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.
The archiving template and "Welcome" box shows a 36 hour time-frame for auto-archiving. The "How to use this page" box says 24 hours. Can these figures be reconciled? – S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it acceptable for non-admins to comment on incidents reported here on which they have no involvement? I recently commented on a report but now I'm in doubt if this noticeboard is for admin use only and perhaps I shouldn't have. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
In fact, the Arbitration Committee procedures explicitly refer to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions| "a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). "]] (emphasis mine) NE Ent17:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The guidance states "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion."
As I am currently the "subject of a discussion" and have been so notified, if my responses allude to other WP editors/edits/administrative actions (but not by name), am I then required to initiate notification to those parties? I do not wish to be subjected to "failure to notify" or "canvassing" accusations and I'm unclear if the above advisory pertains only to the initiator of the ANI or to anyone who elects to comment (which I'm inclined to believe it does). Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Cyprus elections 2013, edit war on results template
Hi. user Dimnaz started an edit war here. I left a message to his talk page, asked him why he keeps vandalizing the template but he gave me no response. I left 3 messages to him. He gives absolutely no response but keeps deleting my contributions without explanation. What should I do now?--88.240.45.86 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Templates for Discussion open for more than one month without relisting
I have noticed that some Templates for Discussion have been open for over one month lately without being relisted. Will any of these be dispositioned soon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
SPI or ANI first?
If one is dealing with persistent vandalism by what seems to be a bunch of socks, should the issue be raised at ANI or SPI first? Jeh (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I've taken AN and ANI off my watchlist for a while. I need a bit of a break and I'm sure it'll do me good not to participate there for a bit. I still have WP:AIV and the lower profile boards on my watchlist and I'm happy to respond to requests for help on my talk page. Just didn't want you all thinking I had disappeared! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)17:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Should involved editors be allowed to close down discussion about their own conduct?
a valid policy question which, if someone were to actually do such a thing, should be discussed at the village poump or something.Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
@AQFK: It is past time for some self-reflection. A good start would be to count the number of times you have disagreed with a particular editor, then determine how often the community supported your view (less than 10%?). You must know that lots of people monitor ANI, and if someone was doing something bad, they would oppose the closing of a section with a complaint about that user. Did anyone support you in the ANI report? Were all those who opposed the report acting as stooges? What about the two admins who closed the section?
What about the title of your report ("Personal attack by MathSci")? The phrase "personal attack" is rather strong—you must know that making a claim like that without evidence (apart from a diff showing a trivial remark) is an attack. The fact that no one has supported your view shows that you have in fact attacked an editor in good standing. Any comment here should only be to offer an apology. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sure they can. Non-admins shouldn't take decisions and close discussions about things that specifically require admin tools. Some non-admins are very helpful in clerking AN-AN/I and closing discussions that either don't require admin attention or that admins have already resolved. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Per Salvidrim, the only time an admin is required, ever, in order to close a discussion is when enacting the results of the discussion would require the use of an admin tool (basically to block, protect, or delete). In any discussion where enacting the result doesn't require an admin tool, any editor of sufficient experience and good judgement may close a discussion which has run its course and established consensus. This includes discussions which conclude in the negative on the use of admin tools; that is if a proposal to block a user has come to the consensus that they should not be blocked, any uninvolved and sufficiently experienced user is allowed to close the discussion and summarize the results, because you don't need a tool to leave a user unblocked. Hypothetically, even if the discussion had required a block, even a non-admin could close and summarize it, and then ask an admin to then block said user, but in practice it's often simpler and more expedient to let an admin close those discussions (saves the step of having to fetch a sympathetic and uninvolved admin). So no, for any discussion where the admin tools aren't needed to enact the results, there is no requirement that admins are needed. Now, if you see that admins do frequently close discussions where their tools aren't needed, they're only doing so in the capacity of an experienced editor, their ability to use the tools doesn't grant them any special privilege in this regard. --Jayron3205:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I just want to comment here that I am a non-admin but have been an editor since 2005, and most of the Requests for Closure ask for an "experienced editor" not an admin. I am an experienced editor. Chutznik (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, basically that. People who are new to ANI are generally expected to forget this from time to time, and so given a bit of leeway and gentle reminders. People who deliberately refuse to notify editors, despite having ample knowledge that they know that are supposed to, could be seen to be acting in violation of WP:POINT or some such. But, for the most part, Reyk is correct. You're to be forgiven and gently chided for honest mistakes or oversights, but don't deliberately refuse to notify people on a regular basis. --Jayron3205:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Admins should take notice of a new (or maybe its old but no one really took notice to it) that I personally call gaming the Conversation. When discussions get heated fast, but not because its against one based on reasoning, but because one editor intentionally derails the conversation.
Example:
Constantly asking if the person is a troll without any proof. Makes things personal, asking "why won't you give me a chance to edit, when you have?" "Why are you being like this?" Basically Ad Hominem.
Brings up pasts discussions numerous times just to prove lack of experience (this may not be a sign of gaming conversation. Depends how exact and relevant it is.)
Makes numerous false statements during the discussion but never elaborates on them when confronted on it.
Asking if English is your first language despite understanding clearly what you're saying. (Sometimes editors speak the same way they speak at home. It's not bad english, just colorful speech.)
I find it difficult when we can't defraud these type of editors who use these tactics and wikipedia not even knowing its existence (as in making an essay, policy, guideline).Lucia Black (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Obligatory notification
There is a big red scary notice on this page and ANI reminding users to notify people when they're the subject of discussion on the noticeboard. Now that Wikipedia:Notifications provides this automatically, maybe the requirement for notifying everyone by hand could be removed. Jafeluv (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
FWIW - I did see somewhere that there was going to be some sort of meeting regarding the new notification system this week, perhaps some upcoming changes. So I'm guessing this new system is still in somewhat of a state of flux. I know Writ Keeper has written a script to replace the OBOD, but there's also talk of bringing back the bar with an "opt-out" option too. — Ched : ? 10:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Archived incident with no response
I posted an incident with user:Afg96. [|My posting] was archived without receiving a response. Do administrators check for archived postings that still need a response? Should I unarchive the posting? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
No and no. You have content dispute more than anything requiring intervention (sorry no one responded to let you know that). I'm not seeing recent discussion at Talk:Mehmet Oz, which would be the first step. If that doesn't resolve the issue, try WP:DRN or WP:RFC. NE Ent09:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thread that awaits a decision
In the same sense as the above question,
this ANI thread started 5 days ago and has been largely concluded now, with just one new user comment yesterday (which agreed with the other users). There is no disagreement and no opposing voice now. If nothing is done, it will get archived although 12 users have expressed mostly uniform opinions. What does it take to make a decision on this thread now that unopposed consensus exists? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Over at the talk page for the ANI notice template, I proposed that the signature be added to the end of it. Because the talk page gets about as much attention as the average subsubsubsubsubsubsubusertalkpage, I thought I would also put it on a page with slightly more traffic. So, thoughts on putting one's user signature in the ANI notification template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonesean (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I added it once - to great issues. When ones uses Twinkle to drop the ANI notice, it automatically adds the signature - it's only if you add it manually that it doesn't. So, anyone using Twinkle will automatically add 2 signatures (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
How many users notify manually comapred to those who use Twinkle? And can't we change Twinkle slightly so that we do not get duplicate sigs? GiantSnowman15:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
There are a fair number of editors that do not use Twinkle that would all do them manually and I've always done them manually, I've only just recently become aware that it is possible to do it with Twinkle (although I can't remember exactly how off the top of my head). See below for my suggestions to reduce/eliminate double sigs and almost completely be assured that a sig will be included. User talk:Technical 13#Posting to user talk pages - shows that as it stands, signatures are easily left out. This issue had the potential to become toxic and should have been avoided by the template automatically adding the signature. This fix of this nomination and this fix of this other nomination show that double sigs happen now with Twinkle for other modules, which should be fixed using some method (I suggest two methods below). Technical 13 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to do so.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.
Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates {{Pagelinks}} (for pages) and {{Userlinks}} (for editors) may be helpful.
This leads me to believe that the template should include the signature by default as the the four tildes are currently not shown in any of the ANI documentation (it is indeed shown on Template:ANI-notice, but who checks there when they are upset and are posting something in ANI?) As far as the argument goes for the "problem" with a double signature for those that use Twinkle, I have two things to say about that. First, I would rather see two signatures for something than none. Second, you mean like what happens all of the time when posting CSDs or XfDs using Twinkle? I think that a little minor adjustment to Twinkle to say "Signature will be automatically added for you, please do not sign with ~~~~" or add a little regex to Twinkle that removes /[~{3,5}]/ would surely suffice. Technical 13 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Instructions on how to notify nonregistered editors?
The instructions say to notify the editor who is the subject of the discussion, but if this is not possible because the editor is not registered and refuses to do so, but the editor needs to be community banned (preferably here according to the banning policy which this user might be subject to) how do we handle that? And can these instructions include some clear indication on what to do for such cases? --Modocc (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
"If this is not possible because the editor is not registered and refuses to do so...": IP addresses have talk pages too. I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean? Theopolisme(talk)21:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
What do we do when they are using a "roaming" IP address that changes often? Put it on the random page and be done with it? --Modocc (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought Echo was supposed to take care of this problem by making the notifications automatic so long as the username is linked in the original ANI posting? Are we still supposed to notify the users by a talkpage section in addition to the automatic one from Echo? —Soap—22:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know which board to take this to.....admin misconduct re removal of notability tags
I am going to take the liberty of archiving this, because regardless of what the issue is, this is not the right place to try to resolve it. Looie496 (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've just had to restore notability tags after they were deleted by User:Neelix, who was the creator of these articles and maintains the third-party sources about media bulletins about open mics and film showings were valid sources, and challenged me to an AfD in his comments.....Both, to me, and I know the city well that he's created these about, are not relevant in an encyclopedia and come across as spam/promotional and also UNDUE and IMO an AfD is a waste of time and energy. They are not valid as relevant or notable, as a quick read of their content will demonstrate, plus the WP:TRIVIA nature of the cites given. The paragraph in New Westminster (the Columbia Street section) was already unreferenced about much more notable developments; that should have been addressed first, not promotional articles inserted in this way, then defending by removing templates without proper process or discussion. That he is an admin, and unilaterally removed tags on articles he created, strikes me as irresponsible and unprofessional. Do I take this to WP:N's board, WP:SPAM's board, WP:UNDUE....seems like more than that to me. I've reported this on the Requests for Comment section of WP:CANTALK and on the main discussion board also, as in the RfC section it is not appropriate to go on at length; sections have been started on Talk:Five Stones Church and Talk:Heritage Grill also, mostly advising Neelix to not remove the tags again without due process. Also there is a plethora of WikiProjects; perhaps valid....IF the articles were valid, and to me they are NOT. New West, as we call New Westminster and where I lived for a number of years, deserves better coverage and its article needs better content overall (former colonial capital and long-time more major city than Vancouver) and should not be used for promotional platforms for individual churches and restaurants.Skookum1 (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:ANI is the place to raise issues regarding admin misconduct. But it probably won't be considered admin misconduct unless admin functions (such as blocking or page protection) have been misused. When admins do ordinary editing things, they are not treated differently from any other editor. Looie496 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it was wrong to remove the tags, but the fact that he's an admin isn't relevant, because he didn't use any tools, make any threats, or do anything inappropriate that a regular editor couldn't do. If you're "not interested" in nominating them for deletion, what do you hope the tags will accomplish? Do you just hope someone else will take the time to nominate them? You're naming all sorts of possible forums you could bring this to, and forum shopping all over the place, when you could have just initiated an AfD and been done with it. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number16:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well I guess that's what it'll have to be then; I was shocked at such WP:OWN activity, frankly. And also at the trivial and questionable content and citations from someone who is an experienced admin. Especially relative to the dearth of good content on this city, which is an important one, and its much more notable buildings and businesses which do not have articles. I seem to spend more time on procedure around here than on having time to edit and write articles because of finding things that to no belong or were changed/added without any real encyclopedic content or relevance or proper citation......"specious" is another word that comes to mind.....it was because more than notability was involved I came here, I didn't come to "forum shop", I came to ask where, given the multi-faceted nature of this; it's not possible to post to NOTE, UNDUE, SPAM etc all at the same time.....I guess in the opening of an AfD....so much for writing articles this week, and yes, I'd thnk that people on WP:N "patrol" would take a part in this, instead of shrugging as you seemingly have now.Skookum1 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You can open an AfD and then just not watch it. Nobody says you have to see it through. Make your case and take it off your watchlist. Zero stress, because you've done your part.
And there's always the other option: Do nothing. Leave it alone. There's no need to panic. Does the fact that other buildings in that town don't (yet) have articles really mean that this one must be deleted immediately? And that it must be by you? If it's really that bad, and you're really that busy, someone else will come along and do it eventually whether you tag it or not. Anyway, my point was, if you wanted to do something proactive, it would have been easier to accept his "challenge" and just bring it to AfD rather than posting about it here, and on the Canadian Wikipedian's noticeboard, and on Neelix's talk page, and at the article talk page. You didn't do anything wrong, but you could have saved yourself some headache. KafzielComplaint Department: Please take a number17:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I was under the impression that any maintenance tags that do not have corresponding discussion on the talk page can simply be removed by anyone. I apologize if I have violated policy or guidelines and would be glad for anyone point me to them. Neelix (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no hard-set rules about tag likes notability. However, getting into edit wars about them past 1RR is frowned upon. After a revert round, somebody needs to start a discussion somewhere instead of fighting the edit war, ideally the person who put the tag in in the first place. However, there is no required on the first addition of the tag to require a talk page section, nor should the tag be removed until someone had made sufficient effort to correct it. (There are of course drive-by taggers that are akin to vandals, that doesn't count here). Arguably this could be a long-term behavior problem but that's better met at something like an RFC/U if it is the same user continuing to cause the problems, but there's literally nothing enforcable by admins until the community decides there's a long-standing problem, save for short-order edit wars. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, adding and removing maintenance tags is just like adding or removing text from an article. Does it say this somewhere? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thincat (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the mentions off the Columbia Street section of the New Westminster city article, where they had no place and where I first noticed them being added. I have a lot of work today, but may get to launching AfDs, perhaps a dual one, but will be watching the New West article for further such additions of trivial/directory/undue content.Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your recent ANI archiving
[2] Eeng, as by far the most prolific contributor to the article, will most definitely not be carrying out the next GA review. EricCorbett13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I will preface this by saying I am cismale (that is, born with a penis) and I identify as male in the sense of gender. I say that to forestall the often inevitable reaction against gender identity.
That being said, I have concerns about what appears to be the default standard on Wikipedia in general and this board in particular: the tendency to refer to all users as 'he' and 'him' absent any specific ideas to the contrary. In fact, a thread today on this board (about DracoEssentialis) kept referring to the named editor as 'he' and 'him' despite the user describeing herself on her userpage as another user's wife.
I am not saying that Wikipedia needs, en masse to engage in the gender identity wars that plague other parts of the internet. But, in light of our known systemic biases and our difficulties in recruiting and retaining female-identified editors, it would probably behoove us to stop automatically assuming gender. Plus, that's just the right thing to do; identify people ambiguously until they ask for a specific pronoun to be used.
Well thanks! I am also pretty certain those words have never been uttered in that order in English ;). I'm just thinking there are lots and lots of reasons why many female editors (or potential editors) feel unwelcome around here, and maybe if we start chipping away at small easy stuff it'll help that problem. (I'm also pretty sure there are male editors who are turned off by the casual--and oft-unintended!--sexism around here too. I'm one of them and I don't think I'm very unusual). — The Potato Hose06:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, find the use of singular they grammatically defective. It's particularly grating in contexts like "if some dude stuck their penis in a bucket of paint" as appeared in the thread you refer to. If I thought it was important for you to know my gender, I'd have announced it. It is important for you to know that I am singular. I would rather be referred to with a wrong-gendered pronoun than a wrong-numbered one. Kilopi (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal above - the use of a default gender-specific noun is off-putting (I've seen this said by female editors in the past). Even when someone has at some point indicated her gender it's hard to remember with neuter usernames. I routinely sacrifice pedantry for avoidance of misclassification. If I'm not sure about an editor's gender, I will give them the benefit of my doubt (and the world keeps turning). -- Scray (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
"They" and "one" are grammatically correct when speaking of the singular. One cannot complain about gender bias, but then trout the grammatically correct neuter terminology (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I seem to remember the SAT people like "his or her" and not "they". But then again, it's the SAT people, so again, FWIW. GoPhightins!13:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Singular they is grammatically correct. It's true some forms of test and some particular professors don't like it, but that seems to vary. Some professors claim contractions are grammatically incorrect too, but that doesn't mean they are correct. Regards, — MoeEpsilon16:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
One shouldn't assume an editor using "he" is making an assumption; historically (in the US, at least), "he" was considered both a gender specific and gender neutral pronoun. Personally I use a singular they, others use qe; do what you think best but don't try to impose a convention on others that's lacking in the real world. NE Ent13:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Historically, "he" was not gender-specific, whle "she" was always gender-specific. In recent years, the tendency to see "gender bias" in language has become notable - but "xe" and "qe" and the like carry legitimate issues to the absurd. IMO. The "epicene 'they'" is also a waste of linguistic history. Making language decisions based on political considerations is one of the key problems in, for example, French where they seek to keep "le week-end" out of the language - to not much avail. Note that "week-end" is masculine in French. Collect (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup ... in French, ils may refer to a group of males OR a mixed group of males/females, whereas elles is always women-only. As such, "he" is theoretically more inclusive than the use of "she". If I call a he a she, he might be insulted ... but calling a she a he should theoretically not be (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Where's this going to lead? The imposition of civility blocks for referring to a female editor as "he"? I know how much you all like blocks and bans, so I suppose that's the next logical step. EricCorbett14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with BWilkins and Dennis: "they" is the way to go if you don't know whether the person wishes to be addressed as "he" or "she". The singular they was good enough for Shakespeare; let's not pretend we're more clever than the bard. 28bytes (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
What 28bytes said. Singular they is perfectly acceptable and there is nothing inherently grammatically wrong with it. Did someone ping my uncle, who uses a set of hugely fascinating templates which, in my case, mark me as "xe"? Drmies (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I personally tend to use alternative to simple pronouns, such as "the user", "the editor", or simply use the username; otherwise I default to a singular they. However, I strongly oppose any notion that it is rude, uncivil, or otherwise inappropriate to refer to anyone with a masculine pronoun, unless specifically requested to avoid doing so. Texts often default to the masculine form for the sake of simplicity and I wouldn't blame anyone for doing so automatically. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉04:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I consider "he" to be a perfectly acceptable pronoun for the single person of unknown gender, especially where gender is irrelevant. Use of "it", "xe", "he or she" or "they" where the singular is specifically intended, I consider worse. Awkward sentences that avoid a pronoun are also worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Without sounding like a dick, and having to make an assumption about your gender based on your username, of course you find it perfectly acceptable (assuming you are indeed male). That is exactly the kind of unintended systemic bias I am talking about here. Many, many female-identified people really really really do not consider 'he' to be perfectly acceptable. I don't really see why we shouldn't respect that. — The Potato Hose17:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that I referred to a person of unknown gender. Neither their username nor their userpage indicates gender. If I am going to make repeated third person references to a user, requiring third person pronouns, I will always have looked at their userpage. Extended comments about a third user implies a serious matter. If the user identifies as female, I will use the female pronoun of course. Has someone been complaining? I have never seen anyone here complain on their own behalf about their female self identification being ignored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Afaik, "He" is the neuter pronoun when writing "professionally". And so, presumably may be used in other types of writing. I prefer the singular "they" when writing on discussion pages here when unsure about the individual's gender. I've used "he or she" occasionally, though more for article writing than talk page writing. As an additional option, there are also creative phrasings as noted by others above. While I don't use "Xe", I at least recognise it when I see it. And I'm not a fan of "s/he", though, again, I at least understand it when I see it. Every time these kinds of discussions come up, someone invariably also mentions "Hey you!" : ) - jc3706:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Jc, don't tell that to the students in my Business and Professional Writing Class, whom I have just explained two things: a. singular they is just fine; b. in general, follow the appropriate style guide. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"xe" is just weird, "they" is much better when you aren't sure of another user's gender. We have to remember that many users of WP are not going to have any idea what "xe" is even supposed to mean as it is not a word used in spoken English. According to our article on Gender-neutral pronouns this discussion has been ongoing since the 1790s, and "they" is an acceptable substitute. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I personally use the singular "they"; "xe" doesn't look like a word (particularly the "xir" possessive), "he or she" is too wordy, and I just read "s/he" as "she", which doesn't fix the problem. I have slipped up and used "he" as gender neutral on occasion, but I try to catch myself and correct it when I notice. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I use he (often in the case of sub-adult vandals), she (whether or not I know the gender of the user), xe, or sometimes "it" (in cases of some editors who fail the Turing test), but I decline to use the singular "they", which I recognize as grammatically and stylisticly improper, and confusing. — Arthur Rubin(talk)06:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As a trans editor, I agree that editors should recognise systemic biases and privileges. When I was outwardly identifying as male, I would normally agree with the assertions put forward in opposition, but now? I agree with using the singular they. As 28bytes said, if it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me (also, linguistic prescriptivism makes me go "eww"). As a wider point, it does make me sad that we're moving backwards on countering systemic biases. Sceptre(talk)08:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
May I say that I do find it somewhat appalling when editors editing an example in an article or Wikipedia guideline decide that the example would be more natural or neutral with a masculine rather than a feminine pronoun. For instance (not to hold this up as a shining example of good encyclopedia writing), originally this example used to be in the feminine pronoun until someone decided that the person in the example should be male. I've seen other examples of this kind of thing on Wikipedia. How exactly is this anything but bald-faced sexism? There isn't even any point in reverting edits like this, since the systemic bias is so heavily slanted towards the male pronoun that someone else would just change it back again. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a data point of one cis female (possibly the first/only one in this discussion, based on a quick skim of usernames I recognize): I am not offended if people assume I'm male and refer to me as "he". Most Wikipedians are male, and and there's nothing particularly offensive to me about someone looking at my writing/behavior and playing the odds that I'm male. I would, however, look askance at anyone who played the "Well I don't know what you are, so I'm going to use what I think is 'gender-neutral' and say 'he'" card. To my mind, "he" isn't gender-neutral, and it's somewhat outdated to claim it is. Call me a "he" if you believe you're addressing a male, sure - I might not even bother to correct you, because I think it's mostly irrelevant what gender people think I am - but if you don't know what gender I am, I would be much more comfortable being referred to as "they" or even the awkward "xe" than being labeled "he-by-default-because-male-is-the-default". You can pretty much never go wrong with "they" when you're unsure - we're talking about pronouns in project and talk space, where communication and connection are key, not pronouns in FAs, where nitpicky old grammar rules trump common sense. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Since there is absolutely nothing on your userpage anywhere indicating your gender preference (as distinct from sexual preference), I had no idea until now that you identified as female. Most of our female editors make a notation somewhere that they are women, otherwise they run the risk of being assumed as male. While I assume that it is not a big deal to you, I really do make an effort to use the appropriate pronoun when referring to people, as I refuse to use nonsense "gender-neutral" pronouns or singular "they", both of which I object to on aesthetic and ideological principles. Self-identification is an important part of an individual's identity, but (as most people will do) I default to male pronouns unless there is a reason to believe otherwise. I am sorry if you find my position wrong, but it is what it is, and I'm too old and set in my ways to change at this point. Horologium(talk)03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It took me years to get around to even adding that category to my userpage, because I didn't see the point. On the list of "things that I find useful to identify/describe myself to the community", "I am female" comes just about dead last, well behind "I am a copyeditor," "I am an administrator", and even "I live in the NYC area", and only slightly before "I once won an essay contest in third grade" - I see no reason to waste space talking about my sexual or gender identity (or third grade victories), because that has no bearing on my editing habits or the jobs I do here. If you expect everyone who's female to explicitly say "Oh, and also I have ladybits down there" on their userpage by way of introducing themselves on Wikipedia, I suspect you're misidentifying a whole lot of female editors based on that expectation - for most of us, it doesn't have any impact on what we do, and for some of us it attracts very unpleasant levels of unwanted attention. Many, many female editors don't identify themselves as such in any way, on their user pages or in their settings.
While I don't expect my feelings to change your mind, I'm afraid I find it a bit offputting to hear that you value your (I guess?) ideological position on which gender is linguistically dominant over the requests of your fellow editors to consider other viewpoints. "This user is probably male, so I'll say 'he'" is one thing; "I don't know what gender this user is, but male pronouns are what I ideologically prefer, so I'll use those" is another, and it seems you are saying the latter. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me (likely because of my poor explanation). I don't have an ideological preference for male pronouns, I have an ideological opposition to "xe", and would not be at all happy seeing it used to describe me. I object to "xe" and singularly "they" for aesthetic reasons, although I have encountered at least one editor whose userpage specifically requested use of "singular they" when referring to that editor, and I would have complied with the request (I don't remember the name of the editor in question.) While I don't have a userbox or even a category identifying my sex on my page, there is a picture of me in one section and a mention of my pronoun preferences in another. Because the userbase in Wikipedia is overwhelmingly male, it is more likely than not that an editor with whom I am interacting is male. I don't like the idea of using the wrong pronouns for someone (and "right" is their personal preference, not the biological assignment), and I will occasionally use "he or she" if I think the editor might be of either sex, but there are more than a few editors for whom I have guessed incorrectly. Horologium(talk)17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "he or she" would be absolutely fine with me as far as "what to call people when you're not sure what to call them." Basically anything that doesn't default to "male pronoun trumps female one" works for me in this discussion. Also for what it's worth, for better or worse most of us women are quite used to being called "he" and generally have a coping strategy in place (whether that's my "don't care" or Laurascudder's correcting the other person), so you may actually be worrying a bit too much about using the "wrong" pronoun in that sense. Not that it's not ideal to get it right, but I think you're not likely to be grievously offending anyone by taking your best guess. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Horologium, your stance seems to be 'I assume you are male unless you tell me otherwise.' That just seems categorically off-putting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
No, that is an oversimplification. While I don't come out and ask people about their sex, I do look at userpages of people with whom I interact, and (while I don't expect everyone to have their CV and a full bio on their page) anything that makes a pronoun choice obvious can be appreciated, especially if the editor has a name (like mine) that is ambiguous. I do tend to expect other editors are male, but I have occasionally gone the opposite way (I thought Radiant! was female for quite a while. Horologium(talk)17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as the second cisfemale data point in this discussion, singular they is an abomination in formal writing, and I'm not offended when people guess wrong about my gender. But I am likely to correct you. Given that 85% of our editors, and even more of our highly active editors, are males, it is statistically likely that the person you're speaking to is male. If you'd like to do less guessing, then you might like to spend two minutes with User:PleaseStand/User info. It will give you a "male" or "female" symbol next to the page title whenever you visit someone's user or user talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll chime in as another cisfemale, albeit one who isn't often mistaken for a male on Wikipedia. On other sites, where I have an apparently more ambiguous username, I am usually assumed to be male, which I correct because to do otherwise only makes Internet users seem even more overwhelmingly male than they already are. That doesn't mean I'm particularly offended by the initial default to a male pronoun (AGF after all). I also don't object to the singular they in theory — in practice, I don't like to use it in writing because of the chance for singular/plural ambiguity about who you are talking about. Until English speakers embrace something like xe as more than an awkward constructed solution, we're not going to solve this problem, but if discussions like these at least prompt some more people to check a userpage first, then maybe it's worthwhile to talk about. Laura Scudder | talk16:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm always a little puzzled by these gender discussions and claims about the gender gap, as I'd estimate that a good 50 per cent of the editors I work with regularly are female, and I don't mean on knitting, sewing or cooking topics. Most recently I've been helping user:Montanabw with an article about a racehorse for instance, and user:Ealdgyth with an article on the Norman Conquest of England, neither obviously "female" topics. I can understand why some females may prefer not to reveal their gender, but that's no excuse for abortions such as "xe". If you object to my referring to you as "he", then simply correct me, and I won't do it again. EricCorbett16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Eric, As was noted on SandyGeorgia's talk page in a discussion last year, there is a strong representation of women there compared to the userbase as a whole. I'd say that that 50/50 ratio is an accurate assessment, but that is not true of the rest of Wikipedia. Just look at the noticeboards, which are dominated by men. (Maybe because the women are too busy writing articles to bother with AN or ANI.) Horologium(talk)18:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Heard my name! LOL! I find "xe" rather science-fiction-ish and silly, though I do wish we could somehow integrate the singular "they" or otherwise create a real gender-neutral pronoun. There really is no question that even when "he" was considered the "generic" personal pronoun, it wasn't, it only indicated the low historical status of women. I usually try to just rephrase things to avoid a singular personal pronoun/the generic "he" or else suck it up and say "he or she" even though it's a bit clunky. My own experience on WP has been that users who know or figure out I am female from the outset (or truly don't care) usually don't treat me any differently from other editors, but if someone assumes I am male and then is publicly set straight (I usually don't bother), they often dramatically change their tone and manner with me, usually for the worst, and usually in the "don't worry your silly little (stupid) head about it, dearie" way. I find it quite frustrating. My feeling is that it is important to at least try to write with non-gendered language as a matter of respect, but there's no need to torture language to get there; poor English gets tortured enough as it is. Montanabw(talk)17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly, I would have said I had the opposite experience most of the time - I do get treated differently when people who thought I was male find out I'm female, but usually the result is that the aggression level of the conversation drops abruptly. Not, I would have said (not that I'm a particularly good mind reader, but it was the impression I had), in a "don't worry yourself" sense, but in a "oh, it's a woman. I don't have to engage aggressively, I can just talk" sense. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Having a background in inorganic chemistry, I always have to remind myself that people who call people "Xe" aren't accusing others of being an inert gas. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I also don't find these cisgender terms to be particularly helpful in an open conversation as that is jargon, like "xe", that is not broadly understood or used in casual conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've also always strongly suspected that the gender gap is overstated, but it's kinda hard to back up when five times as many people have put themselves in Category:Male Wikipedians as Category:Female Wikipedians. My mom taught me that single women shouldn't even list their first name in the phone book lest they give away that they're a woman living alone, so I just assume that has bled over into how free people feel to identify themselves by gender on the internet. Laura Scudder | talk17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Insert ditto here...This is only the second time I've outed myself in my year and a half here and my gender will continue to remain "undisclosed" on my user page. Fylbecatuloustalk19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to active users and users with advanced permissions it definitely is not as skewed as those numbers would suggest. While attending Wikimania last year I observed that while there were certainly many more males than females it was not a 5/1 ratio. Maybe more like 3/1. Of course that's just my impression and not based on hard data. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I came away from Wikimania Boston with a similar impression. But then again, I came out of a field with an infamous gender gap, so my perceptions might be skewed. Laura Scudder | talk19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Please just try to remember once and for all that I'm female and my gormless twin brother Fish is male. What's so hard?? (Never been to Wikimania yet, though.) darwinbishBITE☠18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC).
Yes, it's a problem - not just on Wikipedia, but the wider internet and society in general. There is no magic fix that I can see, other than that those that are aware of the issue should try to use gender-neutral constructs where possible, singular they being my personal favourite. Wilfully misgendering someone (Repeatedly using "he" for someone known to be female) is something that might require intervention but I don't see any other action is appropriate. Oh, and be aware that explicitly stating you are female in a conversation on many topics is sometimes not advisable, if it might be used to call into question one's qualifications which might lead to an increased tendency to assume maleness. (See also: "Fake Geek Girls") ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice the opening comment in this discussion assumes that a user who identifies as another user's wife must be female -- that's a bit sexist, isn't it? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
No. That assumption is not sexist, but relies on a property that relatively few English nouns have, which is grammatical gender, which happens in English when the noun implies biological gender. Although few English nouns have gender, "wife" is one of them. It refers to a female spouse. It would be premature to assume that the poster's spouse was male, but it is not premature to assume that the poster is female. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I've developed an essay called WP:ANI Advice that I would like to add to the edit notice. I honestly don't expect everyone to click on it, but if maybe 10% of new users who are trying to report something to ANI read it then it can help a little. Thanks.--v/r - TP19:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with much of what you have written there I don't believe it would be appropriate to link it, or any other essay or non-policy page, right in the edit notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That essay would have helped me in my recent ANI appeal. To an only-somewhat-experienced editor such as me, it was not at all obvious that diffs are good, but other posts could be bad. If I had seen that ahead of time, I would have known.William Jockusch (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
hi, this is "crazy style talk" from Romania
i think ull b able to find some of my algo multiinsertion on insertion sort talk pages: if real mccoy algo may i get some credits please? anyway just a "needy" thought ;)) Florin 93.118.212.93 (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this is the English language Wikipedia. If you are not able to communicate in English you are in the wrong place. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Note: this IP has been adding meaningless posts to talk pages since November 2011. [5] I'd have thought a long-term block was on the cards by now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
They aren't really meaningless if you can decode them, for example the above message means, "I think you will be able to find the algorithm I call "multiinsertion" on Talk:insertion sort. If my algorithm is valid, can I get some credit for it?". What we have here is a severe competence issue -- there seems to be no possibility that this editor can contribute usefully to building an encyclopedia, and all of his edits are essentially disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Looie496 that the comments are not meaningless, only incompetent (they have mathematical content, poorly stated), and with AndyTheGrump that this IP should be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
@NuclearWarfare: I think I might have given you the wrong template name. Apparently, {{BLP}} is just for talk pages. I say this because if I go to the edit page for War on women, I get an error message saying, "This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Talk:War on Women."[7] So, I'm not sure what the correct template is for the edit page, but if you go to Barack Obama,[8] the BLP notice is displayed without an error. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what the correct template is either but I substituted the BLP template and just removed the error. NW(Talk)17:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
@NuclearWarfare: I think I might have given you the wrong template name. Apparently, {{BLP}} is just for talk pages. I say this because if I go to the edit page for War on women, I get an error message saying, "This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Talk:War on Women."[10] So, I'm not sure what the correct template is for the edit page, but if you go to Barack Obama,[11] the BLP notice is displayed without an error. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what the correct template is either but I substituted the BLP template and just removed the error. NW(Talk)17:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
AN/I forwarded to AN, AN/I rolled back to 2008, edit history missing at AN/I
Maybe there should be a word limit on how much each person involved in these disputes can go on. Clearly, this is a forum for many users with an axe to grind and the conversation becomes so convoluted and back-and-forth, it is impossible to follow. I suggest a generous limit (500 words, total?) but when a user comes to the end of their limit, they've had their say. Maybe this will result in ANI becoming less like a war zone. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Just so people know: I moved the MFD discussion for User:Hirnaxi karelia to July 25 (which was when it was actually created). For some reason it was placed under "January 1, 1970" at the bottom of everything. The nomination looks legitimate so I'm not sure what was going on. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
archiving cocked up?
The "request for sanction removal" section has been closed for days but has not been auto archived. There was some code preventing archiving but I removed it five days ago. Anyone got a clue what the problem is? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It's all one big section, with subsections for proposals 2, 3, continuing discussion, and topic-ban violation, so your closure of the indef block is the last post. It should archive after 1800 on the 6th if we have 48 hour archiving. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs00:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Not silly at all. I was wondering the same thing when I was holding proposal 3 to get formally closed, and only figured out what was going on when I looked closer at how all the sections were organized. VanIsaacWSVexcontribs04:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Inactive
Does someone want to look at my edit to User talk:Fram ? I didn't realize the admin was inactive when I posted it. I didn't want to bother any of the boards with it because I don't really know how it should be dealt with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments requested before I implement consensus at WP:VisualEditor/Default State RFC
I tried to post my comments to the discussion but it seems IP's aren't welcome on this noticeboard so I'm posting here instead. Feel free to post it to the discussion or leave it here. The mere fact that the WMF is choosing to implement the VE application to a couple dozen more wiki's this month only shows they aren't listening. There are literally hundreds of bugs that need to be fixed. It still doesn't work at all with any version of internet explorer and multiple Wiki's are on the verge of a revolt. There is absolutely no possible good that can come out of continuing this implementation before a large group of the problems are fixed. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Gross Misrepresantations in the Article "State of Florida v. George Zimmerman"
Extended content
I would like to inform you that in the article "State of Florida v. George Zimmerman" there are blatant and misleading differences in the depiction of the Defense's and Prosecution's pathologist testimonies:
Several other users have already complained that any edits that cast a remotely bad light on Zimmerman are generally reverted by a minor fraction that has seized control over the article and given such a gross lopside in depiction, an edit-war is probable for whoever is trying to add the needed facts, so I wanted to inform the Administrators' noticeboard prior to someone being engaged in such a war.Commissioner Gregor (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
If someone of you Admins has time to spare, he may well search through the version histories of the articles related to Zimmerman and sort out the black sheep who are reverting any constructive edits and whose behaviour has led to such one-sided depictions:
Some editors appear to be enforcing an unstated iconoclastic policy. Why should ANI look so dull, and why should a modern multimedia encyclopædia be discussed in purely textual terms. A picture can be worth 1000 words!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )00:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not ANI, this is the talk page for ANI, which is of course the exactly correct place for this discussion. NE Ent15:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
NE Ent, LOdm was clearly referring to the image of the penises they inserted into ANI in an attempt to hold a content discussion there. I was reminding them that it was removed as ANI is not the place for such discussions. --NeilNtalk to me16:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Given that yet again, L'Origine du monde is engaging in soapboxing, rather than doing anything remotely constructive for Wikipedia, I propose that he/she be topic-banned from any discussions relating to images on Wikipedia, for a period of three months, in order to demonstrate to us that he/she is actually of net benefit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to include images on ANI, you can link to them. Shockingly, this would be just link including a diff for an edit in question versus copying the full edit to ANI. The strong preference is for diffs. For images, it should be similar, meaning links. The desire to include graphical images on a page where they aren't needed seems a bit pointy. Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd say half of all images at ANI are the result of people using the {{trout}} template. The reality is there is no strict rule against images at ANI, they do show up from time to time, but its understood that once someone gets around to removing them (converting to a link) that they should stay removed. Monty84519:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on the specific merits of whatever it was that precipitated this thread, I see no reason whatsoever why images should not be allowed in ANI discussions if they are germane to the topic at hand. In fact I would consider the removal of such images to be unacceptable refactoring of another user's comments. Unless the images have nothing to do with the topic at hand or are needlessly provocative I don't see what rationale their could be for removing them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI -- archive bot down
Hello, per User talk:Misza13#Not working and Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#MiszaBots down, MiszaBot is not archiving the Noticeboard pages and the owner has not edited or responded to an email for a day or two. In the meantime, it might be advisable to switch to ClueBot. I would do it but I'm not 100% sure that is the right thing to do, so if someone thinks it is a good idea, please switch the archive bot temporarily to ClueBot. Rgrds. --64.85.214.148 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. Don't that it needs to be temporary -- ClueBot did the work for a long time until its server went down for an extended period of time. NE Ent12:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It took 18 hours for ClueBot III to respond when I very recently added archiving at Module talk:Convert (it probably checks "what links here" once per 24 hours?). However, something broke, as I reported at VPT. I'll have to alert the bot op in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It started a while ago. Trouble is, it only copied to the archive, and didn't remove anything from ANI. Cluebot does that alot. I've reported it before and done so again User talk:ClueBot Commons. User:Legobotseems to be taking over archiving MiszaBot-configed pages, at least since a few hours ago, so you could try going back to that... equazcion� | 17:06, 7 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Improving the instructions at the top of the page
This is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I would like to see the instructions at the top of AN and ANI be clarified a bit. AN says
"If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead"
and ANI says
"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."
"This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI)."
Recently I asked for an interaction ban that I thought was seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue (and I certainly was posting a grievance about a user), but was told that interaction bans are normally discussed at AN, not ANI. Would it be possible to make the instructions a bit more clear on what goes where? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, if an incident is under discussion at AN/I, and a topic ban, interaction ban, or general ban is proposed during the course of the discussion, it is fine to continue discussion at AN/I. However if you are specifically making a request for a ban of some sort, the place to do so is AN; one incident shouldn't ordinarily justify a ban, so you are usually talking about several incidents, and the discussion is really about the editor, not any one of the incidents. Monty84516:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense. I was indeed talking about the latest of several incidents and would not have asked for an interaction ban if it had been an isolated incident. Thanks! Perhaps we could put this in the page instructions? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what Monty's said. As far as the interaction ban request, it would have been good to move it to WP:AN immediately after it was posted, but since it got comments from several people before I raised the issue, moving it to AN would have been disruptive and confusing — much easier just to leave a note at AN. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There was nothing at all amiss with anything you did, and I apologize if I seemed to imply otherwise. I just want the next person who decides where to post to get a bit more guidance so as to not repeat my (inconsequential) error. IMO it is better documented it once rather than playing Whac-A-Mole (smile) with multiple editors making the same minor error. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, no, I didn't at all get the impression that you disagreed with my action. Your proposal I agree with, as well. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Wording changed to "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific isolated issue or dispute". Do you think this is better? I've self-reverted, so don't be surprised that you can't see it. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation, Monty. I was wondering this, too, as I see the same issues talked about on both AN and AN/I. I think there is more activity at AN/I so it might be the place where Editors think they are supposed to go with their problems. LizRead!Talk!21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The only way a suppression action can be effective is if every single edit that was made while whatever the offending material was was present is removed. That's about all anyone is going to be able to tell you about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If it concerns you, you can ask an admin to take a look at the suppressed section and report on whether anything important was hidden. Something like "nothing major besides the suppressed information, which I can confirm was suppressed according to policy. Other than that there were three minor vandalism reverts, a typo fix, Guy Macon reporting Jimbo wales for violating our beard-scragglyness policy, and Jimbo agreeing to go full Duck Dynasty before the next funding appeal." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The edits have not been removed. A particular edit was decided to be inappropriate and was removed: discussion here. The reason the edit history looks the way it does it because is the edit was present in those revisions and if the page was diffable folks could see the removed content. (It is a very confusing interface; I thought the same thing first time I an oversighted/revision deleted history.) NE Ent12:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you talking about the bot config, or otherwise? I could archive it manually with the Oneclickarchiver but I'd need approval. KonveyorBelt16:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The archiving isn't getting done cause the various bots are all down. Legobot seems to be the only working one (it works off the Misza config), but it's been doing so on and off. You don't need any real approval for oneclickarchiver -- just as long as you know what you're doing and you're careful. equazcion→16:58, 28 Oct 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, should have been more clear: my concern was with ANI, not with AN; I didn't realize that there's one talk page for the pair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Cluebot is superior to Miza in a lot of ways. The trick is to learn how it works. For example, CB has an 'archive now' function that could be used for the blue closures. Otherwise I believe CB would only come around once a day. So the current 36 hour setting really means 48 hours. Brad (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Handled via discussion in IRC, no further action is needed. It is suggested the editor take the concerns about the article itself to an RFC or to DRN, and to leave any off-wiki personal communications (or resulting issues) out of it. —Darkwind (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion has been blanked as inappropriate.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Handled via discussion in IRC" - whoa whoa whoa, what? Darkwind, are you aware of this?
when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships.
Is there a requirement for editors to provide diffs to support their claims? To be accused, for example, of something vague, eg. "the editor is a POV-pusher", is impossible to counter with no example to discuss. If a claim is true, there must surely be evidence which benefits all. If there are no diffs to support a claim, it must surely be struck? This would surely help everyone to resolve issues more quickly. --Iantresman (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't strike the claim, no. Although filings to AN/ANI should come with diff's ... and we may ask for them, things like POV pusher" may be blatantly obvious without specific diffs. Making accusations without obvious proof can sometimes be considered a personal attack, but not always ES&L14:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Since "blatantly obvious" may be for some people and not others, and diffs removes any ambiguity and misunderstanding, I can't see why diffs shouldn't be mandatory. If something like this is so blatantly obvious (that one person thinks they are not required), such diffs should be blatantly prolific and easy to provide? --Iantresman (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The ability to click "Contribs" and review a handful of edits and review overall behaviour is why admins make the big bucks, I presume :-) AN/ANI are not courts of law...there's no required standard of evidence. ES&L15:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There is no standard of evidence if the accused can't review the alleged evidence against them. --Iantresman (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
What ES&L means is that the evidence (at least, evidence that could be supported by diffs) is always available for anyone to review. It's not the case that "the accused can't review the alleged evidence"; it's "the accused might have to go to a little bit of work to find the evidence himself, instead of having it handed to him on a silver platter".
What is the appropriate manner in which to report long unresolved issues at WP:ANRFC??
What is the appropriate manner in which to report issues at WP:ANRFC that remain unresolved for over 30 days?? Since posts at WP:AN are archived every 48 hours, is posting daily under the thread acceptable in order to keep the post from archiving? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
ANRFC itself is archived every 40 days.
The first and best approach is for editors who responded to the RFC to figure out the consensus all by themselves, with everyone (or nearly everyone) agreeing that they did agree on ____, and to never list it at ANRFC in the first place.
The second best approach is for anyone who is concerned about the number of unclosed RFCs to go close as many as possible. (If you are WP:INVOLVED in an RFC that needs to be closed, and can't get the other editors to agree, then close all the others that you can, so that other people will have fewer distractions from yours.)
Probably the least effective method is to post frequent notes saying that something needs to be done. People already know that. WhatamIdoing (talk)
Condensing an ANI response
Johnny Squeaky replied to an initial ANI notice with indented responses to each point raised. This makes the formatting of the discussion unclear; it's not immediately obvious who first raised the case against Johnny Squeaky because the broken sections have no signature. Is it ok bring Johnny's points together to make one paragraph so the discussion makes sense? I don't want to mess with any content, just change the formatting. Admin Tide rollsinformed Johnny of the problem with interspersing comments. Thanks. Span (talk)20:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixing it -- especially after the time delay -- is likely to confuse things as much as leaving it alone. I've copied / pasted the original signature block to each of the original sections to clarify authorship. NE Ent22:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Because the Wikipedia interface is really bad in the presence of oversighted material. Some small amount of material was removed in accordance with Wikipedia's privacy policy. If we could do a diff on those edits, we'd be able to view that information, so it's disabled. The content of the edits is still present. NE Ent12:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
A topic ban was suggestion with four options [13]. Two days later, after nineteen editors had commented -- in some cases using collective qualifiers such as any and alll, a fifth option was top posted into the discussion [14] This changes the meaning of what folks said, and is contrary to both standard practice on thousands of Wikipedia talk pages and the explicit guidance on talk page guidelines,
You don't edit other editor's comments.
You don't edit your own comments after folks have replied to them.
You sign your contributions.
You don't top post.
The fact that the poster noted the insertion don't really cut it: at some point an admin will be asked to close the thread, and they will read it top down. The idea they should be expected to read the two days and 19 editors worth of comments, thinking there were five options, and then get to the line that says, No, they were only commenting on four is simply absurd. Accordingly, I'm moving the comment to the chronologically correct location. NE Ent09:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm posting everything that came from AN below; I moved it here because it's off-topic for AN itself [15]
---
Hey folks. As a heads up, Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism is happening in 24 cities around the world today. If you notice any small extra influx of new pages or edits in certain areas (obviously art and feminism especially) please keep in mind that this may be edit-a-thon participants. The good news is that the vast majority of new editors participating will be there with experienced Wikipedians too, and thus can get a helping hand if you send them a talk page message about anything they need to correct or amend. Many thanks, Steven Walling • talk18:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does this relate to admins in particular? (Ie, why AN?)
I'm quite used to lots of editors wrongly assuming admins are 'special' when it comes to content, but it's not great that a WMF employee thinks that way. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
(Just because I'm editing with my volunteer account at the moment.) I just tried to give people a courtesy heads up. Sure, I could have posted on the WikiProject Editor Retention Talk page, some other Wikiprojects, and maybe the New Page Patrol or AFC project talk pages. But I figured if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI. If you don't think it's relevant, go ahead and close the thread. Steven Walling • talk20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Walling, you are correct that "if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI" - however, my point is, they are wrong to do so. It's likely content-issues, not admin-issues, and surely the more we can do to dispell the myth that admins have any authorieh over content, the better. It would be cool if WMF could enourage that attitude. Hoping you understand. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess what I mean is, "two wrongs don't make a right". If people post here about content, I can explain why they're in the wrong place and redirect them appropriately. But if WMF employees post here about content, that makes it look like I am wrong to do so. Does that make more sense? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The board names are somewhat of a misnomer, they're actually "community" boards as stated in arbcom policy. I learned this when the decision to sell out and allow ads on Wikipedia was decided on ANNE Ent22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ban discussions: should they be allowed at both AN and ANI?
The scope definitions for AN and ANI respectively are not models of clarity.
AN Scope:
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
ANI Scope:
This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.
However, it does seem clear that discussions of bans belong on AN. A block (as opposed to a block review) is an admin action, and belongs on ANI. However, a ban discussion includes input from the entire community. Arguably, it doesn't belong on AN, which hints that it has something to do with admins, but given that we have not created a general area for ban discussions, AN is clearly a better choice than ANI.
At least, that's what I thought the rules were.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CensoredScribe started on ANI, properly, because the original request, (not stated immediately, but clarified later) was a block request. However, it quickly changed from a block request to a ban request.
I pointed out that ban requests belonged on AN.
Some of the responses (paraphrased):
Why does it matter?
We sometimes do ban requests on ANI
Topic bans are different than community bans
It was pointed out that Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions states they can take place in either location. I think that is a bad idea, but if we as a community decide we can conduct ban discussions in either location, I think we should edit the scope definitions to clarify the change in policy.
I see two questions, the second of which should be easy:
Does the community agree that ban proposals can be conducted at either AN or ANI?
No, we shouldn't 'advertise' ban discussions in ANI's scope.
My reasoning is this: if you intend to start a ban discussion, you should go to AN. The reason that ANI is accepted is because sometimes apparently routine incident reports turn into ban discussions. We don't want the banned person to be able to claim that there was a bureaucratic problem that invalidates the ban ("I'm not really banned! Bans can only happen at AN!"), and we don't want to have to move them officially, so ANI has been declared acceptable in the policy. But it's really for "spontaneous" ban proposals, not "planned" ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree. If it starts out a ban, it should be at AN; if it morphs into a ban it can stay at ANI or be moved, whatever works at the time. A little flexibility is called for in such things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Bans should ideally be discussed at AN, but if one sprouts at ANI following a related discussion then I would not suggest moving it. GiantSnowman18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Coretheapple again vandalized the Santacon page. Will report to admins with request to delete his account for repeated violations of Wikipedia terms of service and anti community, antisocial activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c07a:25c0:f108:eb21:fe91:28c7 (talk • contribs)
I can't see anything going on in the SantaCon page other than normal editing to-and-fro. It seems that the IP above is upset that they are not getting their preferred version of the article to stick -- it's them versus at least three other editors, with no sign that the others are acting in concert. -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
ANI discussion
[16] I think you're missing the point that there more more than just 2 references on that page but were removed without me being able to comment on them. Now you see why I want them restored/ 69.165.246.181 (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Overly quick archiving?
I added a new section to /Incidents, which was then bot-archived about a day later. Is there some reason why this happened so soon, before anyone had responded? (Perhaps because no-one had responded?) Is it okay to restore it from the archive? -- Perey (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks--I wasn't aware that WP:AIV covered spam as well as vandalism, and I ended up at WP:AN/I based on some info (I forget what now) that seemed to indicate it belonged there. -- Perey (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Re-closing a thread that was re-opened with no explanation
This may not have been appropriate and if not I apologize, but no explanation was given in the edit summary to re-open the thread that was closed by an admin here. I don't wish to cause any further drama as it is reasonable such action could cause and hope that my actions were, at the very least, within reason if not to the letter of our guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I dropped a small note off to Beeblebrox on their talk page which was immediately deleted and then their entire talk page archived after the deletion. I found that behavior uncivil, but not surprising.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused... you (re-)closed the discussion about Beeblebrox, but are also continuing to discuss Beeblebrox here, which implies you don't think the discussion is over. Are you wanting the discussion to be closed, or to continue? 28bytes (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It has been my experience that the best way to stop discussing something is to stop discussing it. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Unless the information on the page contains sources from every ethnicity in every country in the world, it should not be posted. It just seems like an American-centric article used to inform people of derogatory names that they could call people (with a majority of them being directed to people of "African descent"). It is singling out a FEW ethnicities by drudging up ancient racist terms that no one uses in modern day society and presenting it as "unbiased information." It is more racist than helpful and it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generic Username123 (talk • contribs)
Being not yet complete is not a reason we delete an article. If you have some additions to make from other countries, please feel free to, but we don't delete articles merely because they are not complete. That makes no sense. Instead, we wait for people to make them more complete. --Jayron3202:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Howdy admins! Could someone with a spare minute move Chalice of Doña Urruca to Chalice of Doña Urraca over the redirect? I have tagged the latter for speedy deletion so I can move it but having an admin move it might be quicker. WP:NODEADLINE and all that but I'd like to sort it out. It seems some sources weren't clear which was the correct spelling and so I made a mistake when titling the article. (Thought I'd post here rather than WP:AN). Stalwart11103:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
hi administrators, i want create a new article, but there is written:
"""The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.
If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:
Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email.
Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.
Thank you."""
I flipped the ANI config to "MiszaBot" (which is actually serviced by User:lowercase sigmabot III now). NE Ent10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
ANI 'discussion' pattern
Another ANI 'discussion' derailed. Pattern elements: admin response does not address the OP. Admin does not appear to have read (read as in: understand) OP. Admin response deviates off-topic. Mixes up procedural and arguments. Looking for OP's faults in the first place, and the only place even. Deviation cannot be redressed by OP editor, except for as a favor maybe. Admins freedoms used to evade discussing an admin's behaviour (both in responses and in closing, this time). Stating "I have read the OP and discussion", while missing a telling editsummary. Criticism of admin action not tolerated. Contradicting admins not picked up. No possibility to self-address the 'discussion'. Other admins stay away (except for opinionated not concluding closing). On the positive side, a diff was provided -- for the deviation. The ANI page has admins in control and has the worst forms of WP-discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Really, this is the talk page of the ANI page. As any talkpage, it is meant to improve the subject. Cynical or dismissing replies do not help improve the discussion or the subject. -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC) (not an admin)
Well, I'd like to note that the discussion you're referring to was actually closed by a "normal editor" who didn't abuse any "administrative freedom" by doing so. And if you didn't understand my first summary for reclosing the RM log why didn't you just ask? Instead, you chose to rant about useless comments made by the oh-so-bad administrators. I have tried two times to explain to you that your request to remove the "judgement" from the RM log was bound to fail. But please ask yourself: if your explanation of an administrative action was met with a comment like this (cynical and dismissive, anyone?), would you have taken the OP for serious any longer? I'm sorry but with an attitude like that and your previous edits at the RM log your position at ANI was weak from the beginning. And that was not at all because ANI is ruled by cronies who like to dismiss the lesser folks' requests but because it has long been a rule that the OP at ANI are also under scrutiny for their edit history in the relevant case. My initial urge after your response there was to simply close down that ANI discussion including a remark "Useless thread in the first place". But I did not and continued to explain why I didn't follow your request. But to be honest, the longer I look at your responses at the original discussion and now at this talk page thread, the more I get the impression that good faith and improving the procedures at ANI might not be your main motivation. To me this all begins to look like forum shopping, IDHT and a general adminophobia that cannot be healed by improving the discussions at ANI. By the way, Calton is not an admin either (Wikipedia:List of administrators/A-F#C). De728631 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The closing of my ANI post by User:Blackmane (a non-admin you state) does not undo any single one of my statements made here: ANI discussion has low quality. Going into ANI OP argumentation here, as you do, is off topic (really), and again illustrating my point (as early response by User:Calton did). Really, I don't mind who's an admin. I do mind if someone can think & react straight. Only once you use an admin status, I can call you for that. No bit deal. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I do not understand a single sentence of what yo write, De728631. Are you making some new reply to my OP ANI post? (How immature for not reading, again). -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousPanda: you only linked to an external page and to a WP:NPA page. None of these are by me. And you also do not provide a quote that shows I wold do a PA. I repeat: you either prove/substantiate your statement, or you retract it explicitly. Accusations of PA are not free, especially in this WP/admin area. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
WTF? I linked to YOUR diff when you edited this page, and stated the direct quote in that diff where you violated NPA. As a repeat, it's when you said "How immature for not reading, again". Don't remember saying that? Re-read the page, or click the diff I provided when you requested such the panda ₯’00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what use linking my username will be to the argument here. I closed it on the premise that DePiep asked for an admin action, an admin action was taken. The subsequent discussion had no bearing on the request itself and was degenerating into little more than a heat-fest. I boldly closed the ANI but as is usual anyone who disputed the close was free to revert (though what use that would have been is beyond me).Blackmane (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the admin 'action' (non-) and the admin's written response did not relate to my OP. Then, you closed the thread before I could point to the admin what was wrong (wrong was that the admin did not respond to the OP, and did not in second turn). Also the admin used freedoms I put up for discussion. Your closure aborted that conversation. I pinged you here because I want to improve quality of discussion on the subject page of WP:ANI. All this illustrates my base point that WP:ANI has a bad quality of discussion. -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh and I can illustrate from this very same thread. Calton goes cynical without follow up. De728631 starts redoing the source thread. DangerousPanda accuses for PA without facts. And this is just the a WP:talk page. Again: AN/ANI has a worst discussion quality. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Worse discussion quality is entirely correct. It's not the purpose of the page to have quality discussions, it's the purpose to flag attention to matters needing attention from admins and/or experience editors. In this case, DePiep was promptly directed to the appropriate forum (move review), so there was no need for extended discussion. NE Ent22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny fact: clearly I mixed up WP:ANI with WP:AN. Let me note that I am the one who found this. My statement remains: WP:ANI has low discussion quality. Editors (mostly non-admins, systematically) get duped. -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Requirement to raise issue at user talk first
ANI, user conduct etc, require/request people to first go to a problem user's talk page to discuss a problem with that user. But this can mean making things feel more personal rather than less, when editors may be uncomfortable doing that and just want to focus on article space. And in some cases it could be highly inappropriate because it could amount to basically telling someone who's being uncivilly treated/bullied to go and talk to the uncivil/bully again before they can get help, and therefore potentially (or certainly in cases where a user has put a threatening notices about it on their talk page) be on the receiving end of further incivility/attacks. Why should WP content creators have to go through this (or be put off WP by it). I realise administration can't be overloaded with policing every issue etc, and a wiki is inherently social to some degree (certainly at articles themselves). But I suggest that some caveat be introduced to the effect that if in particular cases someone doesn't feel willing or able to do this, they can say so and will still get assistance/intervention. FinalAccount (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If you are feeling bullied or harassed and don't want to talk to them, you can always ask an active admin to just look at the situation, on the admin's talk page. Email if you have to. No filing and often problems can be dealt with without using ANI or AN. Sometimes, the admin can talk to them, or just mediate a discussion, or take it to ANI himself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No doubt good advice but I'm not here concerned with establishing a personal solution for myself, but addressing the generic resolution system in place for anyone. FinalAccount (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
What we have is flawed but generally works. If you look, a goodly portion of what lands at AN/ANI was never discussed with the editors on their talk pages, we tend to just deal with it. The rule is seldom enforced except with experienced editors who should know better. But if you have a better idea or better wording, I would love to hear it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER21:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That's good to know, but I imagine some editors could be put off from lodging anything due to not knowing that, so I do feel some indication of it would be helpful/accurate and I can have a think of some wording that might seems feasible to people. As a corollary, is it acceptable for editors to put indications on their own user/talk pages (I know people must be free to give their opinions in general in 'their' user space) that they won't adhere to Wikipedia standards of civility/policy if contacted there by other editors (as encouraged/required by various forms of dispute resolution)? I don't want to link to make it personal but an example I came across: "One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer." FinalAccount (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's problematic, and I just don't know of any easy answers. I understand exactly what you are saying Visit WP:WER sometime, this is the kind of thing we talk about there. As for "warning: don't talk to me" stuff on user's talk pages, I personally leave people alone on their talk page unless there is a real, concrete problem. I think users need to feel like it is their "home", even though it is more of an apartment and if you wreck the place, you will get evicted ;) Not every admin agrees to the same level, but most tend to give a lot more latitude about civility on your own talk page. I think it is helpful to do so, to allow a place to channel the frustration, and to keep it off the article pages. Personal attacks, however, shouldn't be tolerated. Most aren't, except those against admin. We are supposed to be immune, somehow. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
As it's admitted to be problematic then it definitely seems there should be a caveat added here and at e.g. Requests for Comment on User Conduct, that if a person has a particular concern bout approaching someone on their talk page (where standards of civility are even lower) then they can still go ahead and lodge a request for comment/help. I imagine it won't be added though and I'm not going to myself for various reasons. As for admins, I believe it's obviously also wrong if they are not sufficiently protected from personal attacks or allowed to do their jobs properly, but then again also wrong to use that to justify allowing or adding to a negative Wikipedia environment, such as with senior admin essay talking about "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll [[WP:SUICIDE|hang themselves]]", complete with diagram. FinalAccount (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
We make exceptions all day long. We don't put what is and isn't ok for an exception via WP:Bureaucracy. Anyone that needs attention usually get is, whether or not they are familiar with the rules around here. Many admin are quick to help, as are other editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: I get what you are saying, but formal rules aren't likely to happen, at least not that could fit every situation. Often, we WILL tell an editor "you need to talk on the talk page first". Not as a flat rule, but as a reading of that particular situation. It means we think they can hash it out with an admin getting involved. Other times, we just handle the situation. Without respect to that one example (your link was broken) all I can say is we use our best judgement, and not all admin do things the same way. If an editor comes to me, however, and says "I have a problem and I don't know how to deal with it, or I can't talk to them directly", I do what I can, using my best judgement. There just isn't any one best way to deal with people. We admin are no different than you, we just muddle through and do the best we can, take a few ass chewings along the way, and come back for more. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER19:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Thanks for responding. Just wanted to mention that I don't believe my link is broken — what happened is User:Hasteur has collapsed the discussion which means none of the titles within it are clickable (which I don’t think is a good thing. Just my $.02). XOttawahitech (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Those that are really interested in sections can see that. Collapsing helps lance the drama boil to get it off the page. "If a rule prevents you from improving wikipedia ignore it". Breaking section anchors in favor of getting that thread into the grave is improving wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
As I explained to you there, I didn't go first to the talk page of the editor in question because I think we can all agree that asking an editor to give a warning to themselves for personal attacks would be rather pointless. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
(Stalking) maybe a volunteer admin pool of "facilitators" could be created on a permanent basis to address - maybe uncommon in terms of volume but important to those involved - issues as the one above. They would act as communications bridges until a plan of action based on the issue details is devised. It could be a formal set up. It would seem a solution. I'm sure 3-4 admins would volunteer to be in the pool. Can this be proposed on an appropriate board? Irondome (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the "problem" we are solving, I don't see diffs of exact issues. Lots of admin already volunteer to help people who are lost as to process (I've done my own fair share). Making it bureaucratic seems to answer a question no one is asking. If I've learned one thing, adding formality doesn't solve problems by itself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's true. Most admins would assist if asked. Scratch the crap line of thought. We dont need mechanisms for stuff that already gets informally sorted. Maybe more pro-activity on the part of admins to ask if they are needed to go-between in rare situations might be good. Irondome (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This was less of a "requirement" until this edit: [17], I think it would be fine to change it to "...please consider discussing the issue...". –xenotalk01:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think it's wrong to characterise this as more bureaucracy. Admins may know that you make exceptions all day long but editors won't necessarily (and those who do therefore have an unfair advantage). The issue is the opposite since the noticeboards give the impression of a bureaucratic process to be always followed. I agree that wording along the lines of 'Please consider' would make it less offputting (which may be important to some, as mentioned). FinalAccount (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. We should not instruct people to discuss the issue first for several reasons. It may be obviously pointless - I've run across editors whose talk pages are full of warnings to which they have never replied, it might be an IP hopper, etc. There may also be a time sensitive issue. And it can be offputting, especially if the other editor has been unpleasant. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, xeno. In particular, ANI should be accessible to editors who feel they are being bullied without requiring them to lay themselves out for another round of nastiness. Assertiveness may be a useful editorial trait, but it shouldn't be a requirement. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi could anyone please guide me on how to handle personal attack and vandalism of the user, i am facing trouble to contribute to wikipedia from the user called Sitush. this person doing personal attack and reverting my contribution without proper reason. your help will be highly appreciated. ThanksPremknutsford (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
First, you're required to try and resolve disputes directly between editors, or disputes in content directly on the article talkpage. Second, depending on the severity of the personal attack, you may open a case at WP:ANI after attempting 1-on-1 resolution. Most importantly, however, making a vague statement that someone is attacking you without showing the evidence is itself a personal attack. If you DO file something at WP:ANI, ensure you advise the other party that you have indeed done so the panda ɛˢˡ”10:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please do not direct editors to WP:AN/S. It confuses users who might believe it is a real board. Any user who posts a complaint there is subject to ridicule. It's an inside joke. LizRead!Talk!21:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protection cutting discussion of other threads
The OP of those threads appears to have been blocked as a sockpuppet. So while, yes, semi-ing AN can definitely be problematic (as can not semi-ing it...), in this case it doesn't seem to have done active harm. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about AN but it seems like AN/I was getting blanked daily by different IPs. It caught pretty fast but it's a vandalism magnet. LizRead!Talk!21:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
In a good-intentioned wp:bold to resolve to problem, user: Jytdog moved the page to a new mainspace title. Whatever the merits, it is entirely inappropriate to do so in a discussion that's less than a day old, RM is a deliberate process that can drag on for weeks, especially in potentially more complex ones like this one. I would therefore ask for an administrator to revert the move, as it brings confusion and derails the process. walkvictor falktalk22:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Can a non-admin close an active discussion topic here? I posted a request for intervention last week, and it was closed rather abruptly with a closer's comment that I disagreed with. I assumed at the time that this was done by an admin, but on closer examination, I find that this was not the case. Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to this? ANI is pretty unstructured and it is common for non-admins to close discussions that experience suggests are not going to result in any admin action. Such closures can be reverted, but there should be a good reason for doing that—a reason should address any issues raised. I am yet another non-admin, but I have not examined the linked section. Lots of people read ANI and it's likely someone would have objected if they disagreed with the close. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia needs an actual adminstrators' noticeboard, where requests will be evaluated on their technical merits, instead of a mob scene where allies and opponents of the affected editors all show up and make off-topic comments. Just sayin'. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Those who close discussions are normally not involved with either side. And in this case you picked the wrong venue. RFCU is the correct place your your dispute. Werieth (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Plus, User:NE Ent is as close to an "official" AN-AN/I clerk as we have; I trust his judgement in closing discussions at least as much as I trust any admin's, and potentially more. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-admin closures are fine almost anywhere on Wikipedia, as long as they a) are noted as such and b) do not mind if/when an admin reverses their decision, though it's probably best that more complex closures are left to those with the mop. That excludes, obviously, areas where the tools are required such as blocking/deleting things. GiantSnowman16:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Handy referral tool
The DR requests page has now been expanded to include a visual overview of conduct options as well as content. So it may be a useful tool when referring newbies or intermediate editors to other dispute options. The WP:DR page can be a little overwhelming to newcomers. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Abuse of the noticeboard
ANi/ANI is "not" a prominent place. Any editor in good standing can close an AN/ANI report if the close meets the sum total of the discussion, so position is nt an issue. That said, the archives statement appears to sum up the consensus of the entire discussion from filing, through to the comments at the end. As it does not contain anything resembling WP:NPA, and clearly meets the concept of "comment on edits, not the editor", there is nothing requiring further action the panda ₯’10:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I notice that Bbb23 abused his position to throw a POV statement into the archive on a prominent place: "This was a baseless report from the get-go and has not improved since." This is a denigrating and disdainful tone. [18]. I could put this on the noticeboard as well. I request removal of this POV statement. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MediaWiki Error on AN and AN/I archive pages
Most of the AN and AN/I archive pages continuously return a MediaWiki Error if they load at all because they are simply way too big. About 120-150kB is where these issues start happening on some pages depending on how many templates are used on the page. About 250kB is where the 50% line is for page size errors. WP:TOOBIG limits articles to about 100kB of readable prose size and WP:TALKCOND limits talk pages to about 75kB for this reason. I've never seen a page over 500kB that worked properly. So, setting a max archive size greater than 250kB is asking for trouble, and if you want the majority of people to be able to see it, because let's face the fact that if they're at AN(/I) they probably don't want to be and tensions will be high leading to bad faith assumptions and poor choices based on those assumptions and the general toxic nature of the place, it should be set to no higher than 150kB. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I just serial-loaded every single recent ANI archive and they are all now loaded into 14 tabs, rather quickly, ready in my browser for perusal. –xenotalk19:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy it works for you, every single archive that I try takes minutes to load and I end up with a big MediaWiki Error: message telling me to try again later. So, it apparently doesn't work for everyone, so it needs to be fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I would've thought the same thing, except that I can duplicate the results on 7 out of 11 of the computer lab computers I have tried here at school and on my own personal laptop doing various tests in all five major browsers. I can find no pattern of machine, OS, or browser that would cause this. I've run tests both logged in and logged out. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)19:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps your school's infrastructure is a little...lacking? Try somewhere else, home or a local hotspot, and see how it goes. I can open multiple tabs of archives at once with no issue as well, all load within 7-10 secs. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I was told by Xeno to discuss it here. The most logical thing to do, is reduce the size of future archives from the 700kB — 1mB they are now to a more reasonable and loadable size of 150-250kB. Not to mention, we should be fixing this per WP:PERFORMANCE — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried a computer that you don't own? I've never had this problem. There's also the chance that all the IPs you're using are being routed through something that's misconfigured/throttling certain traffic. I don't disagree that these are pretty large archives, but I really see no reason why you should be experiencing the problems you are on a modern internet connection. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Free WiFi services are notorious for slowing down connections. I'm not sure that we want to force the rest of the user community to live within restrictions created by those services. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The problem with that is that AN and ANI threads can get very, very long, as we all know. The smaller the page size, the fewer threads will fit on any given archive page, of course, but with the very long threads that are common to these boards, it is more than likely that, with this smaller archive size, there will be many archive pages that will contain only one thread. I don't know about anyone else, but I would find that annoying. Maybe that's just me. And really, I know that four times the number of archive pages is only two more steps for a binary search, but those two extra pageloads would still take more time for me than a smaller page would save. If these pageload errors were a more common problem, then I could see it, but if it's just one person experiencing them, I don't know that it's worth it. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with less topics on an archive page, I also don't have a problem with only one or two discussions on an archive page, if the discussion was that long, then it should probably have its own page that can be linked to instead of being burried on a 1mB page with half a dozen other topic that probably should have had their own page as well anyways. The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of readers and editors that use wifi hotspots or mobile devices that shouldn't have to suffer the additional costs to their wallets for having to load a 1mB page for a 150kB discussion. They also shouldn't have to wait 20 minutes for the page to load on their slower mobile connection. Just because "some" users such as yourselves have unlimited data transfers and 20-50 Mbps fios connections (you get the point). Heck, on a ~10Mbps connectionverification it takes 3-5 minutes for those pages to load... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)20:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Writ Keeper: This is a good point, that we'd start having single thread archive pages. It would make browsing for a particular start/stop date in the archives even harder than it already is (which is something you have to do when you don't know enough about the thread you're looking for to pick search keywords). Anyway, while we should try to make the project more accessible to more people, this is substantially less of a concern on project pages, and especially on noticeboards that should not be people's first stops. I really want to hear, though, if Technical 13 is having the same problem on different browsers and on computers under someone else's management... because I'm just not convinced it's not a local issue. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently my mobile Firefox doesn't support it, because when I load a page, I can watch my usage gadget tick another mB (25¢ each over my monthly limit) off... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've requested on IRC and I believe on Bugzilla to have the ability to search by time/date limiters because this would be useful for so many other things. That said, finding a specific thread based on date would be even easier to find by using the page's history to see what archive it went into and knowing it could be alone in there... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Making it apparently a technical problem for the developers, not a temporary fix for new archives which does not fix the old archives. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. Adopting a tiny archive size for AN/ANI is not going to be an acceptable solution even as a stopgap. And it wouldn't fix the problem of the main noticeboard pages also being huge. As to your browser issue, Technical 13, I have no idea why your mobile browser would not support HTTP compression. It might be time to try a different browser. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider 250kB as tiny, 75kB would be tiny, and that is what the talk page guideline says the limit should be. So, cutting it back by 36% to 333% of what the talk page guideline says it should be seems reasonable to me. If it is evidenced by bots failing to get a confirmation of the edit to the archive because it is too big, then it is only logical it is too big for others to access as well. Reducing the size limit is a good start, but the complete fix would require a bot to go through and re-partition all of the archives. Because there are likely direct links to these archived sections, the bot would also have to do a database scan and update all of those links to point to the new location for the archive. It will be a bit of work, but I'm not sure it shouldn't be done just because it will take some effort. Bottom line seems to be that if it is too big for the bot to work properly, it needs to be reduced to at least a level the bot can acknowledge. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)23:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Repartitioning the archives? That's something that'll never happen. There are lots and lots of existing inbound links in conversations, etc. to those archives that would suddenly become useless. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Mendaliv, you didn't read all of what I wrote, the bot would have to fix all of those incoming links as it went through and fixed things... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)00:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that is almost spit-take worthy. I don't think you will find a consensus to re-partition the archives. That would break many thousands of things. So far, you are the only one reporting a problem, if I'm reading this right. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
You are talking about breaking almost 15 years of links. And does splitting past archives help the bot? And how is it after years of using large archives we only find out today that the sky is falling? Are you saying it is impossible to fix the bot so it can parse larger chunks of archive? Who else can't get the archives to load in their web browser besides you? Your answers just raise more questions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, it wouldn't "break" any links. Based on personal observation and a basic understanding of how the bot works, which is most archaically explained as this:
The bot scans the section for the trigger (first timestamp, last timestamp, or specific {{Resolved}} style template).
If it finds something that matches with what ever is set as the trigger, it reads the entire section from level two header to the next level two header it finds. It repeats this process for every section on the page and puts together a chunk of sections to be archived where appropriate.
It then tries to write this content to the archive page in a new section at the end of the page.
It will either receive a confirmation from the API that there was a success, it will receive an error from the API that there was a failure, or it will timeout and give up on the edit.
If the site times out because the archive page is too big (which is what appears to be happening here), then the bot moves on to the next page on its list for things that should be archived.
If it receives an error message, then the bot moves on to the next page on its list for things that should be archived.
If it receives a success message, it then deletes those sections from the page it is archiving by saving an edit which blanks those sections (or resubmitting the entire page without those sections as a single edit).
If it failed for any reason, then those sections are still on the main page, and it tries to archive them again. In these cases, you end up with the same sections being archived over and over and over because the bot never deletes them from the page because it can't confirm that appending the section to the archive was a success.
In these cases, if the bot fails to confirm the edit multiple times, it should give up on trying to archive to that archive assuming it is full and increment the counter and try archiving to the next incremental archive page. They do not do this, yet...
I would be happy to hear from the bot operators about this. Still doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't be making these huge archives that are difficult to load at very best and cost extra money making Wikipedia not free to view. If the community doesn't want to fix these oversized archives, so be it. But, we certainly shouldn't be making more oversized sections and causing more issues than already exist. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)01:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You are all focused on the solution when the people here aren't convinced we understand the problem. I don't know how to be more clear about this. You are the only one having trouble loading the pages, and no one has said "We can't fix Cluebot to handle these archives". Explaining the solution is meaningless if you haven't truly defined the problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
While Wikipedia articlespace should be engineered to be as cheap to view as possible for people with metered internet connections, this concern is very much lessened when dealing with administrative components of the encyclopedia, especially when talking about deeply buried archives. In this case, maintaining consistency should be our primary concern. And as Dennis rightly says, you're leaping to a solution before we even understand the problem. While I'm not convinced I would consider what you suggest an acceptable solution even if it were the only way to fix your intermittent problem, you haven't even demonstrated that there's a problem, that page size is causing it, and that the problem is on our end. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you are the only one having the problem, Technical 13, I think it is best that you figure out what is wrong with you/your systems/your connection rather than trying to impose an unnecessary change onto the AN/ANI archives. –xenotalk02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: Try resetting all your preferences/using a fresh dummy account. Problems like these often occur if pages need to be parsed from scratch. If you have preference options enabled that change how a page renders, then it means that the servers need to render a copy of the page specifically for you. Since most people share the same subset of preference options (that affect content at least), these people might all be sharing the same cached content, leading to faster response times. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I just disabled ProveIT again because it was causing problems for me. I've had to disable, refresh, then reenable features before as well, so there is a lot of logic to this. So yes, the problem needs more debugging on the user end. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER21:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
About Andhra Pradesh Name used in Urdu language in article info box
Hi Every one i am Visakha veera. abour Andhra Pradesh article info page some wikipedians use Urdu language! in before bifurcation in Andhra Pradesh Muslim population in Andhra Pradesh is 13%. but after bifurcation it is only 6% and in Andhra Pradesh even Muslim people all so not use Urdu language as their mother tongue only they use Telugu as their mother tongue. there is no reference for Muslim people are significant and Urdu is significant language in present Andhra Pradesh. so clear this issue or its become editing dispute! (Visakha veera (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
Appeals
This talk page is not for ongoing discussion about indidents etc. that have already been discussed on the main noticeboard. If you wish to appeal, WP:ARBCOM will be happy to hear from you. Else, there is nothing more to do here. --Mdann52talk to me!10:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Without knowing any of the background or type of decision. Either waiting and going to AN/ANI or to ArbCom (one of WP:A/R/C, WP:BASC, or possibly WP:A/R/CA. Without knowing more (or looking into it and working it out) that's the best I can do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed_page_moves_by_SMcCandlish#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish. An admin (paying zero apparent heed to the proven fact that the ANI case was poll-stacked by canvassing, and thus overflowing with unprovable, unrelated accusations and bad faith assumptions by editors who came here specifically because they have a bone to pick with me on other matters) short-circuited an ongoing negotiated close because he didn't like my opening position in the negotiation, and imposed as a mandatory ban an over-broad version of my own suggested voluntary moratorium, itself a moderated version of the filer's own also voluntary moratorium idea. This was done on the absurd basis that the canvassed pile of hate actually represented a community consensus. The closer's rationale assumes bad faith on my part (see their more detailed reasoning on my talk page), is predicated on a vote headcount not an analysis of the actual merits and reasons of the !votes, was premature, and most importantly is patently punitive, not preventative, since I already conceded several that the page moves in question did turn out to be controversial, that this was an error on my part, and that I would not be making any more such moves. It takes a truly wild leap of bad faith to assume that after these public statements and after proposing my own 3-month moratorium on similar moves that I must be forced into an imposed and even broader move ban because my obvious evil plan is to immediately go back to moving pages controversially. It's seriously one of the worst ANI closes I've ever seen in my 8+ years here, and it undermines faith in the process of negotiated closes and more importantly in ANI not being a battleground for vindictiveness, or gameable by tendentious parties to get admins to pre-emptively win content disputes for them, even after shameless and unmistakeable canvassing of parties who have no connection to the issue, only animosity for the accused. I've asked Prontonk to revert or modify this close, to address these issues. But I'd like to know what the proper formal avenue of appeal is for something like this. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Update: A discussion with Protonk has made it clearer that there was some confusion between my certainty that my AT/DAB interpretation is correct vs. me being unwilling to recognize that the moves turned out to be controversial after all, and between my observation that being wrong about whether they'd be controversial isn't evidence of bad faith disruptiveness, vs. me not agreeing that the moves being made outside of RM process was in fact a mistake. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, posting a) yet another wall of text and b) appealing a (valid, IMO) decision so soon after it was implemented...? GiantSnowman15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a request for appeal procedure, not another venue for you to pursue and attack me in your continual battlegrounding against MOS. If you find a single, clearly written paragraph to be a "wall of text", you need to find another hobby, since an encyclopedia consists of about 99% paragraphs of text. Of course I'm dealing with the appeal procedures quickly; few processes on WP permit any kind of appeal or review if the matter at hand is very stale at all, and closed ANI cases are archived very quickly. Did you have anything else pointlessly antagonistic and anti-collaborative to add, or did you maybe have something productive to do? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI most bans are not usually appealed for 3 months after implementation. No, your 'wall-of-text' method of discussion was raised as an issue in the ANI thread, and I know it has also been raised before, so you might want to start listening to legitemate concerns. You might want to stop with the baseless accusations that editors are "attacking" you; both of those things will only serve you well. Furthermore the only one showing issues with BATTLEGROUND is you, hence why you have received the topic ban - there were also calls for you to be indeffed (which I opposed, before you start ranting further) but it should show you that your editing is being viewed as increasingly disruptive. You need to listen to the concerns and address them; if you continue being so bloody stubborn it's only going to end one way... GiantSnowman15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
For a true wall of text, see WT:MOSICONS#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles and its tendentious "give us flag icons all over soccer articles or else" campaign, championed by GiantSnowman and a handful of other football editors, year after year; the enormous pile of noise there is just the latest round. Page-search there for "Giant" and you'll see that GiantSnowman totally dominates that discussion, responding profusely to virtually every post, engaging in precisely the same editing pattern he criticizes. Cf. psychological projection. "There were also calls for you to be indeffed", yes, and they were ridiculed and even suggested for WP:BOOMERANG treatment. I did listen to the concerns and address them; clearly the moves were controverted and my assumption that they would be uncontroversial was incorrect; I agreed repeatedly that I wouldn't be making any more moves of that sort. The community is not saying I'm being "increasingly disruptive". A handful of canvased axe-grinders from unrelated MOS disputes they didn't prevail in, and who unreasonably and unprovably blame me for their "losses", used such labeling, because (as with you) it furthers their own contra-MOS wiki-politics to see me pilloried. Anyway, needless to say, waiting three months to appeal a three month ban is pointless, and you're mistaking my meaning - I'm not asking to have the ban lifted as a behavioral matter, I'm objecting to the close on technical/procedural and accuracy grounds. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What has a old, completely un-related discussion that we were both involved in (along with lots of other users?) got to do with this at all?! Trying to appeal a ban by exhibiting some of the exact same behavior that got you banned in the first place (e.g. pure BATTLEGROUND behaviour, trying to start a conflict/argument for no reason whatsoever etc.) is not a sensible move. GiantSnowman17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not old and unrelated, it's long and still-ongoing, and about MOS matters and your personal distaste for me and my argument style, which is remarkably similar to you own. I wasn't kidding about this looking like projection on your part. Given that my informal appeal to the closing admin resolved the issue without need of a formal one, I guess I don't need to address your dire warning about whether my desire to and basis for an appeal was sensible or not. Having an admin bit doesn't make you wiser, less fallible, a better editor, more expert about WP policy and procedure, a better judge of others, or better at self-analysis than me or whoever else. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well no it's not on-going, the only person still yammering on is you. Oh, and I have no "personal distaste" for you - we disagree on stuff, so be it, that's as far as it goes for me. You, on the other hand, obviously bear a grudge... GiantSnowman20:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I haven't even posted on that page since July 6, and the last to add to that discussion was the one other football editor (Nubmer 57) pushing that "change MOS to do what WP:FOOTY wants" proposal. That proposal has not been closed. I even filed a request for closure at WP:ANRFC and it hasn't been acted upon. I don't bear a grudge, I just recognize your username as the dominant one in that MOS dispute, and all of a sudden you turn up hostile an ANI against me. I'm glad you don't actually have an issue with me personally. I don't with you, so let's move on. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Last thing I'll say, in the spirit of "moving on" - if you haven't posted since 6 July, and me long before that, how is the discussion ongoing? ;) GiantSnowman09:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I would say that the first point of appeal for a ban enacted at ANI should be WP:AN. (Ban proposals should be there anyway.) –xenotalk15:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This wasn't a ban proposal anyway; even the filer of the ANI complaint did not propose a ban. I'd be ameliorated if the close was modified to remove the unproven claim of disruption (a move that turned out to be controversial after all is not "disruptive", it simply wasn't uncontroverted and should have been an RM after all) and other aspersion-casting editorializing (e.g. the false claim that I did not acknowledge the concerns raised), and changed to reflect that the proper close result is acceptance of my self-imposed 3-month move moratorium with regard to breed article, not imposition of a 3-month involuntary move ban in general. If User:Protonk were amenable to such an adjustment, that'd be the end of it. Reversion of the premature close so that the negotiated close could proceed would actually be much preferable, but I'm busy IRL and want to move on. Protonk need not ack any of my above criticisms of the close, only agree that the revision I've suggested would be more accurate and fair. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Without any regard to the merits (sorry, that is one I didn't follow): If you are appealing the close as being unrepresentative of the discussion, or wrong on technical grounds (ie: sockpuppets were voting, closed too soon, etc.) then appealing at WP:AN (not WT:AN) after close is proper. At a glance, closing too soon wouldn't apply as it ran almost 5 days, but I can't speak to the other possibilities. If it is overturned, another admin would need to close, and there is always a possibility they would read it more strongly than the previous admin. Just saying, that is always a risk. I have no opinion as to the case, as I've indicated I haven't read through it all, but will note that statistically, appeals of long and drama filled discussions don't usually end well, either with the same or worse results. Make of that what you will, isn't my doing, just my recollection of history at WP:AN/ANI here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and the risks are noted. But yes, the close was unrepresentative of the discussion (minus the false accusations, etc.) and wrong on technical grounds (most of the !votes were canvassed). It was premature in the sense that a negotiated close was under ongoing discussion, not in the sense of not enough time having passed. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Happily, Protonk and I have come to an understanding on this, and the close has been clarified to address these concerns. Again, thanks for clarifying the appeal avenue. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Quick question, can an administrator unilaterally override or modify community consensus as was done in this case? Dreadstar☥22:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. Although I have already reverted the close and was about to drop a note here. Closers are entitled to tweak their closing statements however Protonk has changed both the scope and the meaning of his close so it is no longer in line with consensus. As the close now does not reflect consensus, I have reopened it. I am about to drop him a note letting him know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks OID, I was quite surprised to see a close so out of line with community consensus. If we could do that as admins, then Katie bar the door! Dreadstar☥22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I have re-closed it using Protonk's original wording. This was a community-imposed sanction and could not be unilaterally modified. I re-reviewed the original discussion, and found nothing wanting in that close as it was a proper reading of consensus the panda ₯’23:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
To properly answer the question: Can an admin override discussion in a close, the answer is yes he can, if the close reflects the greater community consensus, as determined by previous discussions. I have closed discussions as "no action" where the majority was demanding a topic ban, as the discussion turned into a mob and wasn't reflective of the greater consensus in those kinds of matters (kwami, to be specific), and it stuck. I'm not saying that applies here, just saying that there are times when closing against what looks like consensus is perfectly within policy, so generalizing by saying you can't close against consensus is not true. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying Dennis, my question was about community consensus, not some dog-pile numbers game. Dreadstar☥00:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly such a dogpile numbers game. There is no consensus at all to be found in a vote-stack of editors who have long-standing axes to grind against me, who were alerted to come here by anotehr such editor, despite having no relationship to or stake at all in the matter actually raised by the ANI case. There is absolutely no connection between WP:BIRDS (in which a lot of people are angry at me over MOS matters) where Montanabw from WP:EQUINE (also angry at me over MOS matters) canvassed, and the moves at issue in the ANI (sheep article disambiguation under AT/DAB), other than unrelated bad feeling toward me personally and MOS/AT regulars generally. It's the very definition of canvassing. It's exactly the same as an Azerbaijani canvassing WP:TURKEY for Turk editors to come to a Canada-related dispute (or whatever) to help dogpile an Armenian editor, just because they both are angry with him over unrelated edits. There's also no point in making the move ban mandatory when I already agreed to it voluntarily; that's purely punitive not preventative, since obviously I'm not insane, stupid, evil or possessed by alien mind control, and am not going to go moving articles after publicly agreeing not to. Sheesh. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that each of the seventeen editors who supported a ban is corrupt? Why did no one oppose the ban? Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course not. But many have axes to grind, and due to emotions, especially at WP:BIRDS and about MOS, running high lately, extraneous issues, blame and anger spilled over into this ANI like a waterfall. Why did no one oppose? A) Already extant, canvassed dogpiles look like WP:SNOWBALL. B) A whole section on a negotiated close, then in progress, discourages input that !voters feel is liable to be moot, and people generally want to see what's going to come out of the negotiation. Also, it's not even true that no one opposed a mandatory ban. The ANI filter's own negotiating position was for a voluntary one. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal to split WP:AN
Having struggled to use this over-long page on mobile last night, I believe it should be split. The easiest way to do so would be to move the "Requests for closure" section to its own page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
When text is "collapsed", is it still downloaded to the browser and then visually hidden, or are fewer characters actually sent? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, on the mobile site the requests for closure section is collapsed by default and takes up a total of one line. What is the actual problem you're getting? Mogism (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm with xeno, the purpose of that page is to provide information to admin about non-emergency issues that need addressing, which it currently does fairly well. ANI is usually 3 to 6 times larger (currently 490k) and we deal just fine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER18:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You would be better served by addressing the engineering team responsible for the mobile app. AN & ANI are not critical for mobile users, and I heavily doubt admins and power users REALLY need top speed access to those pages on their mobile devices. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
For me, AN and ANI work like crap on my Samsung Tab 2 10.1 (scrolling through to add edit doesn't work right), but work great on my Samsung S5 smartphone. Loads fast on both. I don't use the Wiki app (blech), just Chrome. I guess your mileage varies. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this might be becoming a perennial proposal. The purpose here is so that RfC closure, which is a primary means of dispute resolution, get attended to, and so I am with Xeno. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what your device is, but for editing on my Nexus 5, Chrome works better than Wikipedia's official Adroid app. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Shackleton misdoings
It is not my purpose to discredit any kind of person,
but given the unjustified allegations and libel against Captain Robert Falcon Scott over Wikipedia (and its bunch of subsequent articles),
I think anyone dedicated to a remotely balanced account of reality should be aware of this report and how starkly the "Wikipedian" account is limited to the resource of one single person that seems to be a lover of Ernest Shackleton:
I've removed the huge blob of copyrighted text pasted here multiple times. That being said, I'm going to assume good faith and ask you to elaborate on what actual issue there is here. (For what it's worth, it certainly doesn't belong on this talk page, but someone can point you in the right direction, assuming there is a legitimate issue.) --Kinut/c22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
What? You're removing truths that editors happily try to be acknowledged by the public and at the same time, you are talking about "good faith"? >ou may take a look at Robert Falcon Scott's page and see what kind of [inhuman] reproaches he is exposed to and if he ever killed a cat by his own?--Shacklewatch (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are still confused, Kinu, you are not alone. I can't tell if this is trolling, clue deficiency, a real problem, who knows. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked both, seems to be advocating something, quite poorly. Or trolling. Regardless, not here to build an encyclopedia. The IP picked up after the named account was warned. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
First, if an RFC is closed, should it be deleted from the list of RFCs awaiting closure? I assume that is yes.
Second, if it is difficult to determine consensus, possibly because the RFC had few responses and did not have a proper Survey section, so that it is hard to tell what the !votes are, should this be noted in the closure, with a comment to the effect that a better-formed RFC can be opened if there is a desire to get better consensus?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
When closing, the closer should pull the template, and the bot will automatically delist in time. If the RFC hasn't had much participation, it should be relisted. instead of closed, like we do AFDs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What template? Where are the instructions about the template? My question is whether the entry in WP:AN should be deleted. I don't think that is done by a bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe Dennis thought you were referring to the article talk page, so he is referring to the RfC template. Yes, the entry at AN is deleted and archived manually; the current archive is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 13. For discussions I've closed, I place a {{done}} template and let someone else do the archiving, in case anyone wants to check my conclusions.
If it is difficult to determine consensus, I would say that this very much requires a case-by-case approach - though take this with a grain of salt, since I've only been doing closures for a few months now. I haven't seen any RfCs get relisted yet, but if you think the formulation of the RfC is an issue (which sounds like it might be the case in your example), I would let the editors start a new RfC with better wording or instructions, and might make recommendations on how to do that. I can usually determine editors' opinions even without a proper Survey section, but if I couldn't I would probably leave the close for someone more familiar with the topic. Sunrise(talk)04:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The difference between AFD and RFC is of course that AFD asks one question: "Should article (Name) be deleted, with known alternatives such as Merge and Redirect. An RFC asks whatever question is asked by its author and is formatted by the author. If the RFC doesn't have Survey and Threaded Discussion questions, and the question isn't clear, then it may not be possible to determine consensus. There are other reasons why there may not be consensus. If the issue is whether to include criticisms of a politician, then the Oppose !votes are clear, but if different editors support entering different criticisms, there is no clear consensus. I had to close that one with a recommendation to post a new RFC for each different criticism. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, AFDs are simple because they are mostly binary, delete or keep, with a few other options, and a vaguely understood criteria. I'm guessing a good minority of RFCs are worded so poorly, there is no hope of consensus. Either there is POV in the question being asked, they are asking for something that is kind of against policy, and even a few are trying to use RFC for what should be done at WP:DRN. Then again, the very open nature of an RFC means you can close one with a better solution than anyone thought of when it started, as people throw in new ideas and consensus moves around those new ideas. RFCs are a mixed bag. Also, my understanding is that once you close an RFC, you remove the small template inside the RFC and the bots take care of delisting at WP:AN and such. I mainly participate in RFCs, not close them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Where and how to request a Civility board
I think this conversation is exhausted. If there is to be a change in how things are done re civility around here, it isn't happening here and now, and this discussion is generating much heat and little light. The OP's question has been answered, most thoroughly.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was reviewing the Administrators' noticeboard and was surprised to become fully conscious of the fact that, under "User conduct," there is no board for Civility! There are Abuse (long-term cases); Article sanctions; Conflict of interest; Contributor copyright; Edit warring & 3RR; Editor restrictions; New pages patrollers; Paid editing; Sockpuppets; Usernames; and Vandalism... but no Civility.
Considering that civility is one of the five "pillars," this seems a remarkable omission. If NPOV is one of the pillars and has a board under "Articles and content," civility ought to have its own board, too. Certainly edit warring is an uncivil behavior, and I can see why it has a board, but considering the difficulty Wikipedia has attracting and keeping good editors, it seems like we would want to regulate civility as conspicuously and as diligently as NPOV and 3RR.
Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make this a unique noticeboard area?
Thank you. As it is late in the day in my neck of the woods, I will read it in more detail tomorrow, but my first comment is, this discussion is nearly two years old. Is there any reason why it couldn't be brought up again? Maybe starting as some kind of poll for users, current and perhaps even retired (if there's no law or policy that says they cannot be contacted), about the quantity and quality of incivility they experience (if any). Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It would take a discussion at the same place, and you are welcome to contact the previous supporters of the program (I was one of them) but honestly, I don't see it happening. Civility isn't really very enforceable for a number of reasons. See WP:BIAS for some of the reasons, ie: what is offensive to one group of people isn't to another, so it is often impossible to define what "civil" is. Another is the observation that some of our best content creators can be, well, testy. That is the controversial part. I've never blocked for simple incivility and likely never would because of this. What often happens is that a discussion on civility often gets very incivil itself and can make the situation even worse. Personally, I try to let incivility and even insults just roll off my back, and recommend others do the same when it is possible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur to follow up at WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. Although there is no agreement on specific words that are uncivil, there are a few editors known as "good content creators" who are intolerant. In the short run, they benefit Wikipedia. In the long run, they may or may not benefit Wikipedia, because some of them are clearly over the line (no matter in what Anglophone culture). There should be a better mechanism for addressing habitual incivility. By the way,WP:DRN is not and cannot be a way to deal with incivility. Since dispute resolution is meant to address content disputes, the dispute resolution volunteers will close a case if it is being complicated by conduct issues. Dispute resolution works best when the editors are willing to work collaboratively but need assistance. WP:ANI is not an ideal place for discussing incivility, because extended threads there become uncivil (and because some of the most contentious content creators have entourages who support them, and due to the supermajority nature of consensus, it becomes difficult to get consensus to sanction them). I agree that a better process is needed for addressing incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, I am still studying the Village pump link you gave. I have only just finished going through the first of multiple threads under the section header. After my first pass, I count 98 votes. And some of the comments there, and even here, surprise me. Specifically, that civility isn't enforceable or that there is no agreement on what civility is. But certainly there is agreement about conduct that is uncivil. There are actual policies re: Personal attacks and Harassment. Disruptive editing, on the other hand, is described in a behavioral guideline, and tendentious editing is described in an essay.
I would wager that a lot of people who leave Wikipedia, especially women who leave, do so because they feel civility is a crumbled pillar. You practically have to call someone a expletive or say something about their mother... No, honestly, I've seen people use that kind of language here with no repercussion. Not to say that there aren't good men on WP - there are. Or that there aren't bad women - there are. But when you have a self-policing group that is at least 85% men, you get what Wikipedia is today.
First step, IMO (and I probably will start an honest-to-god discussion somewhere soon, after I've done some more thinking and talking here), is not to call the civility board the "Wikiquette" board. Right off the bat, we alienate the whole crowd of people who read that and think they have to stick their pinkies in the air when they drink. I saw a lot of talk about a 3O board for conduct, and that might work. Frankly, I think it ought to be simply the Civility board, and make it clear at the top that it addresses civility policies only. (Make people take disruptive and tendentious editing, and other guideline or essay based conduct) to ANI or ArbCom, because those are harder to prove.) And if there is concern that there are already too many conduct boards, why not merge some of those? Why have separate COI and paid advocacy boards? Or separate sockpuppet, username and vandalism boards?
I honestly think that if Wikipedia cracked down on harassment and personal attacks, there would be, at first, a rash of short bans/blocks, then a huge improvement in conduct and in content, too. It is ridiculous to condone incivility in some editors because they're somehow too good to lose otherwise. This is supposed to be a "wiki" (collaborative) "paedia" (body of knowledge). Kill the wiki - and incivility does just that - and the rest will lose its vigor. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin with over two years with the bit, I'm one of those that thinks that civility isn't enforceable on a multi-national website. We can deal with personal attacks, and deal with long term gross incivility where there is a clear pattern, but anything else is unenforceable. I didn't think so two years ago, but I do now. From my experience, talking with editors and trying to find common ground, plus tolerating a a good deal of heat and occasional swearing is the only way to deal with it. If you start blocking people for singular incidents of incivility, you would lose half the wiki in a week. The fact is, when people work together, they will bump heads, and sometimes good things come from that, sometimes just rudeness comes from it. This is true in the real world as much as it is here. Grown ups will sometimes tell each other to "fuck off". I'm willing to talk to folks and get them to try to get along, but I'm not willing to block over it. I understand it can be frustrating, but it is part of the process. Yes, some leave due to the occasional crassness, but at least as many would if you tried to enforce civility. The really, big, big problem is that it is impossible to enforce civility without introducing my own version of civility, which may differ from yours, or other admin, so it would be enforced unevenly, which is grossly unfair, and would cause all kinds of drama at the boards because Editor 1 said "piss off" and got blocked, and Editor 2 said the same thing and wasn't, because two different admin reviewed it. You can't codify what is and isn't civil when you live in a global neighborhood, at least not when we are talking about small doses of it. My opinion is that it would be a net loss for editor retention if we enforced it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as one who was once blocked for using the word sycophantic, it's my impression that the civility policy, such as it is, was once policed rather aggressively by a number of admins. Didn't really make any difference though, and it wouldn't really make any difference if the idea was resurrected. EricCorbett20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is an awfully smarmy word ;-) but if all you were blocked for was using it, then I'd say civility was policed rather aggressively then. Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. EricCorbett20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." - Brilliantly put!!! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Amazingly, Eric Corbett, I missed the last, "Besides" sentence of your comment yesterday. Probably because there were so many comments, and I was reading pretty fast, and you made your point (or seemed to) up front. But, following up today, and trying to figure out why another editor found your comment "brilliant" - there are errors in your argument. First, although it might be impossible to come up with a definition of what civility means that we could all agreed on, it's absolutely possible to define specific behaviors that are unacceptable. For instance, most would agree that calling someone the "N" word or, as you've done here, the "C" word, is unacceptable. Further, your own use of the "C" word here indicates that you believe someone can act in such a way that merits being called that word. And your use of that word also indicates you had, at least, a certain gender in mind, if not a certain person, when you said it. Either way, it is grossly offensive.
Will you please remove that "Besides" sentence, Eric? If you do, then I will remove this whole reply. If you don't, it's an example of a reason why PAIN, or something like it, should be restored. Lightbreather (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I strongly disagree with Eric that it was a mistake to make civility one of our pillars. I have no opinion as to whether or not Jimbo is one of the most incivil people on the encyclopedia, but without civility, this place would be destroyed in a few days or weeks once the fighting started in earnest and unchecked.
But...I do agree that the issue really isn't civility per se, because Eric is right that many times incivility tends to be about saying something someone doesn't agree with and then...it becomes a long standing personal conflict that bounces around from noticeboard to noticeboard because we are ill equipped to deal with personal conflict and brush it under the carpet or try to deal with it as an intervention issue and not just like EVERY other issue on other boards where the community discusses the issue and makes a non binding determination with a consensus. Yes, I agree with lightbreather that we need something so, sometime back I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution to begin creating a board like what Lightbreather is asking about...while trying very hard not to be Wikiquette assistance. You see, Wikipedia has no etiquette, which is simply "a code of behavior that delineates expectations...". We also don't deal well with conflict and DR/N is absolutely not designed to deal with it, almost at all. My hope is still that someday we can have a WP:CRN, similar to WP:DRN that deals with content disputes but much simpler and styled like the other noticeboards to try and deal with personal conflict.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Dang, Newyorkbrad, PAIN - which was, wow, deleted over five years ago - is even closer to what I'm thinking about than the "Wikiquette assistance" board that was shut down two years ago. But for civility issues that have policies, it seems like something that ought to be resurrected. I don't know about other conduct issues, but if an editor personally attacks or harasses another, it is easy to prove. Such conduct should get one warning, then a short (72 hours?) ban or block, then, if repeated, a longer ban/block, and so on. I would wager, from my own experience and observation, that persistent, unsubstantiated personal attacks and harassment have driven away a lot of decent editors. Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh...I see, you are more concerned with personal attacks than conflict. Yeah....we have AN/I for that and it works well.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. A CRN sounds great, too, but a lot of the comments I read in the old discussion, and some here, seem to say that civility is just too subjective to address effectively. Broadly, that may be true, but some things - like PA and harassment - are pretty easy to prove with evidence, or the lack of it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
CRN would not be about civility. It would be about personal conflict. What you seem to be suggesting is a board for strictly personal attacks and those are blockable offenses best dealt with by those with the tools on the board where such requests and reports are made. You state that "PA and harassment - are pretty easy to prove with evidence", really? Then what is the issue? I am not trying to be insulting, but I have spent the last few years of my Wikipedia "career" looking over these issues, volunteering at DRN, helping out at AN and ANI, as part of my effort to be a part of the solution, but have been harassed and attacked just for that. Personal attacks are the things that can be shown, but they don't always get resolved or sanctioned. The community needs to take control of the issue in the same manner as all other issues....with consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
On WQA our goal was not to "enforce" civility - it was to be a neutral 3rd (and 4th and 5th) party to help to break down the barriers to communication, and to advise people that civil communication was taken seriously. It was intended to stop possibly escalating incivility before it led to personal attacks. If the incident was already a heinous personal attack, or needlessly escalated into personal attacks, then we would report it to ANI for immediate action the panda ₯’20:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems like a great service to the community! Too bad it was closed. And too soon, it seems. From the discussion at the time, it seems like the board's function was to be diverted to a 3O board for conduct (as opposed to content), or to a WP:SANITY check process. For whatever reason, such oversight seems to have fallen through the cracks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
An (IMO) peculiar aspect of the decision is that WQA was abolished on the basis that there was no need for it, but some of the key editors who promoted that subsequently tried to get 3O to take on the role (even though there was, supposedly, no need for it). But, in the end, 3O didn't want that role (understandably, because, realistically, it would have just meant constantly sign-posting people to ANI). A new hybrid WQA/3O board was suggested, but I don't think it was ever proposed. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that part of the reason is that ANI has been able to cope with the extra load, I really haven't noticed that much of an increase. If ANI starts buckling under the weight, it would probably create more interest in a separate board. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It is what it is (god I hate that phrase...but here I am using it) but it does a better job than just OK...I do agree it is not exceptional, but then neither is Wikipedia in general from the perception of many. I am not sure where this discussion is going now...but I wait with baited breath to see where it leads.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Since I started the discussion, I'll say that I'm still digesting all of the comments here and in the links given. It's almost overwhelming. Lightbreather (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As some have suggested above, it is a procedural and process failure. Civility is enforced ad hoc from social pressure to lecture, to forms of suppression, to block, to on up. So, if there were a will to regularize process you would want some standards and assessment: eg., if a good number uninvolved people say, 'geez, just stop that' you are assessed a point, a number of points leads to a 24 hour; a repeat with a lower number of points leads to 48 etc. You will always have the problem of the 'you are incivil' 'no, you are incivil' but that's no different from the problem of 'you are POV', 'no, you are POV'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Which then ends up holding the most active and productive editors to an excruciatingly strict standard. The more good edits you make, and the more active you are, the more chances there are for someone to take offensive at something you have said or done. Its all subjective too, what if 5 people say cut it out, and 4 say whats the big deal? How does that compare to 14 saying cut it out, and 15 saying no big deal, or 2 people just saying cut it out? Hard and fast rule are rarely a good idea on Wikipedia. Monty84518:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Incivility is not the usual domain of the active, nor productive. Excruciatingly strict? Not in my experience of Wikipedians. If you can get a good number of uninvolved to agree on something like "cut it out", you know there are tacts that are not working for colleagues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Monty is exactly right here. The most productive will rub the most people wrong, and using simple metrics to determine when to block just encourages cliques of anti-civility vigilantes to form. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Your first point is meaningless. If it's true, then they will also be more subject to ad hoc enforcement. As for "anti-civility vigilantes", what is that? Vigilantes against civility -- vigilantes against a pillar of the project? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants more editors
The response, so far, I think is pretty telling: including myself, 11. Though I don't advertise it, I am a woman; nine of the others are or appear to be men; the other, DangerousPanda, I'm not sure about. I think that if civility were more strongly enforced on WP, there would be more women editing, and that would improve the project. The status quo, IMO, does not. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Using {{they|DangerousPanda}} shows: he. Let's not try to equate civility to attracting female editors to the project - there's zero relationship between those, and such a statement is sexist in itself - if I suggested that women couldn't be abrasive, I'd be neutered the panda ₯’21:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
What has being a woman got to do with incivility? This is a serious question, and, to me, highlights another massive cultural difference across the globe. In my culture, I suspect women swear as much as men, and very few people are terribly offended. Are there places where men swear and women are always offended by it? (Sourced answers only please.) Even if they exist, why impose the standards of those places on the whole of Wikipedia? This should not be about women. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, DangerousPanda, thanks. That "they" tool is one that I was unaware of. As for zero relationship between civility and attracting female editors, I disagree. And I never said that women couldn't be abrasive. Lightbreather (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You're disagreeing with the wrong thing. Obviously YOU are offended by some things that some men write (and would be offended by some things some women write too), but who cares? The issue is whether your perspective is a global one, and one that is to do with men vs women (note that I asked for sources), and/or one that Wikipedia should care about? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If we want more editors, and editors who aren't scared of editing in certain areas, get rid of the blatant POV pushers, including Admins, who don't ever swear, and so get away with imposing their bigotry here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There is something to be said about that. I think more people are offended by POV than someone saying "ass". Same with sockpuppets, which are often created to continue POV edit warring or make it look like there is more support than there really is; an extension of what HiLo is saying. Even with all my groovy admin tools, there are plenty of areas I just don't want to edit in because of all the POV headaches, and if I'm editing, I have to leave my tools outside the door. I'm more assertive as an editor than I am as an admin, and my tolerance for POV warriors when I'm in "editor mode" isn't very high. My civility isn't the same either. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER22:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting conversation. I edit in Yugoslav topics, and robust discussion is entirely warranted, and frankly, the level of frustration caused by daily interaction with POV-warriors would try the patience of a saint. On top of POV-warriors there are plenty of editors that are hard of hearing or lack competency, just for starters. I for one prefer to use robust language initially, and ANI eventually. I have yet to be censured for the harsh language, but have withdrawn once or twice when I overstepped the very blurry line in the view of an admin. Civility is mostly subjective, and I don't see the need for a civility board or anything like it. The cultural differences are important, I believe telling someone to fuck off or that they are being an arsehole is entirely justified if they are displaying endless tendentiousness, failure to hear, or are hounding me on my talk page, but I do not use c*** in any context. I'm an Aussie. Some others might be less or more willing to use those words. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
... and for the people who lack the courage to stand up to bullies. This trout for all you folks who keep insisting that abusive language about reproductive organs is just fine when we are having a hard time getting civilized, educated women to participate. Revert me, see if I care. I'm outta here for a while! Djembayz (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Not every person that is offended by crass language is a woman. Not every person who makes a fart joke is a man. We would all love a more civil Wikipedia, but blocking people for using bad words will only mean that the more passive aggressive types who hide their bullying and insults in saccharine laced words will be running the place. Some of the nicest people cuss sometimes. Personally, if I'm going to be insulted, I prefer the honesty of someone who just says it bluntly, not someone who hides it in clever language designed to intimidate and diminish me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER00:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried standing up to the NRA bullies, and got blocked by them. I tried standing up to a POV pushing, Putin hating, bullying Admin, who took me to ANI for it. He lost, but now I get told "That HiLo is evil, look how many times he's been taken to ANI". The bullies, particularly the non-swearing ones, often win here. There are many forms of incivility, and swearing is a minor part of it. A lot of POV nonsense gets added to the encyclopaedia by non-swearers. You need to be more concerned about that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a note: I don't know the context of this particular thread, but I highly doubt that that's the only reason civilized and educated women are underrepresented on wikipedia. It will play a role, of course, but it is just one of many things that plays a role, and I believe that as with each of these matters, it's not just females that are pushed away. (Personally, despite being female, I couldn't care less about people levying sexist language my way. It says something about them, not me.
Similarly, a vandal spamming "cunt" all over a random page is no more offensive to me than a vandal spamming any other piece of nasty language all over a page, and in all honesty, each of those are less offensive to me as a wikipedian than a vandal subtly vandalizing a page, simply because the implications of the latter can be much more far-reaching. I suspect that most people (both readers and editors) will realize that a page has been vandalized when they come across what is basically a list of swear words with the occasional snippet of actual content in between. Far less people will notice that the page they're reading/editing has been vandalized when people change years or death-counts on war-related articles, or claims that someone said something they didn't.
Is the language 'just fine'? Depends from person to person, context to context and situation to situation. Is mentioning the word 'cunt' on a list of frequently-censored swear-words offensive? Hardly. Is calling another editor a cunt offensive? Obviously it is so to many, and anyone calling another editor names like that ought to know they're falling afoul of basic civility and etiquette, not to mention WP:NPA (though, like I said, I honestly couldn't care less myself if someone calls me that).
Is mentioning in an article that someone called someone else a cunt offensive? Not necessarily, provided it's well-sourced and actually relevant (in other words, "so-and-so reportedly called ex-girlfriend a cunt when they broke up" probably shouldn't be there unless it's necessary background for something notable in so-and-so's life/career/etc. In any case, it should be a well-sourced claim. "So-and-so (radio DJ) was fired from their job at (radiostation important to their career, fame and thus notability) for calling a phone-caller a cunt during broadcast and refusing to apologize over it,(source) resulting in a twitter-war covered by (newspapers... say, NYT). So-and-so apologized and was re-hired, but later admitted live on radio to have only done so to keep his job(source, source) sparking mass-criticisms in the media for rehiring so-and-so(source showing this criticism; source commenting on this criticism)" would require good refs but likely should be there.)
It's all about context and relevance, both in articles and outside them. Though again, using it directed at other people is a bad idea, for obvious reasons; but Id say that, like with any personal attack or swear directed at people, or really, any other breaking of wikipedia's rules, it depends on the context and the offender's history how the administrators or community should react to it. Someone having a block-history related to personal attacks who is essentially given that last piece of rope to hang themselves directing it at a good-faith user and who refuses to apologize over it should get heavier sanctions from it than someone who slips up once in the face of a sockpuppet-army of a long-term-abuse banned user (to give two extremes).
And yes, there are cases where people 'get away' with things they probably shouldn't get away with, just as there are cases where people get dealt with more harshly than needed. That is not a problem limited to swearing and personal attacks; it's not a problem limited to sexism; and frankly speaking, it's not a problem limited to Wikipedia. There are a lot of cases where there really is no good answer. On issues where the community is heavily polarized, there will always be a group of users who feel the person got off too easy (or got away with things for too long) and a group of users who feel the person is dealt with too harshly (or too soon and should be given another chance first). That's the downside of having people from all over the world from different ages and walks of life with different backgrounds, experiences and opinions, but without having such a diverse community, Wikipedia would not be half of what it is. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, here in DC, you learn pretty quick that physical safety is all about respect. As a woman in the big city, if I can't back somebody down from using disrespectful language with me, I have to be ready to rumble/call the cops/or get the heck out. It's important to keep our users' concerns for physical safety in mind. As the grizzly mama bear who has to keep the young women safe at our in-person events, I will not have people attending in-person events who express that level of contempt for women. Sure, it seems like all fun and games on the computer, until suddenly it isn't. Since anybody can participate here, we need to enforce respect for women. I'm not suggesting all swearing be banned, just eliminating the gender-based terms of contempt. Djembayz (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this what this is about? You weren't even a part of that thread and you felt the need to censor the word "cunt" and now you're starting all this unnecessary dramatics because you were offended by the word. This is WP:POINT plain and simple.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, yes. I will be participating in this discussion no further, nor in the one above. "Where and how to request a Civility board," except to report it. Calling someone a "c*nt" or a group of someones "c*nts" in mixed company is uncivil. Period. So I sympathize with the OP. Apparently, some people think civility is only about name-calling or, more precisely, they want any serious discussions about civility to be redirected into the narrow subtopic of name-calling. Quit using that word here, and when the topic of civility comes up again, lift your eyes above the bullet point of "some people just express themselves that way." Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Noting that you have now edited that post, I must note that in my culture we don't even use the word "period" to mean what you meant there. I can accept that your culture is different from mine, and has different mores. Can you accept that mine is different from yours, and that no single culture should dominate here on Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Such a board would probably be as useful as WP:CSN was. I'm aware that misogynistic slurs are problematic, but so is plastering a fish across this page and going "I'm leaving because of your sailor language".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have definitely heard conversations between Australian males which include expressions like "How are ya', ya' silly old cunt?" The conversation does not involve a woman, is not about women, and rarely offends anybody. I am not part of that particular culture, and don't recommend that style of communication here, but in a global encyclopaedia we have to acknowledge and accept that it exists. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The post of mine hatted above was not "gender-baiting hate speech", but two editors have now insulted me by declaring that it was. See my further comment below at 05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC). HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You do realize cunt is used in the outside world and in different contexts ? .... I suggest you find something better to do than wasting everyones time over a "bad word". –Davey2010 • (talk)01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
And since we're on the topic, I find the existence of Wikipedia:Dick to be offensive. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a bunch of frat brothers (or worse, brogrammers) having a good time with the guys. -- RoySmith(talk)01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Taken literally, it means I can post trout freely, and be as offensive as I like, since I can never be one of those. Perhaps the women on this site need to take more advantage of this wikilawyering option. Djembayz (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
People's actions are more offensive than their words. I don't even bother reverting when called a name on my talk page. I personally feel more offended watching two people get into a revert war over a genre/comma/infobox than I do with any slang word. I can ignore the word, but if I'm trying to edit the article, people edit warring gets in the way of civil editing. "Sticks and stones" was something I was taught early on. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about any of that, but in the real world, we have to learn to just get along and overlook those things we can overlook. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to comment here, because I've seen this kind of thing play itself out many times, but it seems wrong to leave Djembayz and Lightbreather to deal with it. No matter what you think about any particular curse word, part of the gender gap is here in a nutshell (and the expert editors gap, mature editors gap, etc). Lots of people are replying along the lines of "I personally don't mind this kind of thing," or "I personally know women who say worse." But the point remains that lots of people feel differently. SlimVirgin(talk)02:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, people do feel differently. For quite some time I've had the following observation on my User page - "Ever noticed how the niceness police often demand that those whose language offends their precious sensibilities must swear less, but those who are their targets never demand that the civility police swear more?" In other words, what gives you the right to demand that everybody else behaves like you? I'm not asking you to behave like me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I am asking people to behave as if this were a collaborative community. Campaigning for or against the niceness police is not the role of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Asking people is fine, I do it. Encouraging civility, helping mediate arguments, all that is good stuff. The problem I have is being asked to police it. There is no way that you can draw the line, there are too many cultural differences. Personal attacks? That is easier to enforce fairly, but I've seen so much uneven and improper enforcement of civility, I find it is better to just help the stalemate and get people back to editing, when you can. The idea of a "bad words" list is just patently offensive to me, it doesn't allow for context and smacks of censorship. Our energies are better spent resolving the problem behind the incivility instead of judging what is and isn't civil. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER03:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am commenting here because the ANI I started was shut down, prematurely, IMO. Dennis Brown, I respectfully request that you re-open that discussion so that I may explain why the use of the word in question by EC was a personal attack. I will withdraw my complaint against AWNH (though AWNH, couldn't you at least, out of respect for those who are offended by the word, replace it with asterisks?) I will notify EC directly that I have started a complaint against him. Again, respectfully, please re-open that discussion and let another admin oversee it. Lightbreather (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Open it yourself if you like. And frankly, the idea that we have to use asterisks just crossed the line with me. No matter how offensive that word is to you, we are NOT censored, and I'm about sick of being told how I have to spell "cunt" or any other word. This is exactly the slippery slope that I'm not willing to walk down, where someone tells me what I can say or not say, or tells me or anyone else here that they must use asterisks, then that list starts to grow and grow each week. No thanks. I won't allow personal attacks, I don't like someone swearing all the time, I don't even like the "c" word, but I dislike someone trying to mould me in their image just as much. You've lost my sympathy. Go open your discussion, go notify Eric Corbett and whatever will be, will be. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER04:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the women are getting uppity and it's time to bring out the big guns. Women are not welcome at Wikipedia and they know it. The above thread is Exhibit A for how the ban against women is enforced here. The name for this is "hostile work environment". In the U.S., an employee who did this would be dismissed. This is why the gender gap will not be bridged until the Foundation itself steps in and makes the necessary changes.—Neotarf (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is pathetic. A post of mine has been hatted, twice now, as "gender-baiting hate speech". The whole point of my post was to show that in a different culture from that of conservative Americans (don't blame me - Neotarf made this a US vs others issue) the word that can be so offensive in some contexts is completely inoffensive. I was describing Australian slang. I take offence at User:Neotarf and User:Tarc calling my post "gender-baiting hate speech". I would never post such stuff, and for the two of you to say that I have is a personal attack. It's also censorship, and a perfect demonstration of one culture imposing its values on another here. Do Americans realise what Australians think of the name fanny pack? It's actually quite offensive in Australian English. However, I have no intention of hiding every instance of it. It's sad that some here think that kind of activity is good for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume it's because they hate that particular word, Mine and Dennis's comment's also been collapsed, I wouldn't worry about it tbh. –Davey2010 • (talk)05:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I've said my piece. I can easily move on. Those of us in minorities, like women here, get used to the bullying, especially from the "polite" conservatives. It's just one more example. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "cunt": I spent many years working in the UK and was brought up in Australia. In those two countries, in my experience, the word means harsh, callous, cruel man. It's not applied, usually, to women. Additionally, in London but not Australia (and possibly not in other parts of the UK) it is combined with "dumb" to denote a particularly stupid stupid person, without the harsh/cruel implication.
I've never been to America but I get the impression it is sometimes applied to women there, and that it carries other, misogynist/sexist tones.
In the U.S. it's a very bad term used almost exclusively towards a woman in a derogatory manner. It causes great offense, and is not taken lightly. If a man calls another man a "pussy", it's not really the same thing at all. I agree that it's a different thing in the U.K. and Oz (etc.) Not sure why that is, but it is what it is. Doctalk06:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we talking in the realm of "nigger" and "fag", Doc? It has nothing of that hegemonic insulting character in Australia - but, as I say, it's almost exclusively applied to men. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a weird language that separates us ;> FYI: we have no good equivalent for "wanker", you know. It would probably translate to something like "loser" in American English. Many Americans are taught from a young age that "cunt" is just the worst thing one can call a woman. I have no idea why that is: but I know if I called a woman that I'd be in big trouble. In my experience it's more likely that a man would call another man a "pussy" if he wanted to challenge his manhood, whereas "cunt" is almost exclusively applied to women as the worst insult possible. Doctalk07:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Doc, that's a great post. You're an American who recognises the massive linguistic differences that exist within the English language. I've been frustrated in this discussion about seemingly being ignored when I've told SOME Americans that things aren't the same elsewhere. Do they not believe me? Do they not WANT to believe me? Do they not care? Do they really expect everyone else to know their usage (and non-usage) and follow exactly the same conventions? Are they bullies? Can they not see the problems created when expecting the whole world to be just like them? HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, it's difficult to convey exactly how offensive the term is in AmEng vs its use in BritEng/AusEng. If an American says they are "pissed", it never means "drunk": it only means "angry". Weird, no? When it comes to derogatory terms that could be used that might be lost in translation, my best advice is to not use them at all. At least on WP ;) <tfont color="#000000" size="2">Doctalk08:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Standard Written English will be understood anywhere in the Anglophone portions of the world (in spite of spelling differences). If a word is slang, it may not have the same connotation in another Anglophone country, so avoid using it, because it is likely to be lost in cross-cultural communication. Don't use the word "cunt" and then explain to an American that no insult was intended. Just don't use the word because you don't know its cross-cultural meanings, and that applies to any slang word. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Wise advice. And I would never use the word that caused all this drama in normal conversation here. I just felt it necessary, given the absolute certainty some editors had about what they saw as the only possible meaning of the word, to explain that other uses exist, even non-derogatory ones. And I was ignored by those who simply, but wrongly, knew there was only one meaning. My post was hatted, with the rather insulting, incorrect and inflammatory label "gender-baiting hate speech", when it was nothing of thes kind. That was frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing the gender-baiting hate speech. The term is used differently in the U.S. than it is elsewhere in the English-speaking world, and that's the way it is. Cheers :) Doctalk08:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There are HUGE differences between English/American/Australian/Canadian English, especially with colloquialisms. I am known for using a fairly wide range of Aussie slang on occasion, here and in the RW. I also picked up a bit of Pommie slang when I served with them. Referring to someone as "Chief", or suggesting someone doesn't know "jack" can be very confusing for English-speakers from other parts of the world, but even worse for people who are working with ESL. I try to avoid it, but frankly, I tend to type as I speak, so it happens. The description of how c*&^ is used in Australia is right on the money. F^%$ is also a ubiquitous word here. I try not to use it, but it can be highly satisfying as a pressure vale release when dealing with highly tendentious POV-warriors. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is all by far the most ridiculous discussion I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Do some users here honestly believe that women overall are less uncivil than men? I meet women everyday who swears who are actually more abusive towards me than any man. To generalize like that and to say that the "men of Wikipedia" needs to tone down to attract more women editors are just very weird. And come one, Wikipedia has always been a POV pushing playground for multiple users. There are power-trips everyday by both regular users and admins who will basically die if their POV are not considered and inforced. Humans will never behave as politely online on sites like Wikipedia as they would in real life. That is just a fact.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: What a horrid section title. And I came upon this discussion purely by edit stalkingaccident. But the query it started with is right on the money - we need the civility discussion space back.
Ahem. Dennis, I've long admired you as a peacemaker here, a fair and patient mediator ... and for your work on editor retention. And I've posted publicly on one of these noticeboards about the fact I curse like a Marine myself, and in defence of editors' right to use "bad words" here. And I've said a few times that the biggest civility problem I see here is snideness, sarcasm, and belittling, which we do pretty much fuck-all to discourage. I've also said in a MediaWiki forum that I consider the Foundation's approach to the "gender gap" misguided and counterproductive. I was being polite. I consider it to rest on shamefully bad research, to be condescending at best and in its implementation and the terms in which the "problem" is characterized by the WMF to be far more discouraging to expert editors - particularly experts who are female (and I won't even get into the cisgender assumption here; maybe I should write an essay, but it would be quite rude) - than dirty pictures on Commons, explicit drawings in sex-related articles, or cheesecake galleries in user talk space. Or even than cussing. There is comparatively little cussing in Wikipedia talk spaces, and I've seen it give "the vapors" to more self-dentified male editors than female, actually. However. No matter how much I like to use words like "fuck" for emphasis (and consider such words a useful means of indicating displeasure); no matter how many dirty jokes I may know, or post in my blog; and no matter how much I may approve of what you say about your mother; I believe you have committed an error here. In dismissing the concern entirely with an invocation of "Sticks and stones", you seem to have forgotten that with very rare exceptions, women live with the threat of physical violence, including rape. As such, use of words like "cunt" in meatspace is a warning we learn to react to. Or even milder words, like "bitch" - or "Smile, I'm talking to you!" The first Spanish I learned was how to respond to "Putana" in the street. Please don't assume words don't hurt, or are not sometimes warning signals before the "sticks and stones" come along. Sandy Georgia said this mildly, but I'm going to say it crassly because words do matter, and in this respect women are not just socialized differently - we have to be. Please don't assume it's the same for everyone. I don't have much wisdom to add here, but I had to add this, apologies. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree it is a horrible section title, but you should complain to the person that chose it, it wasn't me. I don't use the words "bitch" or "cunt" or similar (except maybe to quote WP:DICK from time to time) because I'm aware of the sexist baggage that comes with them, and I just find them to be ugly words. That is my opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter. We have policy, and as long as it isn't being directed at someone, we don't censor. Again, what I see is someone asking for special privilege because they are a woman, and yes, that offends me. I've seen my wife get shit on at a previous job because she was a woman and her boss was a sexist jerk. I've seen lots of sexism, but very little here at Wikipedia. Demanding we treat women differently only encourages sexism, and yes, I find that very, very offensive. In order to create a gender neutral environment here, we must demand equity and NOT special favors. Wikipedia isn't the place for affirmative action for women to compensate for sexism in the real world, sexism that varies greatly from place to place. At best, we can serve as an example, and create a place whereby each person will be judged by the merits of their work, not the color of their skin, their religion, their nationality, nor their gender. If we give special privilege to any "minority", we are just saying "you aren't good enough on your own and need the white man's help". THAT is a slap in the face of anyone that has fought for equality. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER20:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
All of that is true. In fact I would go further. It is none of our business what someone else's sex, gender identification, religion, nationality, social class, or body shape is. Or whether they are presenting any of those as other than they are. (The WMF's real names policy is yet another way in which they go against the principles of the project.) My issue is with your statement about sticks and stones vs. words. I'm afraid you are in error when you generalize that. Thus it seems we are talking past each other, but someone needed to say it, even to you. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Didn't mean to talk past you, so much going on, it gets confusing. Women DO have very real and different threats in the real world, but this isn't the real world. We do have the opportunity to make it an equal world, however. What we have no ability to is force gender identification here (nor would we want to) nor treat women differently here, because that would be treating them as less than equal. On Wikipedia, words are just words, and yes, we should overlook little things and worry about big things. My comments are about here only, not the real world. Words obviously hurt, or offend, but not everyone and not equally. This is why it is impossible to police the use of them here. We can only police the actions behind them, ie: threats and the like. There are a number of words I just HATE because they are ugly and offend me, but many I have to tolerate if said in context due to WP:BIAS. We can't play thought police, you know that. So I wasn't trying to insult by oversimplifying, and if I did, I'm sorry. I can't say I know what it is like to be a woman, because I've never been one, although the most important people in my life are women. I can say that I will fight tooth and nail to maintain a level playing field, and stop people who try to diminish women by saying they can't compete or cooperate with men. And for the record, you are always welcome to correct me, bite my head off, whatever is appropriate, onwiki or email. Like in all things, I don't have the answers, I'm just sharing the struggle. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER21:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir - are you aware that we never cuss in Australia? Well, we certainly never use that word for anything we do here. So I cannot possibly know what is in your list of unacceptable "cuss words". That's but a trivial example of the cultural differences we face here. Did you know about it? Did you just assume that all English speakers would get your meaning with no difficulty? Your post is yet another example of Americans telling others how they must behave. Heard a British gentleman on the radio while coming to work just now observing that Australians speak their minds, and he likes it. Many of us do speak our minds. Must we change to whatever it is that Americans do, and/or want us to do? I certainly don't demand that you behave like me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. That's yet another issue associated with some editors telling others that there is the only acceptable culture on Wikipedia. It suppresses informative and intelligent discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
HiLo, my apologies, but I selected US English for that post because it was to Dennis. I'm not very au fait with Aussie usage, but I was pretty sure you and the rest would intuit what I meant (although the first time I heard that use of "curse" I'm afraid I couldn't help laughing: "I never curse" - well, I'm sure the Powers will be glad you don't bother them with that, I thought ...) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of incivility towards women
Incivility among males is a way of establishing who is the alpha male and what is the pecking order, for males who are used to that behavioral mode and/or are absolutely determined to have their way editing, for personal or POV reasons. Incivility towards females is a way of making it clear that women only will be tolerated if they support the majority male view or are incredibly diplomatic and nice when disagreeing with males -- and are quick to back off if they are told they are wrong or too opinionated or %&$*$#&! aggressive.
As a female naive enough to use her real name when she first registered and then bold enough to go editing assertively in areas of interest to me that often happen to be controversial (Israel-Palestine, Libertarian/anarchist topics, hot political and economic news topics, transgenderism vs. gender critical radical feminism, etc.), one can imagine I’ve been the target of all sorts of incivility, personal attacks, exaggerated/trumped up/false allegations, and demands I stop editing articles because I was just too aggressive. (I.e., I didn’t run away the first time someone was uncivil to me??) And I’ve been to ANI lots of times as complainant and complained about. (OH, boy, I bet someone will type a thousand words on that! And I'll give them 2000 back!)
To me those who practice incivility against women (whether or not coarse terms are used) really are saying: “how dare you challenge my male authority and/or one up me and make me look like a fool in front of the other guys and/or just be smarter and cleverer than me and hurt my little ego.” And even though most of the guys editing here are under thirty and one would like to think are more “consciousness raised” than older generations of males, patriarchal attitudes remain. To too many guys, Wikipedia is supposed to remain a “male game” and annoying females who bust into male-dominated topics and don’t shut up when they are told will be tolerated only to a certain point.
Consciousness raising is the first step and this ANI conversation is an example (fish whack and all). (Plus a lot of us have learned things about past discussions we did not know.) Right now women hopefully are getting together a more assertive Gender gap task force, one of whose purposes will be to encourage women to complain about personal attacks at WP:ANI and to leave notes about their postings on the talk page in case other women feel the urge to opine. Getting more women willing to edit and then to speak out when they encounter problems they believe are based on their sex, as opposed to their actual editing and discussion, is part of the job we have to do.
I used to say that women have to demand a say in co-creating the world. But now I saw women just have to start RE-creating the world since males have made such a mess of it. And we also have to start Re-creating Wikipedia, working with willing male partners to bring their more backward brothers along into a happier and more civil world where consciousness triumphs over sexual stereotypes and habitual behaviors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)06:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear, Carol. I especially agree about speaking up. Why should people who value civil discourse - female or male - lower themselves to the behavior of those who choose to be coarse with each other, especially in what is supposed to be a collaborative working environment? And down with calling these boards "drama boards" when people bring issues here that others don't want to be discussed. That's clearly an attempt to intimidate. Thanks for speaking. Lightbreather (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems to me that some people find humor in the Seven dirty words monologue and some don't. On the one hand, don't be a you know what is a great rule for everyone, everywhere. On the other hand, censorship is not really the solution. In any case, raising the issue is good, but doesn't anything actionable really fall to WP:NPA? I'm unsure what 'problems' you are referring to that wouldn't be an personal attack. As to social change, if you mean change the collective dynamic through pointing out incivility and attacks that is great... but it seems you have in mind to change eveyone's attitudes, which seems damn hard (and contrary to our stated goals of building an encyclopedia.) Crazynast07:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who has followed CMDC for a while will be aware of the campaigning, the desire to change the world etc and, frankly, the TLDR, right-on soapboxing across a vast number of talk pages. And, like here, you usually hijack a thread by creating a subsection to do it. CMDC, you have a cause and a great sense of righteousness but this is not the place to push it. That I think you are a pain in the ass has nothing to do with your gender and everything to do with your POV-pushing, soapboxing attitude, which would be better pursued off-wiki. Statements such as "But now I saw women just have to start RE-creating the world since males have made such a mess of it." really do not help anyone here. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Carol, we're not talking about incivility towards women. Period. WP:NPA is a policy, and one that is enforced whether against men or women. If I say "User:Drmies is a tit", or "User:Drmies is as useless as tits on a bull", I'm personally attack Drmies, but am NOT attacking women (or the females of any species) as a gender. The assertion is that because someone randomly says "fuck" or some similar comment, that it prevents women from editing Wikipedia. The farcical side of that is that it in itself is sexist to suggest that women don't/can't also randomly say "fuck" or some similar comment. So, don't start mixing things up wrongly here - I'll all against NPA's, and I'm TOTALLY against racial/sexual NPA's, but let's compare apples to apples, not carrots. Nevertheless, this is NOT the right forum to do so, and you know it the panda ₯’11:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
My dear Panda, as much as I like being objectified (!) here as an example, I have to disagree. I'm reminded of that nice slogan: "You say bitch like it's a bad thing." I'm not going to argue the semantics of "tits on a bull", but I will say a. Mrs. Drmies doesn't like the word "tits" when it doesn't mean the bird and b. if you call me a tit and a tit is a bad thing, then clearly you're saying that one of the prime secondary characteristics (contradiction intended) is a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Standard Written English is standard more or less across the Anglophone world except for orthography. We can all communicate with each other with little difficulty in standard written English. However, English slang varies greatly between Anglophone cultures. An extreme example, as noted above and below, is "cunt". Apparently, in some Anglophone cultures, it is not necessarily gender-related, and its offensiveness is context-dependent. In the United States, it is a deeply offensive term that is specific to a woman. Its spear counterpart is "dick". The only difference is that, in American English, "dick" is offensive, and "cunt" is deeply offensive. Because there are numerous examples where slang words or phrases have different meanings in different Anglophone cultures, I think that one part of the solution needs to be advice to avoid the use of slang phrases, even if not meant to be offensive, on article talk pages and Wikipedia talk pages. Article talk pages and Wikipedia talk pages are inherently both cross-gender and cross-cultural. Something to that effect should be added to the talk page guidelines. (User talk pages are not necessarily cross-cultural, because what is on them is typically one-on-one conversations.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not discounting the presence of systemic gender bias, but a considerable amount of gender offense (and other offense) is unintended, the result of using slang English expressions that have different meanings in different varieties of English. It is often prudent to avoid slang and use Standard Written English. On the Internet, no one knows that you are in Britain or Australia or the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
For that reason, by the way, there really is an argument for never swearing on the Internet. It doesn't have to do with being morally superior; it has to do with not being misunderstood. On the Internet, no one knows what the context of your swearing is. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The reality is, even if you avoid slang, it is always perfectly possible that what to you is an innocuous phrase, or a mildly offensive phrase, will be taken with extreme offence elsewhere in the English-speaking world.
How many Americans know that "fanny pack" is not an appropriate phrase to use in Britain? And it works the other way. A rubber is the implement you use to rub out your mistakes if you've been using a pencil. British children use the word all the time. It's completely standard English, not slangy at all.
Even big companies foul it up sometimes. Coca Cola had to withdraw Dasani from the British market completely after (among other things) they advertised it as "bottled spunk". In addition to the intended meaning, "spunk" is a slang word for semen in Britain. KFC got into trouble when it made an advert in Australia featuring an Australian cricket fan sharing its product with a group of West Indies cricket fans. Nobody batted an eyelid until the ad was posted online, was seen in the US, and the proverbial hit the fan. Kahastoktalk19:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Freedoms
Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork. The same as we all have. On the Internet nobody really knows your gender anyway, only what you say you are. Some of the rudest people I have met in real life have been women, and some of the most disruptive editors I have seen on here never swear. Where is this discussion actually going? --John (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is true that on the Internet, no one knows that you are a dog. It isn't true that on the Internet, no one knows your gender. Your gender can sometimes be inferred, if your username is or contains an English name. (It is true that user names can bend gender, but that isn't the usual rule.) That is just a comment thrown in, unrelated to my opinions on the subject at hand. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec, yes, there is one) Amen to freedom. - Being a woman (at least so I say), I have naturally different real life experiences ;) - I so far didn't meet a "rude" and "disruptive" editor here to whom I couldn't talk. - When the term "disruptive" was applied to me first, I was proud ;) (mentioned somewhere on my talk or archive, - it wasn't important enough to remember) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I knew Gerda Arendt was a woman without her saying so. That is no different than thinking that CarolMooreDC ia a woman or that I am a man. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have on many occasions been mistaken for a woman here, and on other online discussion places. It kinda makes me proud. I certainly don't see it as a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
John, perhaps those of you who think the site doesn't need civility or women should be the ones to fork. PowersT12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Your mind-reading powers are imperfect. This is neither what I said nor what I think. But thanks for giving us a brilliant example of rudeness (intentional or not) that was entirely free from swear words. --John (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I do believe this is somewhat an issue of localised slang. Robert McClenon used the term 'dog' in a harmless comment above; yet in my experience, I have been called a 'dog' in quite a derogatory manner. Moreover I have been sung at with Walking the Dog as I passed by a group of male students. This, for the unaware, signifies a quite unattractive woman. On the other hand, 'wench' is another colloquialism that is spoken frequently where I live, with no harmful intent at all. Fylbecatuloustalk14:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Respect - if this is not a value here, is it time to fork a "Women welcome and respected Wikipedia"?
The comments of Powers and John raise the possibility that it is time to fork a "Women welcome and respected Wikipedia". Any suggestions on the practical aspects of making this happen much appreciated.
I appreciate it as a rhetorical question born of frustration, but suffragettes didn't push for a separate countries and the Freedom Riders didn't say, If racists won't respect us, maybe it's time to to fork a new country. (And please, let's not get into a sidebar about Liberia or Soul City.) Of course, what we have to do is keep speaking up, even in the face of degradation and violence, real or spoken. It takes determination and time. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a proposal for how to avoid most misunderstandings, any gender double standards, and any national double standards or misunderstandings. It is to amend the talk page guidelines to strongly recommend the use of standard written English, which is standard across the Anglophone portions of the world, except for trivial, mostly orthographic, differences that do not result in misunderstanding. The words that result in the misunderstandings are not standard written English; they are slang. A talk page only appears to be a conversation in the usual sense, in spoken English. It is a form of written dialogue about an article or a policy. Conduct it in standard written English. See my post at WT:TPG concerning a planned RFC. Any comments on the content of the RFC before it is posted are welcome. Comments in support of or in opposition to the RFC may be provided after it is published. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Waste of space. You won't even get agreement on what constitutes SWE. And we should celebrate the rich tapestry of life and multiculturalism here, not sanitise it. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's never going to happen. But there probably be should more airing of the concept that just because you speak English it doesn't mean everyone's going to understand you. The C-word discussion earlier is a good example. The Americans assumed it was a gender slur. Eric Corbett says it doesn't mean that in Manchester so he doesn't care what Americans think it means (I oversimplify for effect). The point, I think, is if one is a "regular" on a multi-national multi-cultural projsct such as this, surely there is an expected obligation (a) as a talk page writer, to endeavour to use the English language, as best as one can, in a way that is not gratuitously offensive to other users of the language "globally" (b) as a talk page reader, to not assume without further investigation that your parochial interpretation is the only meaning that English-language users globally ascribe to any given text ....ok, dream on...DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh great, we'll need "Vocabulary Police"... :) I can just imagine the Talk page template ({{dirtyrottenrudelousyperson}}), "You have been blocked for 24 hours for violated the language provisions of the Standard Written English policy for Talk pages. Your level of education (or lack thereof) and/or cultural differences are irrelevant, a fellow Wikipedian was offended by your behavior, even if it was unintentional, therefore you must be treated like a child that is throwing a temper tantrum." And then of course the associated WikiEssay, WP:Why its wrong for you to be you. I'm removing my tongue from my cheek now, end of snark. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Standard written English will only work some of the time and on some very general topics. As soon as any complexity exists, or specialised knowledge is claimed as essential to write on a topic, this idea is doomed. Massive heat was generated recently by some arguing at MH17 that the shooting down of a plane with a missile absolutely must be described as an accident, because that's how it's done within the aviation industry. I got bullied off that page by a POV pushing, Putin hating, Russian Admin, so I can't even be bothered looking to see how it ended up. Closer to this topic I've tried several times to point out that the word that is apparently ultra offensive to some American women can be part of a positive welcoming term among certain Australian males. Those offended American women persistently ignored my comments. (Is that not offensive?) I have my theories as to why, but writing them here won't help. The second sentence of Standard written English says "there is some disagreement about correct usage". Some? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Equality
What bothers me most about all this is the special treatment being demanded. I've been blessed with a number of very strong women in my life, including my wife of 21 years. I was taught to respect women, respect the differences but treat as equals. The idea that we have to censor ourselves for a particular person is offensive, and against WP:THERAPY. We need more civility for men AND women, no doubt, but civility isn't about a cuss word, it is about how we treat each other, manipulate each other, threaten each other. Cuss words are meaningless, it is actions that are civil or incivil.
My mom is gone, but she would demand you don't look down on her by giving her special treatment, she wasn't some delicate little flower that needs coddling. She demanded equal treatment, which was rather new for her generation, being born in the 1930s. THAT is what I find so offensive, the very idea being forwarded here that women are so weak, so fragile, so inferior that the mere sight of a dirty word will give them the vapors, so we must censor ourselves around the lady folk because they can't handle it. My own mother would say "That is fucking crazy". She was a salty one who wouldn't take crap from anyone, and wise enough to know that if you demanded special treatment, you will never be treated as an equal.
You want to talk about civility, great, it is a valid topic, we can't block for it, but lets find ways to encourage more of it. You want to increasing censorship or create special rules for women? That is a non-starter and offensive to all the women that came before you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"It's actions that are civil and uncivil." Whatever that means -- on Wikipedia, it surely cannot mean words cannot be uncivil. Words are all we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
As for the rest, it misses the issue: "I am offended" "Why are you offended?" "Because you used that word that way." "What does that word, matter?" "It's a common perjorative word used against women." "Oh, didn't know, sorry." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It may be a "common perjorative (sic) word used against women" in some parts of the US, I wouldn't know and I don't much care, but it's certainly not used in that way where I live or in other English-speaking countries. In any case, I certainly have no intention of tailoring my language to conform to the lowest common denominator of Bible-bashing Americans. In addition I really do fail to see what any of this has to do with gender equality. People are routinely called dicks around here, and there's even an essay on it WP:DICK; someone should try writing the equivalent WP:CUNT if gender equality really is the goal, which I doubt. EricCorbett15:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
According to English dictionaries, it is commonly understood to relate to women's anatomy. The essay WP:Dick says don't use the essay to call people dicks, so if you want to follow the theory of the essay don't call people names. That's not a hard to understand in any country. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be too hard for you to understand. Who exactly called anyone any kind of name in the posting that started all this nonsense? EricCorbett22:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Equality means no double standards. I could list 50 comments [by males} women probably would be chastised for writing or taken to ANI for, that are ignored when said by males. There are ANIs vs women that would be laughed at if made vs. guys. I'd love to let loose like some guys do, but largely control myself because I know I'll get a lot more flack for even comments that barely approximate some of the things guys write. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Has there been an instance where gender even came up to cause a disparity in treatment between two parties?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
People don't usually say, oh, it's that female editor XYZWoman, let's ignore her or badger her or insult her because she's not playing the game the way we guys like to play the game and we just want her to go away. If only it was that open. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)15:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe it is against policy to post lists of bad things specific editors wrote unless it's part of a noticeboard thread, ANI complaint or Arbitration. Otherwise, Gender Gap, Feminist Wikiproject and individual user pages would be replete with such listings. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)15:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
What has that got to do with the price of anything? Put up or shut up, Carol. Your chip is showing and, for the record, I'm somewhat dubious about certain elements of the Gender Gap Task Force which, I think, are there to serve soapboxers like yourself rather than resolve any systemic bias. A lot of this stuff seems to be in your head and might possibly say more about your own state than that of Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are gender-neutral. Our RL genders should be put aside, the instant we enter upon this project. AFAIK, there's no English Wikipedia for women & English Wikipedia for men. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't put it better than Dennis, Ryulong and GoodDay. If the point of this discussion is that some people feel discriminated against for their self-volunteered online gender, yet are unable and unwilling to show any evidence of the discrimination, maybe we are done here. --John (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm tired of the biological essentialism. Women and men are not inherently different from each-other. Men want to be "alpha males", and put women in their place? What the hell kind of outdated nonsense is this? Some people are rude, pure and simple, and others are not. It has nothing to do with gender. This is a total obfuscation. As if men cannot be naturally starched and civil? As if women cannot naturally "swear like a fishwife"? There's a good phrase, for anyone buying into this biological essentialism, "swear like a fishwife". RGloucester — ☎17:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anyone asserting either biological essentialism (which usually is asserted by more patriarchal writers to say males should be dominant) or Social construction of gender difference which often is asserted by some feminists to say all differences are learned. I just see people saying - for whatever reason - don't insult me for my sex, don't insult me using sexual terms, don't use double standards of behavior against me you don't use against guys. Believe me, many of us women could use language that could curl your whatever into a what-cha-ma-calic but a) we think it's tacky and b) we'd get in far more trouble for saying less than a guy might. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I find bad language distasteful, anyway. I like to be a pure speaker, if one for the sake of preserving a pretty cadence in language. My concern is that you have conflated incivility with biological sex. Don't say that you haven't done, as you did above in a quite large piece about such nonsense. You fell victim to the same "essentialism" that has been used to subjugate women. I think it would be better to say that Wikipedia is an environment that favours those who can take "the heat", so-to-speak. Every insult possible to humanity is flung about on Wikipedia's pages, and if one doesn't have a stomach for it, or if one cannot take it in stride, one won't last very long. I don't think this is an issue of gender. In fact, it is a commonality of the internet in general. I'm not saying it is a good thing. I prefer a civil discourse. One can be quite sharp, even with civility, if one is intelligent. But that's neither here nor there. Gender is an irrelevance unless one or others makes it otherwise. This is especially true on the internet, where no one can tell what one's "gender" is unless one tells them. On that note, do not presume, as you have done, anything about my own gender. RGloucester — ☎18:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
But, Carol, you don't have any fucking proof that this is the case on Wikipedia. No evidence that you or anyone else in this thread who identifies as a woman has had any sort of trouble by what she has posted. That any woman on this website has received a harsher punishment for her behavior than any man. If there's no explicit problem with treatment of the genders on this website then there's nothing to fix. And this frankly has nothing to do with there being a dearth of women editors. Lightbringer's thread got waylayed when it all became about censorship and language policing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to be baited into violating something which may be policy. So I've got a question in the first place that came to mind, of several places such things could be listed. (WP:Ani being one of them; the talk page of ANI probably not one. Plus I'd like to see a really good official Wikiproject list. (With lots of quotes from this thread, of course. ;-) [Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Negative_listings_about_other_users]] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)18:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't create a hitlist at a dodgy project. Just give some examples right here, right now: the context of the thread will exempt you from NPA, although maybe not from ridicule etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
How is it being baited when we are explicitly asking you for some god damn evidence to support your outrageous claims that women are allegedly given harsher punishments or are held up to a stricter standard of civility on this website?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yawn. CMDC, What tired, outdated 1970s/1980s twaddle. It sounds like you're stuck somewhere in your personal history while the Western World has moved on. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, hidden within the subtle soapboxing/canvassing, there are "hundreds" of extant examples and will be more. That is hundreds out of how many tens of thousands of edits per day? CMDC has misrepresented me in her comment in that diff and this is par for the course with her (noted at past ANI, ArbCom etc), so if/when any of these examples turn up it would pay people to check the context before jumping on her bandwagon. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
A discussion of civility enforcement broke out. This is par for the course when it comes to such discussions. Monty84520:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
*Bangs head against desk to the beat of "Everything is beautiful....in its own way"* *Wipes blood off desk and forehead...and returns to daily routine*!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
An observation: Discussions of civility enforcement usually occur not because someone was clearly uncivil, but because one or more editors are absolutely certain that their view of what is civil or not is the only possible view, and others disagree with THAT perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be such a demand for evidence that women are treated unfairly on Wikipedia, but I don’t want to get "in trouble" for listing diffs or naming names outside of an actual complaint. Since I realize not everyone reads about and discusses this issue with others several times a week, as a few dozen+ other editors do, here is a compromise: links to resources that cite more specifics. All of it and more are from Wikimedia.org Gender Gap project page.
Gender Gap mailing list. Its archives are public. The first few months had a lot of explicit complaints which tapered off for reason you can read about if you read the last month or so of discussions. The list is rather strictly moderated to keep it civil and a safe place for women to post.
The Wikimedia.org Gender Gap page needs updating. There have been several really good articles - including again more specifics - which have been listed at the Gender Gap email list which can be added to the project page.
Finally, rather than a list of diffs, it probably would be more compliant with Wikipolicy to do research on various Wikiquette requests and ANIs through the years by - or against - editors known to be female. A research project that could be done by volunteers. Listing those and the issues involved and resolution would not have the same problems as listing diffs of comments others found as problematic that were not take to WP:ANI. I already mentioned doing this to a woman being paid to do a research project for Wikimedia but she already had her agenda formed. So who knows, someone else may yet get a grant to do it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think people were looking for specific diffs, not blogs, opinion pieces or articles that also make the same claims and point to questionable studies or just fail to substantiate their conclusions. Obviously there are sexists, racists and the like here, I know because I block them when I see them. Are there are diffs of actual systemic sexism here at Wikipedia? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER01:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Recently I was blocked for two weeks for a comment on ArbCom, even though I'd repeatedly sought clarification and was mislead by two Arbitrators into believing I could leave the comment. Finally, they convinced the Admin to lift the block. So you get me six Admins to approve my discussing specifics, and I'll think about it. Otherwise I feel like I'm in a double-bind, damned if I don't and damned if I do situation. But then that's one possible example of a double standard. In any case, I do intend to do an essay collecting various incidents which can safely be used and I'll report here when do it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)01:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You were blocked for violating your topic ban were you not? What has that got to do with the matter at hand? You've been asked a very simple question, so what about a very simple reply for once, instead of all this obfuscating? EricCorbett02:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think so. Everything on that talk page for the entire history of it has been about the RFC side of AN/RFC, not the general AN side. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This guy has undone all my edits and given no reason for doing so. I feel that his may represent an act of discrimination as he chose to undo all my edits across a range of subjects and gave no reason for doing so other than he didn't like my username.Muddafuca (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't like your username either, so I've blocked your account. As MaC says, you need to fix the username, and you need to start providing sources. Acroterion(talk)19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great! Stalwart111 04:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
