at realizing that "conduct yourself with more honor" means "stop saying things Jimbo doesn't agree with", and that "civility from thee but not from me" is a deeply ingrained Wikipedian philosophy, but really, Jimbo is doing Sitush a favor. It is never a good use of time to post to this page. Ever. (Well, except for me right now.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well let's take a look. Sitush said some fairly silly and unhelpful things (""BHG was not reversed with impunity" when of course she was (discussions rumbling on are not a punishment) and furthermore Judasfax is "such a liar" for saying this true thing, and some other things) but also some pretty offensive things. "I think your feminist bias is showing" for instance, and "a fork for feminist Wikipedia might really be your only option" (he doesn't think it would work well, because, you know: women).

Well I don't know. Sure, you can criticize feminism at the margins. Andrea Dworkin and whatnot. You can argue about what feminism really means, at the level of details. But Sitush's not doing that. The basic core of mainstream feminism, I guess, is along the lines of "Women have equal rights, and equal standing with men as human beings, and rate equal consideration as human beings" and this is what Sitush is criticizing. I mean that's what I gather. If he's got another point he could have made that, but he didn't. He's not saying "so-called feminism which is not really feminism" or like that; he's saying "feminist" and he sure as heck seems to mean "feminist" (actually I think it's a lot worse and in context he seems to mean just "womanly" but let's give him a break).

Where I come from (I come from the European Enlightenment as manifested in the present day; I recommend a visit) "I think your feminist bias is showing" in the context Sitush said it is roughly equivalent to "I think your race-mixing bias is showing" and so on, so these are fairly inflammatory sentiments, yes.

I dunno. "You're obviously a feminist, so I discount your arguments" is awfully close in essence and sentiment in this context to "you're obviously a woman, so I discount your arguments". Is that an OK argument to make? Hmmm. I do think that Sitush's arguments have their place. The problem is, their place is 1957. It's hard to get there from here. Things change. It's hard to keep up but you got to keep up, you know? You got to.

This is a serious issue and a serious problem, so Sitush should get serious if he wants to engage. Maybe there's no easy solution to this problem. Maybe there's no solution at all. Maybe any solution would introduce other problems (most solutions do) and maybe these problems would be worse than the original problem, and so on. All of these are reasonable and helpful things to think and say. Denying that there's a problem is not reasonable or helpful, particularly when it's done with egregious offensiveness. So let's not do that. Herostratus (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus. Way to chuck the gasoline on there by failing to WP:AGF. Everybody loves popcorn, right? Carrite (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but it is quite "dishonorable" to continue badmouthing someone on a page they are no longer allowed to post on. Somehow I doubt Jimbo is going to ban Herostratus, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not overstate the situation. Sitush is still allowed to post on this page and I don't see that anybody's been banned.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I banned Situs from my talk page for repeated unpleasant comments months ago, so I have to sympathize with the user page owner. Of course Sitush keeps posting there anyway and insulting me for banning him[35]. Sigh... But I'm an optimist and maybe he'll take to heart Mr. Wales' comment here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That being said, Sitush was never banned from this page and it feels like propagating an urban myth to imply that he was. Floquenbeam described this as "a page they are no longer allowed to post on" which isn't true. An understandable mistake, but saying Herostratus was talking about someone who couldn't respond isn't fair comment regarding what actually happened. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, unless I missed something, Sitush seems confused about being accused of uploading kiddie porn. Doing a quick search of WP:ANI archives I saw July 29 an individual from Indians against Corruption (as in India) reported at ANI that the group had gone to WikiFoundation to complain about Sitush's allegedly libelous editing on their groups article. Something the Foundation obviously won't do anything about though the group could always pursue action against an individual editor. Then, in the next sentence of the same paragraph, the individual mentioned an entirely separate issue, which was the group's complaint to Indian authorities about child pornography on Wikimedia and Wikipedia India sites. The guy was banned for reporting/advocating(?) that and, I believe, for allegedly being a sock puppet of someone else who'd made legal threats. But in the thread Sitush sounded as if this was the first time he had heard this accusation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Harping on about possible claims that a named editor is associated with child porn is an extreme personal attack by smear. However, it is easy to understand Sitush's response on reading what he was responding to: "Notice has been issued to both WM Foundation and Sitush by the Govt of India to defend the allegations that they have uploaded these child pornography images on an organised and systematic scale." (diff) Anyone can examine commons:Special:Contributions/Sitush and verify that the claim is a complete fabrication and nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My post made the point amply clear that it was not an accusation against him and that the accusation was against Wikimedia in India. Thus he misunderstood. If he keeps telling people he was accused, some might think there's something to it and he actually is hurting himself. Understand now? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My message was short—how could you miss "and Sitush"? Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Since your message started with a false accusation, I didn't read it carefully after the first sentence since it seemed like "here we go again." Originally, the material was removed from the thread and it can be hard to track such things down. Or maybe because I didn't notice that the linked complaint to Indian govt mentioned "Sitush". In any case the statement sounds more like the accusor was just tying to freak Sitush out.

If Sitush is going to complain about a serious accusation that is going to make him quit the project, especially on this page, and in the middle of a hot debate on other issues, it's probably helpful to provide enough details to make it clear why an accusation is false to avoid future misunderstandings of all kinds. And not to scare other editors that in the future someone can make such false accusations that can hurt them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexism on Wikipedia

Doubt I'll be commenting here - maybe, but it looks like I may be busy for awhile elsewhere. Since there were numerous calls for evidence of sexism on Wikipedia... The one by Lam et al. is about the gender gap/imbalance, which is related, IMO, and the others are worth a read:

Bort, Julie (February 15, 2014). "A Growing Army Of Women Are Taking On Wikipedia's Sexism Problem". Business Insider. Retrieved August 1, 2014.
Filipacchi, Amanda (April 30, 2103). "Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor'". Atlantic. Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved August 1, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM. Retrieved July 30, 2014. RQ3: Gender-Conflict hint at a culture that may be resistant to female participation.
Leonard, Andrew (April 29, 2013). "Wikipedia's shame Sexism isn't the problem at the online encyclopedia. The real corruption is the lust for revenge". Salon Media Group. Retrieved August 1, 2014. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |title= at position 18 (help)
Zandt, Deanna (April 26, 2013). "Yes, Wikipedia is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You". Forbes. Retrieved August 1, 2014.
Zevallos, Zuleyka (June 8, 2014). "Sexism on Wikipedia: Why the #YesAllWomen Edits Matter". othersociologist.com (blog). Zuleyka Zevallos. Retrieved August 1, 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, I've been working on a big list for a separate resources page on WP:GGTF. Maybe we should just start it now and start putting the material in.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

One of those articles argues that the creation of Category:American women novelists was a sign of sexism. I was always under the impression that feminists themselves preferred to edit women's articles and make categories for them (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History), like outside Wikipedia there is a feminist academic subject women's history that separates womens' historiography from men's too. So, you probably have a more queer-oriented feminist calling a more traditional one sexist. The Forbes article claims "vandalism of women's pages" is a sign of sexism, but it's not like only women's pages are vandalized. For such a claim, you would have to study the frequency of vandalism on different pages and directly identify a pattern of sexist vandalism. Besides, vandals are usually anonymous, non-frequent IP editors that in my mind atleast are not considered part of the Wikipedia community. Apparently it's very easy to construct this narrative of "we have a problem, yes we do!" with disregard to rational analysis. It all has a very shallow American activist feel to it.--Pudeo ' 13:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue may be near and dear to many -- including those who keep mute for fear of retribution -- so unless someone can substantiate that the issue is "shallow", I'd say to avoid referring to it in that way. I'm also unclear why this has an "American activist" feel to it, but I haven't tried to figure out who lives where. Yes, Lightbreather's examples appear to be written by Americans, but in my mind, the issue isn't American-centric at all. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If you need a key example of the sexist culture of Wikipedia, check out the discussions on Talk:2014 Isla Vista massacre, where a contingent of editors are refusing to categorise it as misogynist violence because "men died too", in contravention to the vast majority of reliable sources… Sceptre ^(talk) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see any great failing with the lead of the piece as it sits at this moment. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Lam et al. piece is actually an academic study, as opposed to the mainstream media echo chamber with sexy headlines assuming "sexism," so let's look at that, shall we? I found this interesting: "Females are now more likely than males to participate in some social media sites such as Facebook or MySpace [footnote 28]. In addition, females are more likely to tweet (10% of females, 7% of males), and teenage girls are more likely to blog (25% of girls, 15% of boys) [footnotes 23, 15]." (Lam pg. 2) That's clearly a "gender gap" in blogging, but opposite of Wikipedia's. Lemme see, what does that work out to? Assuming equal gender populations (i.e. slightly underestimating the female percentage) that would be a male-to-female ratio of 37.5 to 62.5 — in contrast to WP's gender gap of roughly 85:15 the other direction. Interesting, yes?

There is also identified a gender gap in WP readership, more males than females reading (56% v. 50% of internet users by gender, respectively). (Lam, pg. 2.) So our expected editorial parity level would not be 50:50, it would be more like, by my math with the same proviso as above, something like 53:47 male:female. Also interesting. It probably implies a higher perceived usefulness of WP to males than females, just guessing.

In any event, the mainstream media's use of the words 'Wikipedia" and "sexism" in a headline mean zero. If people are interested in really understanding the gender gap, there's plenty of research and theorization remaining to be done... Carrite (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of some editors' opinions, mainstream media is a reliable source. There was a call for evidence, not proof. There is evidence. If it's not enough for some, they can wait for more evidence, or proof, or whatever it is that might convince them. Lightbreather (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Academic study by Antin et al. "Gender Differences in Wikipedia Editing." The study is based on the stats of the first 3 weeks of a new user's account. Perhaps the most significant finding is that male editors tend to make an edit followed by revisions to that edit, whereas women tend to make single, larger edits and less revisions (perhaps suggesting they work on the edit elsewhere and add it when they feel it is good enough / ready). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you referring to the article by Amanda Filipacchi for The Atlantic as one of those from the mainstream media echo chamber with sexy headlines assuming "sexism,"? The article debunks the social media echo chamber myth that her experience was the work of a single editor, she goes on to provide gave a full list of edits. If she were taking part in this debate and gave a list of diffs would her words carry more weight with you? If it is just the word "sexism" in the headline that you find objectionable what headline would you put on the article? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP "Gender Gap" as an aspect of normalcy

The underlying assumption in analyzing the gender gap at Wikipedia is that since the population as a whole is 51% female, and the number of female editors is 15% (in very rough figures, bumping up a little to account for natural underreporting), then obviously there is some massive entrenched sexist cultural dynamic that is driving this disparity. If only we were more civil and welcoming and reach out to women as a group, the theory goes, this disparity will vanish in short order. WMF's target is for a 25% female editor count by 2015, obviously they think that quick cultural shift and targeted recruiting can make short work of the gap...

I grabbed this week's issue of that bulwark of the mainstream media, Time magazine, yesterday. Inside, a piece by Eliana Dockterman, "Cracking the Girl Code: Tech Giants Bet on Summer Camps to Close Their Gender Gap" (US edition, v. 184, n. 6, pp. 44-46). Apropos, yes? A couple lines jumped out at me. "In June [2014], after revealing that only 17% of its engineers were women, Google launched a site called Made With Code that features free programming projects for girls. The company pledge $50 million [i.e. about equal to WMF's entire annual budget] to programs like Girls Who Code." (pg. 46). And also: "At present, only 12% of computer science degrees go to women." (Ibid.)

Rather than seeing WP's 85:15 split as something uniquely wrong with the culture of the project, I argue that it is part of a larger general malaise. Wikipedia is not an atypical "sexist" place so much as it is a reflection of the state of the tech industry today, I believe. This gap is only going to gradually fade over a decade or a generation, as there are big issues in the educational process which are driving it.

One other interesting line that caught my eye is this. Speaking about Maria Klawe of Harvey Mudd College in California and her efforts to get her school's percentage of female computer science graduates from 10% up to about 40% in 7 years:

"Klawe implemented some of he strategies that Girls Who Code now emulates: both programs emphasize problem-solving real-world issues because girls tend to want to help their communities. The programs also assign group projects because research shows that girls flourish when they collaborate with others." (Ibid.)

I pass this along for what it's worth without comment. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that we don't necessarily need to worry about the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, because it is something that affects all forms of software engineering, broadly speaking. The trouble with this analysis, though, is that editing Wikipedia is not in essence a form of software engineering. Formerip (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The gender disparity is a problem with the tech field as a whole, not just software. KonveyorBelt 17:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is true, although it probably depends on what you mean by "the tech field as a whole". In any case, there's no reason to think that what happens on Wikipedia should reflect what happens in "the tech field". Formerip (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Women and girls all over the world are encouraged to contribute to their own household, where the public sphere is left to the men. Since a large portion of Wikipedia editors are in the US, you would think this wouldn't be an issue. However, the US women in public roles are encouraged to put a lot of emphasis on how they look as opposed to what they accomplish. I'm referring to women in powerful positions who end up on the news, with a story about their hair and what they were wearing. Very rarely does society treat men this way. It takes a lot more time and effort for a woman to make it out the door and into public space because she has to take care of her family, take care of herself, do a lot of unnecessary hair removal and other unnecessary cosmetic changes that other people don't have to worry about, then she has to waste a lot of energy defending her right to even be out in public. By the time you do all that, and make a living, that leaves very little time to devote to the improvement of public space in real life, much less a virtual public space out in the digital world. Women are exhausted. Or at least I am. USchick (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@FormerIP - You don't see any similarity between writing wiki markup language and writing code? You haven't noticed the high percentage of very active Wikipedians that are software industry people? Carrite (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that similarity and I notice the high percentage (even if I don't know exactly what that percentage is). But I think both of those things are beside the point. A narrative that says we don't need to worry because Google has the same problem recruiting coders is basically junk, because the two things do not make a good comparison. Formerip (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is a really similar phenomenon. I think the query asked of JW below might be telling — if Wikia is a 50:50 gender split, my theory is stuffed. But I'll bet you it's in the same general ballpark as WP. Do you have one american dollar to wager on the proposition? I'd offer an over/under of 20% female on Wikia and feel safe betting the under, want that action? Carrite (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't exactly go to bed contented knowing that we are doing better than Wikia (I'd be surprised if we are not). I'd be interested in the answer, but not in the bet. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales - Here's a good question for you: what's the gender gap at Wikia??? Carrite (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this source, [36] less than 15% are women. Compare that to 20% of US women in government. [37] Compare that to 39% of women in Canadian government and 46% in Burundi. lol I think I prefer having more women in government. USchick (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That article talks about Wikipedia, not Wikia. BethNaught (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Wikipedia already is ahead of the curve. The Foundation wants the project to be 25% in the next few years[38]; the media thinks it's a great idea; I'm sure most women thinks it's a good idea; the Wikimedia foundation is funding related projects, Wikimedia has a Gender gap project; En.Wikipedia has a Gender gap task force; other projects and task forces have them. These efforts are the new normal. Get use to it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So there's a gender gap consistent with the gender gaps found elsewhere in online communities, so what? What problems are being caused by this gender gap? What content are we missing that we might otherwise have? And I have to say that I find your claim to be speaking for "most women" to be breathtaking. The issue of equal employment opportunities is of course an important one for companies such as Google to address, but I'm certainly not being paid here. Are you? Eric Corbett 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So there's a gender gap consistent with the gender gaps found elsewhere in online communities

This statement seems to me to be unsupported by evidence. What we can say is that there's a gender gap. Formerip (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to look at the evidence, both for the claimed gender gap and for it being an unusual Internet phenomenon even if it were true. Which I very much doubt. Eric Corbett 20:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No rush though. As long as I have looked at the evidence before I start making claims about how WP compares to other online communities, everything should be OK. Formerip (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc - Per the source you cite and elsewhere, the WMF gender target has been and is 25% female by 2015, not "in the next few years." The needle has moved not at all in this regard, as far as I'm aware, best efforts and targeted funding notwithstanding. I believe that the reason for this failure is not because of the random obnoxiousness of a few Wikipedians, but rather due to bigger issues that involve the entire tech industry and probably also fundamental and lasting differences between the internet interests and activities of males and females. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I also find the previous comment speaking on behalf of all women and the hostile tone "breathtaking" and not at all representative of women anywhere. I'd like to attempt to answer the question about what content is missing. In history, the conqueror lives to tell his story as history, erasing any previous version, and destroying the monuments and history of any previous culture. When it comes to women, when half of the population is silenced, everyone suffers. There's detailed history about all kinds of wars, but very little history about cultural customs and traditions (mostly passed on by women from one generation to another as oral history). When ancient battles were fought, men were killed and women were taken as wives by the victors. So women were valuable property, but their histories were wiped out. That's why we have no idea what ancient civilizations did or why it was important. That's how someone lost the recipe for cement for 500 years after it was invented and then it had to be reinvented again. There's a lot of quiet wisdom floating around, but we don't seem to hear it. USchick (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree regarding "breathtaking" but I'm not surprised by the person who said it. Subaltern studies and similar movements have attempted to fill some of the gaps caused by the almost-inevitable fact that history is the story of famous men etc: the stories of the unrecorded are, erm, not recorded. However, unless we abandon WP:V, WP:RS etc and allow passed-down oral history (!), we're not going to advance things any quicker than such historiographic movements do. By the way, there are 100% gender gaps in various knitting, embroidery and quilting groups to which my mother belongs but I have never heard anyone call them "sexist" although, for example, I had an uncle who was an accomplished knitter. There is a difference between a gender gap and sexism. It just suits some people to conflate them. - 90.220.218.154 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Very good points! We still have no idea how the Pyramids were built, (even if they were aliens) so it's not just women, silencing any group of people has dire consequences for all of us. To claim that nothing is missing from an encyclopedia, while most of the wold's population is excluded...... well........ USchick (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting I'm claiming that nothing is missing, as nothing could be further from the truth. But let's look at the facts. To take just one example, Enid Blyton is one of the world's most prolific authors ever, male or female, but it was @Dr. Blofeld: and I who took it to FA, not the feminist militants. And we didn't do that for any gender-based reasons, but because she is an important literary figure. This alleged gender imbalance is not, or at least ought not to be, a battleground. Eric Corbett 20:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. (Your original comment was: "What content are we missing that we might otherwise have?") And thank you for your effort on a topic that you think is important. Militant attitudes of any gender have a tendency to drive away people who don't like conflict, so there's no gender imbalance at all in that sense. I have personally tried to talk a new male editor "off the cliff" when he literally freaked out at the hostility directed toward him, but he quit anyway. In my experience, Wikipedia is very much a reflection of society. Some people want to tell you their biases upfront, and some people assume a more anonymous persona, but our individual quirks come out anyway. A long time ago, one of my first interactions on Wikipedia, someone kindly reminded me that not everyone who speaks English is American. I was so surprised, I almost fell out of my chair! And I'm supposed to be educated! LOL USchick (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a topic that only I think is important, it's a topic that any educated person ought to think is important. And may I suggest that you try to resist the urge to talk down to me simply because I'm not a female?. I don't talk down to you because you're missing a penis after all. Or if I do, it's got absolutely nothing to do with your lack of wedding tackle. Eric Corbett 23:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm so flattered that you took offense at my comment where no offense was directed at you. Out of all that, you took one portion of a comment and chose to over react in a hysterical manner. :) And you chose to ignore your direct quote where you contradicted yourself. Then you made it a man/woman issue. Isn't that what women are accused of doing? So you edited an article that you found interesting. How am I talking down to you? I'm truly interested because I don't know. Or are you simply deflecting attention away from the fact that you made a contradictory statement? It's ok, you explained it. No one is blaming you for anything. wow USchick (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in Eric's response that indicates he has taken offense, and there is nothing hysterical (although there was no need to mention anatomical features). Re talking down: if it's not that, it's just misguided to characterize taking the article on an important author to FA as "important to you" as if Eric chose the article randomly and might have picked Plumbers Don't Wear Ties. What "contradictory statement"? Rather than poking Eric it would be better to identify some content that is missing due to a gender gap. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The contradictory statement where he was asking "What problems are being caused by this gender gap? What content are we missing that we might otherwise have?" and the contradiction that followed "I hope you're not suggesting I'm claiming that nothing is missing, as nothing could be further from the truth." And then he got his feathers ruffled when I thanked him for taking an article that interested him to FA. Who else should do that? People with no interest? For someone who claims this "ought not to be a battleground" I totally agree. USchick (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been a gender gap on Wikipedia since its inception and it has actually narrowed over time rather than broadened. I do not know if Carrite is right about the precise reason, however, there are various gender gaps in play with regards to the Internet that predispose Wikipedia to having a gender gap. Nowadays, people have this bizarre notion that everything should be distributed on a completely proportionate basis and anything else means there is a problem, but disparities are unavoidable and there is no evidence of this notion that there is endemic sexism driving away potential female contributors. Rather than debating over how to fix something that may very well not be in our position to fix, we should just focus on how we lessen any potential ill effects of existing disparities.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Testify, fellow human... Carrite (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

~~The Devil's Advocate has it right.~~ Women are generally right brain dominant, men are generally left brain dominant, and those differences are all that's needed to account for many of these "alarming" imbalances. There are areas where men are greatly underrepresented, and somehow that doesn't concern me much. We should be embracing and valuing our gender differences more, and trying to correct them less. Vive la différence! Lest I be misunderstood, this is not an argument against taking steps to ensure that women—and men—are treated with respect at Wikipedia, but only that the 85/15 split is not in itself a sign of a problem. Mandruss |talk 22:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's some reading for you. 81.171.52.12 (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have replied to this but my 'gender differences' led to a sudden need to clean, sew, make house, bake and OMG!!! squee at kittehs!!! rather than get involved in discussions at manly ol' Wikipedia. </END SARCASM TAG> AnonNep (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I object to the notion that only women feel a need to "squee at kittehs" 81.171.52.12 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was not going for some notion of biological difference, but just the fact that there are significant statistical differences between male and female activities that would be more sufficient in explaining the gender gap than some claim that there is too much sexism on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I missed the "Internet" part (which might benefit from a little elaboration). I have stricken my first sentence accordingly. Mandruss |talk 22:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a reference, but the formula for establishing a ratio of men/women on the internet goes something like this. Total number of men in technology - (the number of men not in IT who only use the internet for porn + the number of men also not in IT who only use the internet for playing video games) + (the number of women who use the internet for social media + the number of women who use the internet to play that stupid farm game) = {{43π r³}} USchick (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Mediaviewer

First, here's one really great thing about the MediaViewer. Yesterday I was able to tweet about a graph in an article and link directly to it in a much more useful way than the old media landing page. The image is large and nicely presented but more importantly, the article is "underneath" it so that it's very easy for the reader to click the 'x' and then read the full article. I really liked that and think it is a great experience for the reader.

Second, I wanted to call for a second round of attention to User talk:Jimbo Wales/NPOV report on problems with MV. Currently it is a discussion rather than an NPOV summary (although there is an admirable start at the beginning). In order to make the whole thing more comfortable how about if we attempt to read that discussion and summarize it on the corresponding user page? To make it NPOV we will need to use qualifying language like "Some have objected that X" rather than "X". And references (diffs) would be excellent. I want something that I can present to the relevant decision makers that is calm and helpful. Those who simply want to have a power struggle (whether at the Foundation or in the community) are barking up the wrong tree.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the things that turns me off about it is that it is all icon based. Wikipedia is a word based interface and I found myself annoyed at having to hover over each thing to see what it did. You could fit more buttons if it was text.

Like the rest of Wikipedia there is no "What links here", I cannot see a history button. It seems bolted onto the side rather than part of the wiki.

I know it is meant to be a viewer but that does not mean it cannot have the same interconnectedness that the rest of the wiki has. Frankly the way the whole site was indexed and linked together and revisioned is what drove me to edit here.

I like the aesthetics and I like the ability to link to it with an associated article. I think it can be a great tool, but I think there needs to be significant community input. Input where people make actionable improvements to make it wanted, and constructive criticism to address valid concerns.

I don't think it should be a polarized use it or don't use it discussion. Rather it should be an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Just like we don't delete an article that can be improved to standards this tool can be made valuable. Chillum 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would put this on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/NPOV_report_on_problems_with_MV but I am not sure how it fits with the format/scope of the page. Is it just for problems or are improvements welcome too? Chillum 11:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, Re icon based and "I found myself annoyed at having to hover over each thing to see what it did." — How does that compare to the row of 11 icons above each editing box when one edits Wikipedia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just stick it over there on that talk page. I'd like us to roll up a clear, non-accusatory, actionable request for a set of things that will resolve the problems. As you say, Chillum, in words that I completely endorse, "I don't think it should be a polarized use it or don't use it discussion". We've had far too much climbing the Reichstag dressed like Spiderman when we'd be better off just clearly expressing what we need.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just now copied Chillum's message over there.[39] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me just say that that file a good example of bunch of things that are wrong with graphs on wikipedia and commons. It's a PNG not a SVG (perhaps not a big deal), but the worse part is that it's based on sources in Mathematica, which haven't been shared. So it's basically not editable by others in an easy way; they might as well recreate it. And this is the kind of graph that needs and has seen updates; see File:Diseased_Ebola_2014.png#filehistory (without the MV, because that app still can't show you the update history, it seems.) Without trying to derail the MV discussion, about which I think I've said enough myself, I'd very much like to see the WMF adopt a Debian-like policy of at least recommending if not requiring sources for graphs/sketches/diagrams, preferably made with open source tools. Normally I'd tell you to see FTBFS for further reading, but that's another "awesome" Wikipedia article... So instead I'll quote from [40]: “The Debian Free Software Guidelines require "source code" also known as the preferred form for modification, for both programs and non-program software such as documentation, artwork and other data assets. Other distributions have similar policies. [...] Pre-rendered images of vector image files are not source. Instead include the SVG or similar and render the images at build time or runtime.” JMP EAX (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree but that's really another issue for another day. As it turns out, the source data is actually in a nice table in the article but that's obviously not as good as what you are recommending. That's really a social issue for commons more than for en.wikipedia.org and me talking to commons has typically proven to be counter-productive so I'll just leave that to others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Could this be a useful role for Wikidata? Input the source data and plotting style, and get out a graph that knows how to display its labels in the appropriate language and automatically updates when the source data changes. --Amble (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know, this is just me causing trouble again... But really, why will you "leave that to others"? Others can't do what you can do. Irrelevant to this discussion I know, but do you have any idea how disappointing that is to those who despair of the Commons mess, and look to you as a figurehead who might be able to actually do something about it? Begoon ^talk 19:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment but I'm sure you can understand why I might chuckle. Just a few minutes after you said this you expressed dismay when I called someone here out for poor behavior. Imagine how badly it would go down over there. Working through difficult community conflict issues requires pointing out where people are going wrong, and requires a willingness of those who are being told they are doing wrong to think it over and either try to explain themselves in detail (as I have done below) or to apologize (as I have done many times in the past when I get something wrong). I'm not convinced that my going to commons would be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate you might chuckle. I wasn't suggesting you go and reason with the resident lunatics - I was suggesting you might use your levers of power to have the lunatics removed without discussion. I'd do that if nutters were squatting in my house. Begoon ^talk 20:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it has some uses in making Wikicommons etc. more user friendly for the masses. But it should have been advertised a lot more, especially on release, and the benefits explained. I'm getting use to the extra click back to the old way now, ignoring the other features, but was really ticked at first. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More to the point (of MV) here. If I click on the big right-arrow on that image you tweeted, I get to this rod of Asclepius. Useful/meaningful "next" in that context? JMP EAX (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: re: "the article is "underneath" it so that it's very easy for the reader to click the 'x' and then read the full article. I really liked that and think it is a great experience for the reader.", this seems like counterintuitive behavior to me. I would expect that, as clicking "x" is the usual way to close something, that when I click the "x" I will return to your Twitter page. So, that I go to a Wikipedia page is a surprise, albeit perhaps for many readers, a pleasant one. Better would be an explicit link to 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, to ensure that I don't miss out on the opportunity to see the article because of an incorrect assumption. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had no idea how to get to the article from the image either until I read that. Maybe Jimbo could poll his Tweeter followers to see if they managed to figure it out by themselves... 188.27.81.64 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hono(u)r

Jimmy

You post on the page of a fine and upstanding user, Sitush, implying that he conducts himself without hono(u)r. You disinvite him from your talk page.

Sitush is one of the most dedicated and right-thinking wikipedians I have encountered.

He has devoted countless hours to this website, in a difficult and often insane area which demands dedication, resulting in many personal attacks upon himself, and threats, because he wishes to do what is right. And boy, does he do what is right. Check his edit history. He has selflessly devoted himself to the values of NPOV and accuracy which you espouse. He has done that over years, through hardship, and under attack.

You have the right to disinvite him from your talk page. We all have that right.

You do not have the right to question his hono(u)r.

Retract that immediately please. Or remove your "open door" stuff from the top of this page, since it is, in that case, worthless.

Apologies are nice too.

Thank you. Begoon ^talk 18:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment, and I'm sure Sitush does too, do we really need to expand the drama with yet another section? Wouldn't it be high time, for people committed to the encyclopedia, to stop pouring oil on the many fires, depersonalize and reboot the whole debate, and start looking for constructive solutions? MLauba ^(Talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Imagine it were you, rather than Sitush, MLauba. Really, imagine that. Sometimes something is so wrong that it can only be "righted" by positive action. I'm not pouring oil - Jimbo is hugely visible, as are his actions, and they can hurt commensurately. Sure, the drama needs to dissipate, but this was egregious, and in many ways separate (and maybe even arbitrary? (a mistake?)). Dealing with it will help the dissipation of the drama. With great power comes great responsibility

Begoon ^talk 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was me. My contributions fell down to nothing after a similar experience with Jimbo. If this request of yours actually does achieve something positive, it would come as a huge surprise. Because my experience tells me otherwise. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well then we may both live in hope. I'm glad I'm not Jimbo, because my utterings here don't have the duty of care which his do. Tough at the top - but he gets to go sightseeing on the community starship when we build it. I don't. He'll respond to this, I hope, it would be the decent thing to do - I'm sorry your disagreement wasn't as high profile as this one. Jimbo, when you put right your error with Sitush, think of MLauba too, please. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 19:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Listening to these concerns I decided to review Sitush's contributions to my talk page to determine if I made some error. I am only human after all, and error is always possible. Here's what I found, in chronological order and, as it turns out, in order of increasing bad behavior.

First the claim that there is no evidence of sexism in Wikipedia, dismissing it as the work or "pressure groups"- a rather absurd claim given the level of broad public awareness of specific examples of it. 06:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Claims that concern being raised "seems to be more 'anti-male' and civility-based, intended to sanitise and censor" - a classic example of WP:NOTLISTENING 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Classic insult of "dramatic" - 16:28, 31 July 2014(UTC)] - it is important to understand here that this was an outrageous distortion as nothing dramatic had been said at all other than a mere noting of the fact that BHG was reversed with impunity. (It may be helpful to look up what that word means if you think it's a dramatic statement. "exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action" - the admin who reversed that well justified block after a very short and inconclusive discussion at AN/I will of course not be punished and is free from any injurious consequences of that action. If you think it was a good reversal then you should say "such blocks should be done with impunity" - but the fact of the impunity is not a dramatic thing to note.
When called on the unfair use of 'dramatic', decides to go further with 'such a liar' twice - 20:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Insult of another user as "hypersensitive and perhaps even delusional" - 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You may additionally find this statement by BoboMeowCat to be informative.

This is precisely the kind of hostile behavior that I think needs to stop at Wikipedia, and which we need to understand is precisely the cause of both our editor diversity problems and our difficulty in recruiting new editors. Those who have not been around as long as I have will be forgiven for not knowing that I personally and successfully kicked people out of the project (with the support of the community who did the same in other cases) for precisely these kinds of behaviors in the era that led to our explosive growth. It is our toleration for behavior that would not be accepted in any paid work space that leads to massive costs in terms of the quality of the project and the harmony of the work environment.

One mistaken meme needs to be addressed with great clarity. Refusing to accept bad behavior on the part of good content contributors is not a failure to show appreciation and thanks for that good work. It is to say that good work on content is not an excuse to behave badly toward your colleagues. People fear that we will lose a handful of usual suspects (and to be clear Sitush is not among them) who behave badly and get away with it, but tend to forget the great cost they impose on the rest of us and on newcomers who encounter such things and simply decide to quietly go away disappointed.

I don't want Sitush to leave. I want him to take a deep breath and understand that behaving in such a dishonorable fashion is beneath him and to encourage a higher standard - a moral ambitiousness - to make this community and this project great.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And a footnote on the word 'honorable' - from the New Oxford American Dictionary "1 bring shame or disgrace on: the mayor dishonors his good battle by resorting to sniping. 2 fail to observe or respect (an agreement or principle): the community has its own principles it can itself honor or dishonor." I think that Sitush dishonors his good work in other areas by resorting to such bullying tactics as I have outlined above. And I think that his behavior fails to observe or respect the principles that we have set for our community (and enshrined in both policy and the site's terms of service).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. You are wrong. Civility is not "saying pretty things and ticking the PC boxes". The most uncivil people here have never said a rude word. You are allowing yourself to be used by a PC bandwagon which will look good today and tomorrow, maybe even next week, but further than that will falter.

I'll have no further part in this discussion, since I've seen these lines drawn before, elsewhere, and it never ended well. Good luck. It's brave to pander to the loud, fashionable minority, I guess. Oh wait, no, just foolish, and momentarily "trendy". Begoon ^talk 19:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I agree absolutely that civility is not "saying pretty things and ticking the PC boxes". Indeed, I think that 'civility' is too low a standard to ask of ourselves. We should be kind, generous, thoughtful, respectful, open to listening. We should understand that when people of long experience and a proven track record raise a concern from a position of not needing to do so, it is probably unwise to jump to odd conclusions about "PC" and "fashion" and "bandwagon". It is true that some things come into fashion and go out of fashion - I am not talking about those things. I am talking about love of others and the character traits that support and are supported by that. And calling people names and behaving in a nasty way is simply not the right path.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So go and apologise to Sitush then, for calling his honour into question. That's huge to some, and in some cultures. That would be a kind and loving thing to do. He ventured an opinion - that's all. Tempers were heated. You overstepped. We're supposed to be able to see and realise that. You do that and I won't laugh at your beard. Promise. Begoon ^talk 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You've overstepped. Jimmy is entitled to his view that there is a "more honorable" way to participate in that discussion than "liar", etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well then, we've all overstepped, haven't we Alan? I'm sorry if I did, I'm sure you would be too if you felt you had (I'm entitled to an opinion too), and I'm sure Jimmy will be sorry if he feels he has also. Easy. Love these overheated discussions. Begoon ^talk 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you overstepped? When you came here, had you not read that he rather asked that more honor be shown and that he had not barred anyone from his talk page? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

My beard and I appreciate your thoughtful words. I will leave a note for him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are thanked. Have a good conversation. Only good can come of that, and you will enjoy it. Begoon ^talk 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just going to jump in here. Disclaimer: I'm a Wikipedian in good standing who just can't login right now due to technical reasons but I'll email Begoon later from my account once I can log in if he wants to know who I am. The edits made from this IP before today are not mine. Comments: Just like actions from one side can easily be misunderstood to be anti-whatever, we have to keep in mind that the opposite holds true as well. Doing something that appears "pro-whatever" might also be misunderstood. What I mean to say is, I don't think supporting an inclusive environment is "PC" or "anti-male" as much as folks genuinely care about getting a NPOV encyclopedia and think this is the way to do it. Just because Wikipedia's NPOV goal coincidences with a fashionable social goal at the moment doesn't necessarily mean the two are connected. The advocates might be connected to both issues, but the central goals are not. Correlation doesn't prove causation. When someone recognizes that they have a POV, regardless of who they are male or female, then they should be able to recognize that the only way to achieve actual neutrality is by inviting the opposite POV. A POV isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing. Acting with disregard to a POV is a bad thing. Acting carefully with regard to a POV and inviting the opposite site to balance is a good thing. As males, our opposite is females (not to be rude to other genders, just saying for simplicity sake and the sake of argument). Neither POV is wrong or bad, it's just a point of view. It's a matter of how we look at the world. Inviting someone who sees the world differently isn't "politically correct", it's how we achieve "neutral point of view".--198.201.23.10 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo. Re: "...I personally and successfully kicked people out of the project (with the support of the community who did the same in other cases) for precisely these kinds of behaviors in the era that led to our explosive growth." — This implies causation, connection between the period of individual rule and subsequent growth. The growth in 2005-07 was a social and cultural phenomenon, a sort of fad, that had little to do with the editing environment (which was equally as acrimonious as today's) and less still to a handful of targeted expulsions. There will be no mass influx of random participants in 2015 if we start behaving in a draconian way towards "civility violators" because the nature of the project has changed. Low hanging fruit is gone, high hanging fruit requires specialists with tall ladders to pick. This isn't to say that nothing should be done when somebody goes off and personally attacks others, only that cracking down is no panacea and is not apt to boost participation levels in any meaningful way. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on the definition of "Low hanging fruit". Lots of articles that are accessible to 1st year college CS/math students or even before, and are source-able from lots of textbooks, are poorly written in Wikipedia, even containing basic errors. I actually found better written articles on the more difficult/advanced topics, although sometimes COI is involved there, i.e. people writing about their own research. I guess the tragedy of commons applies to academic material in wikipedia as well. People are likely to invest time in promoting stuff that will get them grants... which is unfortunately not that different from the behavior of the reviled spammers/PR flacks from the commercial world. JMP EAX (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Carrite. That's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Eric Corbett 18:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Internet passwords reportedly stolen

A Russian group has reportedly stolen more than 1,000,000,000 Internet passwords.

Russian Gang Amasses Over a Billion Internet Passwords—The New York Times (August 5, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Important discussion about categories at VPP

Hi Jimbo and to all those who follow this talk page. An important discussion concerning the ever-growing confusion as to how to sort categories on WP pages has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. It addresses the chaos that currently exists, and in creating a simple solution for the problem of the growing numbers of categories on article and category pages that are not sorted by any real consistent criterion or method, something that may have been okay for WP in its early days but that is now clearly in urgent need of fixing. Thank you for your attention, sincerely, IZAK (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What does Jimbo think?

This arguing is all very well and good and you are entitled to have your own opinions, but ultimately it is up to Jimbo himself. You may notice if you look very carefully and in the right places, that it is after all his user talk page and not a noticeboard or village pump. So what is your opinion, Mr. Wales? Do you want him to post on your talk page? KonveyorBelt 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? DuncanHill (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, that's not very civil... You don't want to go getting yourself hatted, do you? Carrite (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, putting the snark aside for a moment, the above is an excellent example of why a WMF Censorship Bureau is never going to work. It's perfectly possible to be absolutely incivil without using a single naughty word, just dump on a little bit of sarcasm and claim it was literal if the Official Morality Police come knocking. Grumpy people will be grumpy from time to time. As established editors we all know how to dodge conflict, or we should, and how to take action if crabbiness crosses over into harassment. Carrite (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why the WMF says, "Freedom of speech is essential to the Wikimedia movement—our projects cannot flourish in an ecosystem where individuals cannot speak freely", when it's very likely that this very edit will be snuffed out within minutes, on the premise that I am a sockpuppet who has no freedom of speech, while being simultaneously brought up on an invalid sockpuppet investigation. - Spotting ToU (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If I removed your comment User:Carrite it was unintentional and I apologize. I reverted tarcs re-addition of material because the SPI asked for more information which I have provided [[41]] which screams WP:DUCK Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo may or may not weigh in on this topic soon. My observation is that the status quo seems to be working:

Sometimes, Mr. 2001 is clearly trolling. Usually, other editors (myself including, at least once) will closes or remove the discussion.
I've never seen Jimbo revert said closure/reversions.
In other cases, when the comment from Mr. 2001 seems productive, no one closes or removes. Eventually, Jimbo might or might not respond.
I don't recall seeing Jimbo close such discussions.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the banned editor again and will repeat myself for those who didn't understand the 1st time "I've always made it clear that I will revert Mr. 2001 on sight on this page, unless Jimbo requests otherwise. Mr. 2001 is a banned editor and the rules say that anyone can revert his edits anywhere, anytime. When I see Mr. 2001 on other pages, I will always revert him."

Notice that Jimbo hasn't made any recent comments on this.

If anybody disagrees with my reversions, feel free to take it to ANI, but that certainly didn't work before when Mr. 2001 did it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And I have, once again, restored it; you don't get to be judge & jury on this, I'm afraid. It is just a comment, it is neither disruptive nor abusive, and it will do no harm to remain while the 2nd attempt at an SPI finding is being considered. Do not remove it again. Tarc (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the rules and attempt to follow them:

Bans apply to all editing, good or bad

Shortcut

WP:BMB

Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.^[1]

A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if the editor only makes good edits they will be rebanned for evasion.^[2]

....

^ Examples of use at Requests for Arbitration: by Hersfold, by Newyorkbrad, by Vassyana (line 478+) ("A ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Let's not enable them").
^ For example this case.

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors

Shortcuts

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.

Notice this doesn't say "Anyone is free to revert any edits if Tarc agrees!"

Notice it doesn't say, "If he's making nice edits the ban does not apply." In fact it says exactly the opposite. Mr. 2001 is in some ways quite open about his sockpuppetting here, once he is caught. His style is unmistakable. and then he cackles about it on his "blog."

He does a lot of damage on this page, opening up what seem to be sincere complaints - taking time to investigate if you don't recognize his style - and then turning the whole thing into a farce.

He also puts his nasty garbage on my talk page despite being told to stay off it and has made up some outrageous lies about me in attempts to out me.

Jimbo has been asked several times in this thread if he objects to my reverts, and he has not said anything about it. I'll take his suggestions if he does, but don't hold your breath for him to respond. If you still object, take it to ANI

Please follow the rules.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Smallbones, I was going to post that myself as it is indeed on behalf of a banned editor. Jimbo is quite free to remove or readd when he chooses but I will remove on sight as well under this guideline until told otherwise by an admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Me too—the community needs to maintain standards to avoid undue trolling. If Jimbo makes any statement it will be taken out of context and used as the basis for more silliness. Tarc is normally a voice of sanity, but for some reason this particular banned user is favored. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

None of you have any proof that it is indeed a banned editor. Until an SPI confirms your suspicions, this is just a regular user, and has the same rights that you or I do to post here. Go to ANI yourself if you feel differently. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, when you have proof that it is a banned user, then you may remove the comment. It is rather telling that the account remains unblocked during all this...perhaps a sign that the wrong tree is getting quite a bark-up. Tarc (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tarc this could also be because of a huge backlog at SPI, you know cause they do a lot of work over there, seems like a reasonable response to me. In case you aren't aware and I am quite sure you are when a case is done it's changed to this case is awaiting administration and close.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, you are currently at 7RR. Until you bring concrete evidence to the table that User:Spotting ToU is a banned editor, you are completely eligible for a block. BANREVERT is not an excuse to revert before asking questions later. Per the sentence you posted, the user needs to be a proven banned editor. What the policy says regarding not giving any reason means you don't have to say why you reverted a banned editor, not that you can revert anyone. KonveyorBelt 18:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll just point out that 19 out of the last 50 edits to this page have been edit warring over this editor. I neither know nor care who or what he is, but would suggest that all parties now apply Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Deltahedron (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- As long as the comment remains intact, pending the outcome of the SPI investigation, sure. I will not stand for the harassment of and basic lack of respect shown to "Spotting ToU" by Smallbones and Hell in a Bucket. Even if at the end of the day it turns out to be a banned user behind the account, they may still post here IF Jimbo condones it, as seen in this exchange last week. Being "banned from Wikipedia" is not on par with being a rapist, pedophile, or a leper, something which a few people here seem to forget once in awhile. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but banned is banned. I am absolutely sure the editor is banned. An SPI investigation is not needed. If that editor wants to claim it is not banned, he might want to say so, but even for him it would be ridiculous. The rules say "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." I do believe that folks should follow the rules, and I will continue to follow them and stand my ground. As I've said from the start, feel free to take it to ANI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones I'm 100 percent with you on this but I would recommend waiting at this point. 3rr has seen it and declined to act unless it's taken to ANI, it's not worth the block and in this case I doubt only Tarc would be blocked. It's a muddy line at 7 plus reverts, I pushed with my 2 or 3, I think that Tarc is being very WP:POINTy about this partially because of his conflict with me regarding civility which is kind of interesting considering the insults he's throwing out like "overzealous" or Recalcatrint" or accusations of us being cronies because we agreed on this one issue, which is quite attacking in nature but in the end you will be able to remove the comment and it will be an end. I'd just drink a beer or smoke a joint and wait for SPI to show they just made a complete ass out of themselves. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

When the proof comes in, the removal can happen. Not before. Your harassment will be removed every time, especially when you try to slip it in without triggering the ping. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Was it somehow more wrong because he removed it without the ping? I mean that seriously if it's a pride issue let that part go and revert. In this instance I would say it is far more productive to wait until the end of the SPI because you have both shown you are prepared to revert each other forever and it's seriously getting out of hand on both sides. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If one looks back through the last 4-6 months' history of Jimbo's talk page, Smallbones can be seen doing this sort of white-knighting day in and day out. Some of the editors or IP users reverted have proven to be accounts of banned users, others have not. This point being made here is that the bully is being stood up to, as what is being warred over here is so trivially dumb to begin with, as all it is is people either from Wikipediocracy or people who share their point-of-view on topics such as paid editing, privacy, the project's growing misogyny issue,s and so on. There are dozens upon dozens of contentious topic areas that are rife with sock-puppeteering and other nefarious deeds. If people like Smallbones are so hell-bent on protecting the projects from socks, that energy would be better spent dipping a toe into, say, Israel-Palestine, or the Troubles, or climate change, or Obama, and deal with the rampant sock abuse there. Jimbo Wales is a grown man, and doesn't really need other grown men to shield him from pointy questions. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"others have not" - you are mistaken. One of the basic principles of the encyclopedia has to be "we have rules", e.g. banned editors are banned. Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves with all these pages and pages of rules. And Mr 2001 thumbs his nose at the whole concept of an encyclopedia. I'm not allowing that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny how no admin has stepped in to block such an obvious (in your eyes) sock, eh? When it is proven, then it can be treated as a sock; until then, the editor will be treated with respect. This is a lesson you will be taught one way or the other, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones — Re: One of the basic principles of the encyclopedia has to be "we have rules"... — That is an absolutely hilarious reading of the 5th Pillar of Wikipedia. By the way, your obsessive removal of comments of others — acting as judge, jury, and executioner — led to your removal of one of my signed comments and your calling me a banned account. Keep it up and we'll be moving the drama to AN/I. Carrite (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find that in the history. If I did remove your comment, it was a slip of the mouse and i apologize, but your comment was reinserted (I'd say soon, but I just can't find me removing it). I believe that Hell in a Bucket already apologized for this if he did it. Apparently he can't find it either. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, this goes to the point that you are completely unqualified to be making judgement upon other users. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to touch ANY of those issues even if you were holding the stick! That at least makes much more sense, egocentric as it was I am glad you weren't doing that just because I opined for it. I do believe there is a very strong case here but that made a lot more sense then what I saw. If you look at the comment there was never a denial. I just didn't see a reason to allow discussions for a banned user. For my part I won't be removing it until DQ or another admin comes in to look. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

For as long as this account remains free of sanction and free of blocks, it will be allowed to post wherever and whatever it pleases. This is not negotiable; the Wikipedia is not a host to personal vendettas and witch hunts. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda surreal seeing this massive edit war (what RR are they at?) going on on Jimbo's page, of all places, with no apparent end in sight and seemingly no one intervening to stop it. DeCausa (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is kindof surreal I have to admit. Complete non sequitur, but it reminds me of the olden college days, way before the present where everyone has a phone or tablet or laptop to do whatever from wherever. We had a computer cluster of dumb terminals that closed at midnight, but some of us would try to stay in the building after the doors locked to keep on doing, er, educational research. So it became a running joke to see who could get kicked out by campus security the most in a semester. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to give help for the US president

Grandstanding by Russian IP hopper, Wikipedia is not for propaganda

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Jimmy. English Wikipedia is used for the promotion of mass murders vs the US citizens and vs Barak Obama (lobbying for the good of the NRA). I ask you stop the promotion of terrible death via Wikipedia. You can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&action=history

Vandals for the good of the NRA must restore edits with the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=620021457#Second_Amendment_rights :

"Second Amendment is the main trump and subject for misuse from the side of the National Rifle Association. Lobbing and corruption, which have relation to this organization, often are the reason of mass murders with help of firearms in the US (simple citizens are victims). Gun control in the United States almost does not exist by the fault of the NRA. For gradual stopping of mass murders can be organized special investigation to identify corrupt members of the US Congress and take relevant action vs them. Besides that, Barak Obama seeks support and attention of the US population, to decide the problem via different methods. He promises not to cancel the Second Amendment and explains, that restrictions are very needed on the federal and regional level - in relation of other relevant laws.[115] [116] [117] [118] [119]" Thank you Jimmy! - 37.144.112.87 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC).

For someone editing from IPs geolocating to Moscow, and with some issues with the English language, you seem to have an unusual interest in a domestic US policy issue. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Truth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at wp:3RR before editing that article again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you have also been edit warring in Gun law in the United States. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The NRA is key factor for the US gun laws, de facto (totally relevant information even for this article). Only lazy do not write that the NRA is the reason of terrible deaths almost every day in schools of the US and not only. The US president seeks support of population, but lobbists from Wikipedia do not wish give the bloody truth for the attention of visitors of Wikipedia. Action vs people of the US and vs Obama in the same time. A large number of respected sources write things, about which I say now. Relations of Russia and USA currently - have no any meaning (simple Russian people wish the good for the US citizens and children, which can be killed in any second because of the activity of the terrible organization (NRA). I ask give the sad truth for the attention of the US citizens (facts and respected opinions, which can destroy the bloody power of the NRA: life of a large number of the US people will be saved). If my English is bad (I am Russian), editors of English Wikipedia can make corrections (grammatical mistakes not will be trouble). Google bot was used. - 37.144.108.218 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC).
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore needs to be a place of neutral information, not an advocacy group for one side or the other. However at the bottom that article Gun politics in the United States there's links to articles of pro gun control groups. If you're passionate on this issue you should seek out the website of one of these groups. I'm sure there's a 'how you can help' section.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not the advocacy group, these are facts and opinions for the aims of the encyclopedia. Your right be with any reasons inside yourself (your personal motivation edit articles). But relevant facts and opinions are intended for relevant articles. When the NRA is key factor for the US gun laws, this information must be fixed in the article "Gun laws in the United States" (for example). Advocacy group (using your terminology) - is your explanations for me now (in favor of the NRA - it should be note). When the US president says about the NRA and about the US Congress in very sad context (such moments also must be placed in relevant articles). It is not only opinions - speeches of Barak Obama (facts and opinions in the same time). He urges the whole nation: restrictions are needed (need to display). Head of the state said. Hundreds of respected sources say that the NRA is the mashine for mass murders (need to display). Wikipedia uses these sources long time ago. And exist else more of sources, which say about the bloody truth. Lobbying of death via Wikipedia (very bad thing). And your opinion have no the big meaning (request is directed not to you: request for stop vandalism in favor of the NRA). In accordance with the rules of Wikipedia, lobbying and actions vs aims of Wikipedia must be banned. Main aim of Wikipedia (find relevant information and place this in relevant articles). Not lobbying for the good of the NRA (if somebody tries hide sad facts and important opinions in the same time). Read rules of Wikipedia (which materials can be placed in articles). There is no something like this (bloody activity of the NRA - is separate case). There is no (Obama or respected sources say about murders via the NRA, and such information must be hidden). You can be named as advocacy group (it is not about me). - 95.27.118.116 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. There's much of what you wrote that I don't think translated as you intended. Online translators are not as acurate as they'd need to be, for us to get our points across. I don't mean this as an insult. I'm sure if I tried the same in russian we'd have the same problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It was not insult (you are right). About translation (I already wrote: I need help to be free of grammatical mistakes). - 95.27.118.116 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

But your text (15:08, 6 August 2014) I understood very good. - 95.27.118.116 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

I think the biggest obvious omission I see in Gun politics in the United States is that the Black Panthers are not mentioned. The NRA spends the bulk of its energy protecting the right of rich old white guys to play around with $10,000 machine guns while in many places poor blacks can be thrown in prison for five years for daring to have a means of self-defense when walking through gang-infested neighborhoods. In the long term I don't even know if the NRA is relevant to gun issues. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

[1] Examples of use at Requests for Arbitration: by Hersfold, by Newyorkbrad, by Vassyana (line 478+) ("A ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Let's not enable them").

[2] For example this case.

[1]

[2]