Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:26, 19 March 2009

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop

I would be grateful if Arbcom would police the appalling cesspit of vindictive bad behaviour that this page is becoming. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dweller, what exactly don't you agree with on the workshop? If you can point to the things that you object to it would help. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vilification of editors. Users being listed without notification. Untruths. Partial truths. Score-settling. I have next to no experience of Arbcom cases, but find this page upsetting and disturbing. Are they all like that? If so, shame on us. There has to be a better way. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if all the nonsense that habitually goes on in the MOS talk pages has moved across to the workshop. And yes, Dweller, it's appalling. --ROGER DAVIES  13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I decline to participate any further in it. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually disagree. I think there's some strong comments, but I don't think there's rampant incivility. Most editors claims are backed up with diffs either on the workshop or at the evidence page. What someone believes is a necessary remedy, someone else will disagree with. I can't see anything where there's a need to refactor. One thing I will do is that I'll get on with notifying editors that haven't already been informed. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no incivility that I've seen. But plenty of other bad stuff. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that puts the clerk in a bit of a bad position. It's not our jobs to decide what is relevant and what isn't per se - if somethings completely out of place, we can remove it, but where people have presented evidence of poor behaviour which could be considered part of the case it's not for us to make those decisions. I'll happily deal with incivility or attempts to derail a case, but in this case I don't see that - in the mediation committee, we encourage all the parties to be as open as possible and this is also important at arbitration - if the arbitrators have all available information at their hand then they can make a more informed decision. Disagreeing with some proposals (which as far as I can see is what you're doing) isn't a reason to increase the policing on the pages. Why don't you create your own proposals for everyone to discuss? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. I found the experience decidedly distasteful. If someone can come up with a better way to do things, they'll have my sincerest admiration. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is kosher or not, but an editor (admin) is removing comments without prior discussion from the workshop page—see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Workshop#Removal_of_Lightmouse.27s_comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought to the attention case clerk.--Tznkai (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended

Original announcement

Thank you. --B (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is linked from WP:AN to discuss the voting of oversight and checkuser.

Voting on checkuser is potentially a very dangerous way of selecting checkusers. The qualities to be popular are not the same as the qualities to be a good checkuser. Possible scenarios that could bring disaster to Misplaced Pages include a checkuser with a political agenda (such as an agenda in the Israel/Gaza conflict or the Northern Ireland troubles or US politicians (such as the fanatical wing of Barack Obama and Ron Paul supporters) or the Republic of China on Taiwan v. People's Republic of China or Basque Separatists, etc.)

Voting also does not take into account a potential checkuser's qualifications. They may be very quick to accuse or they may want irrefutable proof as their standard.

What we need here is a person with good technical skills, good grasp of due process, and an uninvolved editor. But being an uninvolved editor means that they have no record. If they are an editor that writes a lot, they may have strong opinions and bias.

What we really need is a paid expert to be a checkuser. Ipromise (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you intend to pay for one? I don't, not when there are plenty of honourable and committed editors who are prepared to do it for free. I think you are too quick to dismiss both the checks-and-balances in this system (the whole point of the ArbCom vetting is to remove candidates with issues such as you mention, and you forget our absolute proscription on the sort of voting practices that would allow candidates with political agendas to gain the upper hand), and the intelligence of the community in both identifying unsuitable candidates, and in not supporting such candidates. Happy‑melon 11:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to pay. WP also asks for donations. This would be a useful way to use some of the money. We'll get a professional job done if a paid professional does the work. Nothing in life is free. The volunteers either spend too much of their time on Misplaced Pages. This means that only unemployed people, people collecting disability, students, and wealthy trust fund babies become checkusers. Ipromise (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the point of support/oppose voting is that users with a strong view on Israel/Palestine, China/Taiwan, and other controversial topics will not be given the tools. I intend to be very discriminating when it comes to who I vote for. On a side matter, I applaud the ArbCom for dealing with this promptly and efficiently, this sort of attentiveness and responsiveness is exactly what I was hoping for after the latest election, and so far you have not disappointed. Lankiveil 12:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

An inevitable move, but an unfortunate one. ] 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

More than that, it's a necessary move. You either need oppose !votes or you need a single ballot (like special:boardvote) where you are required to !vote on everyone. Otherwise, you don't have an election—you have a set of 15 petitions no more reflective of community support than any other internet petition. --B (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a whole lot more than voting involved. It's about genuine scrutiny. That means research and questions. It's about whether individual editors are prepared to trust the candidate with their names and home addresses, phone numbers and so forth. That's the kind of information that advanced permissions is about. If we/you can get this across to the community, this'll be a great election. --ROGER DAVIES  19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an acceptable procedure now that oppose votes are allowed. The original system couldn't properly measure a (hypothetical) situation where all of the nominated candidates were unacceptable to the community, but to varying degrees of severity; under the original balloting system, some unacceptable candidates would be promoted. The current system is at least resistant to such problems. It's worth pointing out, however, that in such polls it's measurement of opposition that's really important; it's entirely possible for someone to have the support of the community and also be an unacceptable candidate, in which case, they should not receive priveleges. Equally, it's possible that some objectively qualified candidate cannot gather the community's support, in which case they also should not receive priveleges. Gauging legitimate opposition is what matters. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3

I'd appreciate some input here from an experienced but uninvolved ArbCom member and/or clerk. I have thankfully little experience of RfCs, so am unsure of appropriate protocol. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How to raise the tone of the wiki

I posted to the functionaries-en list; it was considered a good idea, so Carcharoth suggested I put it here as well to help lift it up the AC's agenda.

en:wp has a chronic ongoing civility problem - there's a culture of open personal attacks as a routine standard of discourse in project space. This has been noted widely. The arbitration committee has fluffed several opportunities to make examples of particularly bad offenders, and many are at a loss for how to stop people from being driven away from the project.

Various arbitrators have suggested a willingness to knock heads on this matter, particularly admins who behave badly.

My suggestion: Put the following notice or something similar on WP:RFAr or AC/N:

The Arbitration Committee invites cases and discussion of chronic ongoing violations of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, which is fundamental hard Misplaced Pages policy. Not one-offs and not (at this stage) mere incivility, but chronic ongoing personal attacks. Attempts to work through the problems (e.g. RFCs) will be expected to have been tried and failed before a case is brought.

That is:

• noting that Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks is in fact hard policy
• indicating willingness to enforce it
• an expectation that people shape the hell up.

The frustrations of wiki life are many, mostly dealing with blithering stupidity and then exploding in frustration. (I'm far from perfect in this and have an appalling history of snapping at people, but I do actually consciously try to behave better these days.) This would help set the expectation that people behave better.

Then it'll be time to make examples of those too socially inept to get it - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for posting this David. I agree with the general premise of what you have proposed here, while not agreeing with the precise wording used. I also agree that a generalised warning period is a good idea to give people a chance to "shape up". I'll let others and my colleagues say more, as a change like this will have to be discussed extensively both by the community and the committee. I'll make sure the committee don't miss this, and I would suggest notices are posted asking for community input on this specific idea (of a warning notice) and the general issues (though that might be better at WT:CIVIL). Not everyone watches or is aware of this noticeboard. Link from an appropriate village pump, WP:AN, talk pages of the relevant policies and Misplaced Pages pages, community portal and/or noticeboard, making a link here from the RFC policy section, adding this to template "cent", and so on. The more input for a change like this, the better. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted it to foundation-l (as per the above link) and wikien-l, VP policy and AN. Not at all wedded to wording, but the idea is simple enough: clear warning, publicity, some will not get it and the AC will have to act. Things are noxious enough I think this is warranted - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)@Carcharoth: If I understand you correctly, the "generalised warning period" would come after an ArbCom case? How is that any different from "civility parole," which is mostly a failure? Mr.Z-man 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I was suggesting a general "we're watching" warning period to bring awareness hopefully without bringing actual cases. Some are certain not to get the clue, unfortunately, but that comes after the general warning period - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Any examples? I think this problem is being blown out of proportion a bit. Though perhaps I'm just missing something? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Go read longer discussions WP:ANI in full. There's been quite a bit on 'civility blocks' - these don't seem to be doing the trick; perhaps starting at the admins will - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is a self-declared shithole. I need examples from some place that isn't that awful noticeboard. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This affects behaviour throughout policy space, no reason not to start there. Read some of the regulars' edit summaries for remarkable and inappropriate levels of snark - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is this particularly uncivil edit, which was written up in the press, actually. -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is a general problem with increasing incivility and personal attacks which are passing without reprimand, and thereby making it acceptable. Civility and No personal attacks are hard policy and are not to be ignored; it is certainly a matter that it is legitimate for the Arbitration committee to take up. We don't actually need to invite cases but perhaps it is helpful to remind the community that they can expect such cases to be accepted, and to remind the committee members that such matters are not trivial. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was this particular not trivial comment of incivility, wasn't there? -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(cross-posted from AN)(ec)I don't understand the idea. Is your proposal to have the well-known policy announced and enforced? Because I believe that that is already the procedure here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Actually WP:AN/I is the best place for an editor to have a cheap pot-shot taken at them by an admin. I can't imagine it would be the place to discuss a civility block, except to give the pot-shooting admins something amusing to laugh at. I'll be glad to watchlist you MZMcBride and start posting them to your talk page when I get up the energy to withstand the gauntlet of personal attacks and time-wasting on Misplaced Pages again.

The problem is so deep on en.wiki that professional conversations about the validity of contributing to Misplaced Pages never fail to raise the issue that you have to be thick-skinned and realize the probability you will be personally attacked by another editor or administrator is 100%. I read this thread on AN/I with interest because the most recent conversation I had about Misplaced Pages and contributing professional knowledge ended with every one agreeing that one could contribute safely in other languages and hope en.wiki editors might translate it into English. --KP Botany (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the notion to start at the admins - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is it observably isn't enforced - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but this seems like forum shopping to get "certain editors" who tend to write articles banned, while those who make the decisions can explain away their excesses as being provoked by trolls and vandals. It would go a long way toward allaying these fears if you were to give a few examples. --NE2 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You are. The AC idea is to start at those with most administrative bits on the wiki so they will be inspired to lead by example - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Please give examples of edits that no one was blocked for, but you feel they should have been. Thank you. --NE2 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If you don't feel there's any problem and everything's just fine, by all means please say just that - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Given your avoidance of the issue, I must oppose this proposal, and I urge others to do the same. Without examples, it is impossible to evaluate. --NE2 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Oppose what proposal? The proposal that ArbCom should actually enforce the civility policy rather than repeatedly hand out wrist slaps and unenforceable "paroles"? Mr.Z-man 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
            • The only "unenforceable parole" I'm familiar with is Giano, and I'm aware of and oppose David's "hard-line" manner in dealing with him. Are there any others where you feel the existing processes have been applied and failed? --NE2 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I'll state I'm not actually talking about Giano at all. I'm talking about the general tone of the place. I hear the same sort of things that KPBotany notes above: a sufficient number of Wikipedian act enough like arseholes to make this seem like a place to stay away from, and that's bad. It takes just a bit of incivility to get rid of a n00b and a sustained dose of it will get rid of regulars. This is a bad thing, a really bad thing. The top is an excellent place to start on enforcing no personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Tell that to Jimbo, who, when he blocked Giano today, seemed to be citing some of your language ("NPA is a hard policy"). As expected, the principles you espouse are being used first and foremost against those on the outs with the establishment power structure, not those within it. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • NE2, I understand your concern, but I don't think it applies to this proposal. Admins should be (and as far as I'm concerned, will be) held to the highest civility standards. I consider it a problem on the site, and this notice seems like a good start. Cool Hand Luke 20:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I also consider it a problem, but I would like to see examples. My particular concern is of practices similar to "baiting", where, for instance, one party dances around the issue and never discusses it directly, while the other gets frustrated and says something he probably shouldn't have. --NE2 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, definitely. Hence the bit about (a) chronic ongoing (b) personal attacks, not mere "incivility" (which seems in practice to be endlessly fractal in nature in discussion). I think in practice the arbitration committee could be trusted to apply it sensibly, judgement being what they are in fact elected by the community for - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • NE2 it seems you are talking about some specific event. I have no idea what. However, if there is a single event that makes derailing civility on Misplaced Pages worthwhile, please let the rest of us know what it is. --KP Botany (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • They were actually elected by the community as the most accepted of the various choices - doesn't mean they are in fact sensible, just hopefully more sensible than the alternatives. I repeat my call for examples, and pose a rhetorical question: if the ArbCom were not sensible enough in the past to block for incivility, what makes you think they'd do it now? --NE2 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
          • One said "hey, post it here" and one has concurred above. That leaves, um, some! I live and hope - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
          • NE2, the idea is to deal with frequent occurrences and not with rare and random ones. Don't expect the committee to be harsh with everyone who says 'f**k off' once a year. Plus, an admin who gets trolled before getting offensive easily --and frequently-- doesn't deserve to be an admin. And producing a blacklist of expressions deemed to be personnal attacks is better than giving examples. For instance, I'd expect myself being sanctioned if I say 'someone is an idiot/douchebag' more frequently. -- FayssalF - 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, as I have also noticed increase in incivility. I've been editing wiki since early days, and it is getting more and more unpleasant (and hostile!) place (one of the reasons why i stopped using an account). Now, incivility is an act, and as most actions, it is usually caused by something. We can try to prevent uncivil acts, but to do so, we may also try to understand why they appear, and to prevent its causes. There are several things that I have noticed which contribute to the unpleasant tone of communications between editors:

1. we are humans and its hard to control ourselves all the time :O) having that out of the way, here are some real causes, in no particular order: 2. there are admins who simply abuse their power, and issue warnings and blocks, and tag your talk pages with irrelevant boxes way too much 3. there are some editors who watch each others contributions and appear out of nowhere to backup each other, often just because they know each other without actually objectively looking at the issue at hand. 4. the most important thing, IMO, quite often it happens that within politely expressed comment, content of it radiates arrogance, unfriendliness, etc. (i wish i could be express it more eloquently in english...) 5. people often project POVs of edits onto their contributors 6. there is an increasing mentality of 'controlling' shadowing that of 'contributing'

I've read an interesting proposal recently: assigning few admins to patrol some page, and having rotations with other groups of admins from other pages each few weeks. This helps bring fresh perspectives into discussions and issues. It also reduces creation of prejudices and frictions among editors (and probably PAs, etc.).

Anyhow, i'm not trying to suggest any prescription for preventing PAs, just to express few thoughts. Cheers. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not going to happen. We can't just order admins to patrol certain pages, I certainly wouldn't work on articles I had no interest in. Besides there are 2.7 million articles and only about 1000 very active admins.--Patton 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

About 99.9% of articles are totally uncontroversial and most have no active discussions. Though I agree "assigning" admins to do things won't work, unless we start getting paid. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• David's statement of the problem is quite correct, and has been a concern of mine for some time. No-personal-attacks and civility are policy not because they're nice, but because they are essential for maintaining the community necessary to write a neutral and complete encyclopedia. It may be trying too late something that might have worked two years ago, but I support his proposal. Tom Harrison 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Civility rules are, all too often, used as a weapon by whoever is on the "right side" of the dominant clique of a given time and place, against enemies who are on the "wrong side". Whoever those with the most power are out to get will be slammed for the slightest trivial infraction, while the powerful ones are untouchable no matter what they do, and to even suggest that they might deserve any sort of scrutiny of the goose-and-gander sort is to get yourself dismissed as a troll. I note that the essay linked by the commenter right above me has as one of its "See Also" links a diff of a prominent admin telling users he disapproves of to "fuck off". Will people like that be dealt with under this proposed policy enforcement, or will it merely be one more arrow in the quiver of those admins to use against the more powerless? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think one of the major points of this proposal is to start enforcing the civility policy as it relates to the conduct of admins. It wouldn't be "one more arrow in quiver", it would be a top-down approach to making the atmosphere better. Hermione1980 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As Hermione1980 puts it: starting from the top down will help. As will starting with chronic personal attacks, not mere "incivility" (which is way too fractal in nature in practical discussion). Note that the enforcement in this proposal is to come from the AC itself - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe this is such a widespread problem when nobody is able to give concrete examples or point to diffs. However, I am seeing a stronger and stronger case being made for the abolishment of AN/I.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MZMcBride (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 February 2009

• Exactly what Tom harrison said. NE2, you want names? I could name off a dozen people and so could you. But perhaps the reason David isn't naming names is because maybe a word to the wise might do the trick? Naming names takes us down a rathole of "was/wasn't/was too/was not"... Been there, done that, didn't like it. Reminder, this is not about losing one's temper from time to time, this is about chronic problematic behaviour. And starting with admins seems a good place to start to me. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  (note, no endorsement/disendorsement of Tom's essay was intended, just that his words in the post just above are almost exactly what I was about to type) ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  Well, that's nice to know, given that I find the essay sexist (assuming women are helpless victims and men are obnoxious louts), as well as containing implied endorsements of the toxic "Claim 'harassment' as a trump card in Misplaced Pages disputes" meme, not to mention (my favorite not-so-dead horse) BADSITES ("God forbid we should tell people not to link sites that attack our volunteers.") *Dan T.* (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  This current proposal has somewhat less to do with BADSITES than it does with spoiler warnings - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • That would be why I'm only providing the vaguest of examples. In any case, if someone is convinced there isn't a widespread problem, examples aren't going to help - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that is the policies (and in some cases, many policies) are not enforced in a standardized way. If there was a top-down enforced policy--hard-enforced by the AC, let's say--that all editors, from the IP up to the Arbiter himself, were equally subject at all times to uniform enforcement and standards of all policy, wouldn't that be a better approach? If it's a personal attack, BLP violation, violation of protection, violation of well, whatever, what does it matter who did it?

Specific to the NPA side of things, if a personal attack would net a 24 block for an IP, any username regardless of it's standing, +bits, or the operator should be blocked for a comparative length of time, no matter who it is or their "position". So, if an IP were blocked for calling someone a "wanker", "cunt", "asshole" or "idiot" in a summary of some sort, that same principle would apply up to and including users that have been around for years, admins, and Arbiters? rootology (C)(T) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please, please don't let this turn into a "civility-enforcement" drive without giving the matter some deeper thought. How do we intend to enforce or promote civility? If the answer is with blocks, ArbCom cases, and harsher punishments for incivility, then take a long, hard look at the history of such attempts. Blocks don't make people more civil. Never have, and never will. Being blocked or sanctioned makes people angry. Anger makes people uncivil. Civility parole is well-intentioned, but its practical impact has been 10 times more damaging to the community than the incivility that it was intended to address. I'd like to see some brainstorming about how we intend to promote civility, before we get gung-ho about "test cases". What are we going to differently this time to succeed where previous efforts have epically failed?

  Personally, I think the answer is to change the system of rewards. Ignore people until they're able to express themselves civilly. Every time someone rushes to AN/I demanding a block for incivility and triggers a 100kb thread, we're heading in the wrong direction. Likewise ArbCom cases and civility parole - we should be marginalizing people who can't be civil, not making them the centerpiece of increasingly elaborate quasijudicial proceedings and sanctions and the attendant media circus. I've come to view WP:SHUN as one of the wisest things in projectspace - granted, not a huge endorsement :P Operant conditioning will work here - if people don't get the desired reaction by being uncivil, they'll stop. If they find they need to be nice to get things done, they'll be nice. Or so I think, anyway. MastCell  22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm after a "no personal attacks" enforcement by the Arbitration Committee - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm after admins losing their bits if they are consistently toxic to others. Not civility blocks, which don't work. Since adminship is such a "no big deal" that people will do anything to avoid losing it, that's an incentive for admins to set a better tone, from which civility will follow. Lead by example and all that. And I don't consider myself exempt from it just because I think there's a problem. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. It would be silly to start an enforcement drive on editors when there are still admins setting bad examples.--BirgitteSB 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • And non-admins who are uncivil we just ignore? Mr.Z-man 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Of course not, but we gotta start somewhere, so why not start with those who are supposed to lead by example? --Conti|✉ 23:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • No, but having those voted by the community as having good judgement being expected to exercise it will set a very nice example, and avoid charges of hypocrisy when calling someone out. (Not that being able to say "NO U" makes any difference to whether it was rudeness, but it does make it clearly less acceptable.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to come by here and laugh. LMAO It's all I could do when I came across this. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we all laugh together if you can tell us about it? -- FayssalF - 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a hopeless idealism to have an online project that absolutely anybody can contribute to without first having to demonstrate their fitness for the task, and to have a project where civility is universal. Most of the worst civility issues come from not having a filter on who is allowed to participate in the building of the encyclopedia. The simple reality is this -- some people on this planet are obsessive, perpetually angry, and/or generally fucking loony, and are mentally and emotionally incapable of civility. That's the truth. You all know these people exist in the real world -- you encounter them everywhere you go. If they can't swing civility in the real world when faced with real people, they won't do it on Misplaced Pages because a piece of text with the word POLICY over top of it tells them to. These aren't people who don't have much to contribute to the building of an encyclopedia other than to create a foul environment for those of us who bust our asses trying to write some decent articles. Fuck those people. Get them off of the project. We don't have time, or a mandate from the Foundation, to be a free anger management, psychiatry and babysitting service. Warren -talk- 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "Fuck those people" itself a personal attack and incivility? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, but who does it hurt other than those who are actively distracting us from building the encyclopedia, or worse, actively seeking to damage it? We have a lot of those people around nowadays; people who are mentally unstable; people with a bone to pick on a topic and have come to a high-profile place to do it; people who think that it'd be funny to make the encyclopedia read that Ted Kennedy died or Bruce Springsteen is a fag. Again, we aren't here to serve as a mental institution where we try to help people through their problems. With six billion people in the world, we can afford to lose everyone who demonstrate that they're not willing to do things that don't directly result in a better encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I edit on Polish and French wikipedia, and I belong to a couple of heated mailing lists. I see this overt hostility to others only on en.Misplaced Pages. It's also raised to such an extreme and unpleasant level on Misplaced Pages that other places don't compare. It sinks expertise. I don't edit in my area of expertise, for example, because that area is carefully guarded by a non-expert owner who attacks me when I attempt to correct his mistakes. I user references, write well, support everything I say, but it doesn't matter: he's a long-standing and hostile Misplaced Pages editor, and supported by his peers: other long-standing and hostile Misplaced Pages editors. So, my area of expertise has some amusing and some not-so-amusing long standing errors (years) that make the Misplaced Pages articles good office jokes--or did a few years ago, but no one bothers to get past the guardian of the wrong any more.

En.wikipedia's notorious incivility hurts the quality of its articles. Why isn't that enough reason to do anything about it? No one ever wrote an encyclopedia as a random group project before, Warren, yet it's being done, so why can you allow the one but not say we can do it while treating each other as human beings? --KP Botany (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given your experience with other language wikis, have you any insight into what the differences between them could be to cause this different, more hostile atmosphere on the English wiki? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I discussed this with a group of en.wiki editors a couple of years ago, after the question arose on a scientific list serve. The conclusion was that the non-english wikipedias value and encourage the participation of experts, whereas experts are sniped at on en.wiki. I personally don't see how it's related, if it is, to the low tone overall of en.wiki, and I didn't know enough about wiki bureaucracy at the time to quite follow what was being said. I only bring it up now because it did make me curious about this aspect of en.wiki versus some of the other wikipedias, and because the other editors (linguists) were so certain that this really is the reason for it. My opinion, though, on expertise in general, such as some of the Western European wikipedias: they value the contribution of experts.

One thing I have noticed is the other Wikipedias don't have a lot of admins-taking-potshots-at-others edits. Also, most of the other wikipedias, as far as I can tell, don't allow users to call each other cunts and fuckers or have essays that they post around called "Don't be a dick." The immaturity level on en.wiki is about the highest I've ever seen on a semi-functioning website. It's hard to fathom why Misplaced Pages editors and admins in particular can't see how bad, how unprofessional, how incompetent, how stupid, and how pointless they look throwing around cunt and fucker. And you want scientific experts to edit here? What makes you think anyone wants to be associated with that stuff?

I think there are a lot immature administrators on en.wikipedia, and they support each other; and the community as a whole, and other good administrators in particular are unwilling to do something to deal with this issue. I think that the allowance for drama on en.wikipedia is ridiculously high. These two things coupled with the repeated allowance of the use of foul language while dealint with other human beings is hostility defined and establishes to all comers, but particularly the less civil comers, that this not just tolerated, but apparently the way to deal with others on en.wiki. --KP Botany (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This actual proposal is much to vague and far beyond what arb com could probably handle, but the problem is very real. What arb com needs to do is to make a positive statement that it does not regard good article contributions as an excuse for bad behavior, nor tenure here as a license to treat others poorly. It has already said that admins are expected to have exemplary behavior. It has said it quite a number of times, but now it;'s time for it to start doing something bout the ones who don't. In the past, all they have done in this direction is urge them to behave better. It's time to start enforcement. Enforcement of our policies against those who are too well established to be dealt with elsewhere is what they're here for. A few deadmins or substantial blocks of the worst would have an excellent preventative action both with respect to them and also to the less confirmed delinquents. The ed. above is as resilient as any WPedian, and if it affects her, it must affect a great many people. I'm not anywhere as sturdy, but I will also say that the behavior of a few people who try to dominate some areas I would otherwise naturally contribute to has kept me from working there. I'd not want to be on arb com because I do not want to deal with this, but I expect those who do want the job to actually do it. This is not meant as criticism to the present arb com, but an exhortation. DGG (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree with KP Botany and DGG (and Tom Harrison way up there)above. There is an on-going acceptance of some pretty immature and uncivil interaction here. Editors barking at each other has become a common way of communication. We should expect the same respect and civility that we do in a workplace/school or anywhere else people work on serious projects. This, or something like this, could be the first step in pulling back from what can be a pretty toxic atmosphere. And if people can't behave themselves, they should find another hobby. RxS (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. If Editor X, whom you disapprove of, calls someone an arsehole or invites a "troll" to fuck off, you want them hit hard with the banhammer, and if you do it, you want plaudits? Well, what's different? This is how you've always approached the wiki, Dave. There are lots of ways to improve the "tone". I'd like us to stop the Stanford Experiment for Nerds that adminship has become, and maybe stop pretending that if you get ten people to vote for something on a page basically no one knows exists that you have "consensus". Oh, and when someone just isn't doing anything constructive, and we know damned well they're not, let's not have the three-month show trial, and just get them gone right now. Etc etc. The thing is, Dave, your solution is a tool for your problem, not one that would actually fix the toxicity here.

Everyone is aware that there are two kinds of thing being done here. There's a second-rate Britannica being written (sadly the dream of an all-inclusive Borgesian Tower of Knowledge has been throttled by people who want to "own" a small part of an outdated modernist enterprise, and we're much the worse for it) and a roleplaying game. They occasionally overlap, but generally the encyclopaedic part is only a pretext for the game. That's not to say that some people don't enjoy both. You could definitely re-emphasise the former, particularly by removing some of the loci of conflict that have formed as part of the game: administrative noticeboards, RfA, requests for comment etc, and at least diminishing the system of rewards for playing the game in particular ways -- it's astonishing that people can be seriously considered for what in effect is the nobility when they don't actually do any content construction, just because they play skilfully in areas where they can be noticed.

Also, we could start admitting that creating rules for what will be considered "civil" has resulted in a system where people are fucking horrible to each other within the bounds of the rule, to the point sometimes where the person suffering from the bureaucratitis and arseholery snaps and is uncivil in an oldfashioned way, and that is as much the problem as someone occasionally calling someone else a rude name. I mean, really, which hurts the place more: someone calls you an arsehole or someone cans your article without letting you know, and when you complain in the wrong forum because you don't understand the system, you get drowned in alphabet soup and borderline insane messages on your talkpage? Grace Note (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Thank you. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Polite assholery is much worse than using naughty words. Jehochman 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Concisely said! 100% agree. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Except when naughty words are used to attack or demean someone, then it's as bad or worse. And that's not to diminish the corrosive effect of Polite assholery and passive aggressiveness.

I agree with a lot of what Grace Note says, there are lot's of ways to be incivil and Misplaced Pages has managed to find most of them. But that doesn't mean we can't start in and try to fix it. This place is a bureaucratic nightmare in many ways...and a lot of people are more interested in making and enforcing rules than in working on content. We can make Misplaced Pages a friendlier place by insisting on high levels of civility and by making it easier to contribute to. But we have to start somewhere.

Some people here seem to think this is about Giano, but it really isn't. Misplaced Pages would have the same grinding incivility problem whether he's here or not. RxS (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Honest to God, this wasn't inspired by Giano. (Who I still think writes fantastically good articles and article content.) It was inspired by ridiculously arrogant shitty behaviour on the part of many admins. With added irony, when making civility blocks. What on earth. It's been a consistent ArbCom principle that admins are supposed to set an example; it'd be a nice change for them to actually do so - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All your concerns are entirely valid and relevant. I am under no illusions this would in any way be a magic bullet. What it is, is a tiny approach to a tiny part of the problem, with (I think) hope of good knock-on effects - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm late to the thread it appears, but I'd like to repeat an observation about Misplaced Pages that I know I've made in the past: it's the village that has become a major city. Once upon a time, we could monitor behavior with a note or two on a Talk page, & if that didn't work discuss on WikiEN-l what to do, like a user block. Now we're at the point where not only are most of the regulars strangers to each other, but even the hardcore Admins are strangers to each other. And so we're all treating behaving like New Yorkers in the 1970s -- don't make eye contact, be aware of your surroundings, have your can of mace at the ready, consider every stranger as a potential mugger/rapist/Scientology recruiter. I don't know if this suggestion for more "law & order" will work, although based on my big city analogy I doubt it. We need to figure out a more gentle way, something along the lines of fixing the broken windows. -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DG, trim this down to a Code of Conduct for admins and you will have no opposition. There is no reason for incivility or personal attacks from anyone - but we can debate endlessly the precise definition of same. So get the admin corps to demonstrate leadership, establish the standards, stick to and enforce them amongst themselves. When there is a recognizable ethos extant, it will be easy to extend it to the broad editorship. Clean up the mops first, the floor will become shiny by consequence. Franamax (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you keep this from turning into the "Let's gently poke an admin with a stick over and over and over and over again, while being sure no single poke is overtly uncivil, until he snaps" game? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a few thoughts. I don't think that enough is done to welcome new editors and help them understand how Misplaced Pages works. This can lead to problems, with new users becoming upset at their contributions being reverted or deleted, and no-one bothering to help them improve, rather resorting to warnings and blocks. One far too often sees obviously good faith (but misguided) new editors being greeted with increasing warning templates, with no offers of personal help along the way. I am also concerned that there seems to be an increasing movement to remove the "fun" bits of Misplaced Pages - small bits of userspace or project space that editors use to let off steam, or to get to know each other. People who aren't allowed to "play" together are likely to find it hard to get along when differences of opinion arise. Some concerns have been expressed above that civility policy appears to be enforced against non-admins much more rigorously than it is against admins. My impression is that such concerns are valid. So, in short, we need to do more to help new editors understand how to contribute constructively, we need to remember that Wikipedians are human beings and need to be able to let off steam and relax now and again, and we need to find a way to ensure that those who are trusted by the community to uphold standards actually behave in the way that they expect others to. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Looking back over the last year and a half, I am aware of three major community interventions on the civility front targeted at specific editors who are arguably vested contributors. one type worked. Another type did not work on two separate occasions. Notice that the two that have failed have been the ones where ArbComm has imposed remedies. Given this track record, I don't believe that the tools currently in the ArbComm's kitbag are useful for the problem, and thus don't believe that it is the right way to deal with it. I'd go even further and say that the ArbComm imposed penalties actually have made things worse in both cases. If there were new remedies on the radar screen it might be worth trying them, but merely suggesting we draw an even harder line with remedies that have already failed looks likely to generate more failure, and is thus a bad idea. Find an intervention that works and replicate it, don't replicate failure. GRBerry 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

the reason they did not work is because of the nature of the remedies. I very much would say that much stronger remedies would have prevented further disruption and incivility from at least those particular sources, at least for a considerable time. For the second of them, there were short blocks and narrow topic bans. For the third of them, the remedy was enforced by successive short blocks. Those clearly haven't worked. Do we actually want to get clear of the problem? the sometimes good editing we will lose will be compensated many times by the good editors who will come and stay. DGG (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable position, and one I personally believe is the right solution for long run improvement in the encyclopedia in one of the two cases. In the other case, I think it is the wrong solution for long run improvement. In making my comment below on Lar's recommendation of desysopping, I saw and looked at a few older cases of civility paroles as ArbComm remedies. I did not encounter any case of that remedy working. GRBerry 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For Lar's recommendation of desysopping, which was a possibility in the wings in the RFC that did work, there aren't a lot of ArbComm case examples to go on. 1) In Q3 2007, an admin who had problems of not communicating at all and sometimes being incivil when they did communicate had adminship suspended for 30 days. 2) In Q2 2007 an admin was desysopped for the combination of "abuse of administrative tools" and incivility. 3) In Q4 2006 two admins were desysopped in the same case for the combination of "abuse of administrative tools" and incivility. 4) In Q1 2006 an admin was desysopped for the combination of "abuse of administrative tools" and incivility. Those are the only four relevant cases I can find back through January 2006. Four data points are obviously statistically meaningless, but I see a real pattern there - incivility by admins is considered an aggravating factor when combined with abuse of tools, but on its own has not been treated as particularly serious. GRBerry 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's usually treated as welcome entertainment--the poor little us admins against all the not-us-scum attitude is how it comes across to the ones who aren't laughing. --KP Botany (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This is one of those "looks ok on paper" ideas but IMO in practice it the effect will be to enable civil stick-pokers, to use an image Short Brigade Harvester Boris invoked. There is also the rather impossible-to-work-around issue that what is Civil in town/country/society A is not necessarily Civil in town/country/society B. This will surely lead to huge arguments and/or extensive, anal-retentive rules. Let's not have more db space spent on what is and is not civil. If someone is truly attacking someone, yes we should do something. Blocking often does not work. Banning might work, but should be used only for the most egregious cases. I support the repeated idea that we should set an example. I reject the idea that we should legislate this in some way which is not already in place. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 19:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The irony of this is I've always understood "raising one's tone/voice/tone-of-voice/etc." used interchangeably to mean responding in anger and/or contempt. Or what was it Beldar used to say, "maintain low tones" (in place of the standard fatherly "quit yer bitchin'")… — CharlotteWebb 19:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Lar. I too am strongly in support of stricter civility restrictions on administrators, and feel that administrators who are not setting a good example, should be de-sysopped. Admins are, like it or not, rolemodels within any online community. It's standard community management stuff: New users will observe how more experienced users behave, in order to pick up their own cues on how they should behave. So any administrator who is not behaving to a high standard, is causing far more damage to the project than just to the particular editors who they may be antagonizing. The problem is chronic. Right off the top of my head, I can name multiple administrators whose behavior is, quite simply, appalling. They direct profanity at other users (admin and non-admin), tell people to "fuck off" on their talkpages, and there are plenty of other blatant examples. These examples are not the case of a usually good admin who just has a bad day and snaps at someone on a one-time basis: These are administrators who have a reputation as jerks. I'd like to see the Arbitration Committee take a stronger stance on any admins who present "un-admin-like" behavior. Give the admin a warning, off-wiki or on, tell them that their public behavior needs to improve, and then if the behavior doesn't improve, demote the administrator to normal editor status. The benefits will be immediately apparent: If it's clear that there are consequences for bad behavior, people are more likely to use better manners. But if there are no consequences, there is zero incentive to adopt a better standard of behavior, and telling someone over and over, "Stop being a jerk", will have no effect. However, if there are consequences, then once the administrator community is emulating a better standard of behavior, this will ripple out into the community. Many regular editors will notice if the authority figures are being more careful about their language, and the regulars will start being more careful, and this will further flow out to the rest of the encyclopedia. So yes, let us definitely start with the administrators. --Elonka 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments except for the use of the phrase "demote" to describe removal of admin privileges. Do you feel that admins are a higher rank in Misplaced Pages than non-admins? Perhaps, in reality, they are, but from what I understand, they're not supposed to be. I understood that this was an egalitarian encyclopedia-building effort, not a hierarchical exercise. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Elonka, and I think the word "demote" is (all too) appropriate here. The reason it's such a good idea to focus on admins here is that admins are more powerful than... other users. It's very diificult to get an admin blocked for even rank incivility. A normal editor can get blocked sometimes for just normal crankiness. The difference is power, which comes, on WP, in the form of cliques. Admins should know they can be desysoped for violating NPA -- this hasn't worked in the past because it hasn't really been committed to. There will be a learning curve -- a lot of admins may not believe this is happening. When a few have been warned and then lost their bits (with, I would think in most cases, an option to run again in a year, say), everyone else will fall in line. I can virtually guarantee it. IronDuke 02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Desysopping for personal attacks, really? Attention all admins: please, please use an alternate account when discussing matters other than sports and weather. Or consider the real world, if the police impound your car for littering out the window of it, you'll be littering out the window of the city bus (with a vengeance) next week, because you know the punishment did not fit the crime or come anywhere close to addressing it. This flow-chart sends the clear message that police would prefer a pound of flesh to an ounce of reform. — CharlotteWebb 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your mind reading ability is really amazing. I actually thought these people were looking for reform. But then again I can only read what they decided to post ;) --BirgitteSB 03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What reforms did you have in mind? IronDuke 03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a little guidance and less mockery if it's so obvious to you that it is out of line to desysop administrators for the use of foul language? My mockery would go the other way, because I just don't see the need for administrators to be calling anyone bitch, cunt, fucker, dick. This is the sort of language that goes without anyone batting an eye on Misplaced Pages. There was a noticeboard comment recently by a user complaining about another user calling him/her foul names at AN/I as if it were the first time to consider it, and all prior times had been allowed--huh?.

There's simply no use or need on Misplaced Pages for calling editors names; not for administrators in particular, whether it be repeat offender harrassment accounts or IPs or other foul-mouth editors or anybody. There's no room for it in civil discourse. So, does Misplaced Pages want to be an encyclopedia or a hang-out site?

Administrators have been given a certain level of trust, as evidenced by their greater access to protected pages, deletions, oversighted information. If an administrator has more trust of the community, given to them by the community, and this language is certainly inexcusable for an ordinary editor to use it, why should an administrator be allowed to use this language without consequences? And why is it so awful to remove power from someone abusing it? If you show you can't be trusted to use power in a responsible manner, if you show you don't represent the best of Misplaced Pages, if you show that you can't lead by example, why should you be allowed to continue with the trust of the community that asks you be responsible, represent the best of Misplaced Pages and lead by example, not by demanding and cursing? --KP Botany (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's something to be said for the line of reasoning that administrators set the tone and are therefore responsible for a higher standard of conduct than the average editor. A history of civility tends to be required to pass RFA, but we generally haven't been very good at handling the few cases where matters take a downward turn afterward. A rare outburst or occasional borderline snarks might be understandable, but if an administrator builds up a substantial history of gross profanity and blatant insults, that becomes a problem. And it isn't simply a problem for the unfortunate editors who get targeted directly--it's a problem for the entire admin corps. Because when that behavior goes uncorrected then that lends credibility to trolling claims about corruption and so forth. It doesn't take too much offsite surfing to find those wiki-conspiracy theories. Even though it's generally a tiny minority of administrators who do this, the rest also suffer the consequences of that loss of trust. And that's not right because these are generally our best and most dedicated volunteers. The concept of 'vested contributors' is a problem when people construe it as a licence to be rude--no matter who the editor is. But because of the power administrators wield, it's especially problematic there. Durova 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this downward turn is not just a few cases. I believe any study would show that virtually all users become "meaner" when promoted to admin, if only there were some objective way to measure it. Even something as simple as measuring changes in the number of four-letter words used by Bob or Alice over time would support this conclusion. But one could get more sophisticated with this. Let's say more newcomers quit after interacting with Alice than with Bob. Is Bob better at identifying people who are likely to stick around or does Alice actively scare away potential contributors? Even if one or both of these things are true it wouldn't help determine which one was more suitable for being an admin.

I don't think the downward turn has anything to do with skin-shedding or cake-jumping. Power will always corrupt to some extent, but ever more so when it is measured at collector's value rather than face value. Unfortunately the value of adminship is a matter of dispute. According to the blue book it starts at approximately six buttons to make specific types of database changes based on the perceived will of the community, but then it wanders off into soft sciences of "leadership" such as role-modeling and evaluating consensus and mediating disputes and interpreting unclear policy and enforcing the worst arbcom decisions they can find and declaring article probation or BLP-immunity or topic ban or closed thread or martial law (or whatever magic words arbcom has empowered them with this week where they can't objectively be held accountable for the result). Sure these things are important, but while they require skill (albeit in different areas) they are not rocket science. However they are a de facto part of the "no big deal" package which only continues to grow beyond its needs. Some of the power is delegated from above, but most is abdicated from below.

So as far as social engineering goes I think we're approaching this from the wrong end. I honestly believe if we can stop propagating the view of admins as "super-editors" or the generalization that they are inherently wiser and have better editing/decision-making/"people" skills (RFA doesn't screen for most of this crap, not when the hardest question is usually something like "'Cool-down blocks' are bad, right?"), they might not feel so bloated by entitlement. They'd certainly be under less stress and be less targeted for general harassment based on status. Call me crazy but I believe once they stop believing they're 10 ft. tall and bulletproof the erratic defense mechanism behavior will stop too in most cases.

There will be exceptions I know, but they can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Right now if an admin blocks or reverts another admin it will most likely trigger a megabyte of drama on AN/I if not an arbcom case. I know that's part of the problem too. But if adminship was "no big deal" blocking an admin for insults and personal attacks would be no big deal (of course, the fact that we just had an admin making insults and personal attacks would be no big deal either) but the most relevant differences are that there would be fewer admins making personal attacks because this figure would no longer be astronomically higher than "admins who would make personal attacks regardless of access level" (as is the case now, where much of it is as an unwritten part of the job), and fewer people seeing the admin corps as a collective role model (perhaps also fewer motherless children needing one—or consider what my own mother told me: "be your own damn role model").

So if adminitis makes otherwise civil people act like shitheads why not have them take some time off and recuperate? Well, that wouldn't scale well considering the number of admins who need a vacation and the amount of work the rest of them would be expected to do. The pros and cons of any remedy would have to be weighed, and it wouldn't be fair to punish the select few who haven't gone nuts yet, but if we're going to do this it should at least be kept short, and only considered in concert with something that addresses the problem, rather than its symptoms. — CharlotteWebb 19:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Becoming an admin does not cause people to act meaner. It certainly didn't have that effect on me or any of people I am well-aquainted with. Frankly people learn how to use wiki's by imitation, not by reading instructions. Certainly admins must be the most prolific editors of "Talk" spaces throught the project. So it only makes sense to change the behaivour in those spaces through them. Just as it would make sense to change a standard for mature articles through changing the GA or FAC process.--BirgitteSB 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

First, this section is getting long -- 60 kilobytes. Wow. This has touched a nerve.

Second, Birgitte, the point is not that being an Admin is stressful, it's that frequently Misplaced Pages is stressful. The motto "Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit" means anyone edits it: the kooks, the troublemakers, & the incompetent. If you care about the quality of Misplaced Pages content, you are likely to feel stress over this. And if you are an Admin & care, you will feel stress over this. And if you try to avoid the stress by taking a philosophical view & avoid getting sucked into the Drama de Jour, you are likely to feel guilty over not doing enough to either (1) fight the kooks, troublemakers & incompetent, or (2) help protect the newbies & hapless from grumpy/angry Admins who want to ban everyone & let Jimmy Wales sort the innocent from the guilty. Besides, online communication truly sucks: it is so vague that one has to work hard not to project ones own apprehensions & fears onto other people's posts. -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an incredibly interesting and insightful discussion, but to be fair it probably should be moved somewhere else (with a link left here in its place). I would suggest WT:Civility, but maybe not. Can anyone think of a better location. Would an RFC on the civility policy help, or has that been done already? Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt you could find a big enough rug to sweep it under, but a big enough broom might not exist. — CharlotteWebb 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A formal protest

In both the recently closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PHG and the currently voting Fringe Science case, the Committee is attempting to establish innovative mentorship and voting upon the supposed structure of phantom positions which are not being filled. PHG retired in response to his case decision. As ScienceApologist's actual mentor (the traditional kind, not the parole officer function envisioned by the Committee) I object in the strongest terms to the Committee's mentorship proposals at Fringe Science. Not only are these proposals no good for anyone, they politicize and undermine existing mentorship.

Three proposals are up in the Fringe Science case. The second of these is receiving 6 supports, 2 abstains, and no opposes:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Supervised_Editing
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#Selection of mentors
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision#ScienceApologist supervised

Note the wording of Selection of mentors:

2) Editors placed under supervised editing as defined in remedy 1 are placed under a topic ban on the specified area for the duration of the remedy until and unless a mentor is found that is agreeable to both the editor and the Committee.

Particularly FloNight's comment:

Agree that if an editor does not have an active mentor means that a topic ban should kick-in until one is found. Communicating the lack of mentor should be both the mentor and the user's job if there is a change in status. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This strongly implies that ScienceApologist has no mentor presently. He does; I mentor him. And it is I who balk at the Committee's proposal, not vice versa. Fortunately, editors on both sides of that dispute have been understanding about this very poorly worded proposal and the difficult position it places me in. Newcomers will inevitably arrive, and what shall I say to them when they ask about my role? 'Yes, I mentor SA but not that way. Etc.' This proposal amounts to coercive action: either accept a role that goes against my best judgment or else accept a serious blow to my credibility moving forward. Furthermore, for reasons I have discussed with a few arbitrators privately, it is my strong belief that the Committee's current direction in this matter is undermining other mentorships.

One arbitrator responded that I need not accept the Committee's proposal--as if there were any need to inform me of that option. I had already rejected the Committee's proposal. He knew it when he suggested that, which implies a very large gap in either communication or perception.

This statement goes farther. I have been talking to SA and other mentorees about the concerns here, and they have been understanding: if a third arbitration case proceeds along the same lines as PHG and Fringe Science, I am very seriously considering resigning from all mentorships in protest against the Committee's actions.

Already, unfortunately, this week I have turned down a request for mentorship from a triple crown recipient. It would not be appropriate to take on more mentorees under the present circumstances. It may be possible that some arbitrators are unaware of how serious this issue is. So posting here. Durova 06:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you concerned with the substance of the proposals, or with the terminology? If "mentor" were not used to describe the position being envisioned, in other words, do you believe that the measures would still be damaging to your current work? Kirill  06:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Both. The use of 'mentor' is especially problematic, and rewording that would reduce some of the damage. Overall, though, there is nothing to be gained by voting upon the structure of positions that have no one to fill them. The Committee has enough else on its agenda, and other volunteers are better off if they aren't burdened with risks of good faith confusion afterward. If someone steps forward to volunteer for something along those lines in the future, and all parties find it agreeable, then something can be worked out at that time. Durova 07:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you are reading too much into the the wording of the proposals and my comment. If there is no adequate mentor for an editor, then a topic ban needs to kick in. It should not be a controversial idea that if a mentor is not found, or is unavailable that a topic ban starts in the problematic area. Additionally, the supervised editing proposal is not having a rush of support. I've not been convinced that it is a workable in a volunteer project; and that it is right way to go because the mentor is making content decisions.

Additionally, Durova, do you think that your mentoring of SA has resolved the problems that have cause SA to be an involved party in several arbcom cases and subject to warning and blocks? If not, why not? FloNight♥♥♥ 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not a matter of whether I read too much in, but of whether other editors do. As you know, Flo, I mentor in disputes where AGF is already in tatters. A year ago you had an Israeli-Palestinian disputes arbitration. Since that time the real world aspect of that dispute has degenerated considerably. Now consider this quote of yours:

Mentorships are used to avoid an ArbCom case or a block, so I think that voluntary mentorships need to be evaluated as well as ones arising from sanctions.

in light of this statement:

I too agree, but Jaakobou's mentor and other admins with whom he regularly conducts off wiki chats are ready to jump in to defend him whenever problems emerge. No matter how many editors complain about his editing and no matter how matter policies he violates, he always manages to get away with it.

The tough thing there is that the latter comes from a Palestinian editor I had collaborated with on a good article drive about Palestinian culture. For over a year now I've worked to earn clout with both sides of that dispute, doing several featured picture drives in addition to that article work, and it only takes a few careless words here and there by the arbitrators to undo all those months of hard work. If you think my perception is the problem, by all means continue on the present course. I will withdraw, and in all likelihood another Israeli-Palestinian arbitration case would return to your doorstep before your term ends. It is in anticipation of that and other problems, and in the effort to thwart those developments proactively, that I make this strong protest. You have more to lose than I by dismissing the concern. Durova 23:05, 9 February 2009(UTC)

I should point out that PHG's existing mentor was apparently comfortable with filling the role of adjusting his topic ban. That remedy was actually intended for PHG to edit more pages over time. The Science Apologist case is alarming because the proposal alienates SA's existing mentor, and I wish ArbCom would look into it more (I'm recused in this case). Cool Hand Luke 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Durova, the community works through collaboration. That means thoughtful discussion about issues. We are exchanging information here. It would be helpful if you could share your thoughts and listen to other peoples thoughts so we can work out a solution, okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Flo, you had plenty of opportunity to exchange information at the talk page of the Fringe Science case where I posted numerous times before coming here. You let that opportunity pass by. If you have been following my posts there you already know that I'm not trying to get ScienceApologist out of a topic ban if that's what the Committee wants to do; what I ask is that you refrain from undercutting the mentorship in that dispute and from setting precedents and making statements that undercut it in others. And your recent posts pertinent to mentorship appear to dismiss this declaration from RFAR. It looks very much like your query about the ScienceApologist mentorship is a leading question: it presumes certain things about mentorship that I have explicitly disavowed, and asks me to explain within the terms of that rejected paradigm. Now what is it you're trying to say about collaboration? Durova 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think, Durova, that you are completely misreading both the intent and the function of my proposal. There are cases where editors have difficulties working in a collaborative environment when editing certain topics, but who otherwise have the ability to contribute high quality content. Supervised editing is a method by which an editor, who otherwise would have had to be banned entirely from the topic, would be allowed to edit that topic under the aegis of another — more diplomatic — editor who could run interference. It's not optimal, and it does place "shackles" on the editor to some degree, but if a working relationship can be established it's an opportunity to avoid the topic ban that would be the alternative.

Now, I quite understand that you may not feel comfortable in a relationship with an editor you mentor where you would need to take on "policing" aspects; and indeed there is no suggestion that you need or require to take on that role in any way. But truth be told, I don't feel confident that ScienceApologist will be able to keep out of trouble without a strong measure, and that method was constructed as an alternative to the topic ban he would otherwise be placed under.

You argue that the proposal undermines your work at mentoring SA; I fail to see how. The alternative is that he is placed under a topic ban, which is also the default result of this proposal unless a suitable "mentor" (I am open to different terminology, I just failed to find something more appropriate). I would much rather find a way that allows SA to keep editing all topics related to science, even if it is under some restrictions, than loose his positive contributions entirely. Whether SA is placed under supervised editing or a topic ban does not undo the guidance you have been giving him; and continued ability to edit will be all the more productive. — Coren  02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coren and I have discussed this offsite and have come to an understanding. This thread can be closed as resolved. A few words first if that's all right (Coren may wish to share some too).

It is not so much my reading of the substance or intent that is at issue, as interpretations by third parties who are unfamiliar with the full circumstances. That can become a very serious problem. Arbitration is not easy; nor is mentorship at highly contentious disputes. Our shared goal is to set editors onto productive paths and stabilize tense disputes. When mentorship fails, arbitration is a likely result; when it succeeds, more featured content may result. We both want to maximize the successes. And we both have valuable input and perspectives on what can be effective in that regard. Durova 00:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have little to add to Durova's eloquent summary; but I should point out that one of the turning points of the problem is the unfortunate association between supervised editing as an alternative to more stringent sanctions and mentoring (which is, emphatically, not meant to be a "get out of jail free card"). Most of the confusion is caused by the reuse of "mentor" as the term for the position, but I have yet to find a good alternative. I have considered "Chaperone", but while it originally meant exactly the right thing in context, the cultural association with dour portly matrons and school dances make it a poor choice. I welcome suggestions for a better name. — Coren  02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The basic proposal is for supervised editing. You might look in your thesaurus for synonyms of "supervisor". Alterantively, look at alternatives of "attendant" or "reviewer" and antonyms of "enabler". GRBerry 02:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mine lists administrator, boss, brass hat, caretaker, chief, curator, custodian, director, executive, foreperson, head, inspector, manager, overseer, slave driver, straw boss, super, superintendent, and zookeeper; which range from not-quite-right to downright offensive. Other I've looks at are adviser, coach, counsellor, guide, instructor, teacher, trainer, and tutor; only the last of which seem vaguely on point. — Coren  02:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Parole officer? — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Should go well with the concept not being a "get out of jail free card" ...

Repeat request

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment.2FMattisse_3 --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've posted a note there. Hopefully that'll ease the situation. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Proposed Policy / Body

Just thought I'd mention WP:Review Board here, which is proposed something-or-other (policy / process / body etc.) to be set up by arbcom. Privatemusings (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)on my on behalf.. with the hope that this is useful.. hope I'm not ignoring any rules!

Dmcdevit resumes Oversight and Checkuser access

Original Announcement

• Support, thought he already was one :-) the wub "?!" 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Just so all are aware, he now goes by the username "Dominic" which, I assume, is his first name in the real world. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • He was renamed to Dominic, yes. Carcharoth (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

IRC liaison appointment deferred indefinitely

Original announcement

CU/OS Elections are ending tonight!

The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:59 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES  13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election - results

Announcement

I would like to extend my personal thanks to all of the candidates for being courageous enough to help trial a very different way of selecting candidates for these two permissions. This endeavour brought out a whole new meaning to the phrase be bold! Risker (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And an excellent turnout, if I do say so myself. Had some really good candidates running - some more qualified than others, but all very talented and worthy of merit. We have several new hands that I'm positive will prove to be highly beneficial. I wonder, though, when will the next CU/OS election be (perhaps it's an annual event)? Master&Expert (Talk) 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The intent is to fill vacancies at least yearly, I believe, but the process is meant to be invoked "as needed". — Coren  20:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for harping on on this subject, but could you clarify this comment? Is this "yearly, or more often as required" or "as often as required, which will probably end up being yearly"? There's a distinction, and I think the latter stance is healthier. ] 20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter; if the current number of rights holder is adequate then there is no reason to hold elections at all, but normal attrition and increasing workload might create a need for some seats being filled — in which case we'd probably look at replenishing once a year or so. — Coren  00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ] 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of Chergles

Original announcement

Why did this need a vote? Viridae 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because otherwise there would have been accusations of unilateralism and secrecy. They really can't win, can they? Happy‑melon 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

<nods>. Though there may be a valid question of whether ArbCom needed to deal with this at all (as in someone else might have been able to deal with it). From what I saw, it was more a case of all the evidence being pulled together into one place, and ArbCom was the most convenient place to collate the evidence. If any single admin or CU had all the evidence, they could just as easily have done this block, but this way the block has the force of 12 arbitrators who have reviewed the evidence. The vote is more to demonstrate that it was not just one or two people who looked at this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up. Durova 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Was this approach similar to the one employed to get unblocked in October 2007? If Ryulong is around, it would be good to know why he blocked back in June 2007. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan-Armenia

You folks are going to get another messy case if we can't get things under control. Have a look at WP:AE and the appalling number of threads about this topic. Here is the help that I need: a checkuser needs to camp on the most fought over articles and start checkusering every new account or IP that pops in to do mass reverts. I don't have the time to fight fires at WP:AE and fill out RFCU paperwork all day long whilst fending off a passel of tendentious editors who wikilawyer and game the system against anyone who tries to stop them. Please, invest a little time now to save a lot of time later. Jehochman 17:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want a checkuser, you could e-mail checkuser-l or functionaries-l. The address for the latter is at WP:ARBCOM. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The various tag teams are already stirring up trouble against my enforcement efforts. AA3 will be coming to you shortly, unless a few others are willing to pitch in and help. Feel free to email the list if you wish. The great shortcomings of ArbCom have been non-decisions that can't be enforced. Rather than discretionary sanctions, I think ArbCom needs to identify the problem users and ban them. These intractable problems should be resolved, not fobbed off on the admin corps. Jehochman 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC) and 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Temporary desysops

Regarding John Vandenberg's comment at RFAR:

Decline per bainer. ANI is working; DRV is the next step, and RFC may also help. Also, I agree with Rlevse and Coren that a swift desysop, perhaps temporary, will be likely if the issues that Rlevse mentions are left unattended and result in a RFAR. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the line of reasoning that looks like This person is a seriously problematic administrator, and hasn't taken feedback on board or changed, and I don't trust them with the tools right now. But six months from now, with no review, they should use the tools much better. Not to call out John Vandenberg in particular; this is merely the most recent instance. So, wondering in what cases that approach has really been successful and what percentage that represents of temporary desysops with automatic reinstatment. If it's successful 80% of the time then it's a sensible approach. What's the track record for this remedy? Durova 18:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To me this reads more like, "This administrator has a few issues that I feel can be and are being dealt with through other venues. However, if his or her actions continue and the issue arises to this point again, a swift desysopping is all but guaranteed." Is that not what is meant? --Ali'i 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm questioning the notion of a temporary desysop. Does that approach work? Durova 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Misunderstood your question. I'll leave it to the pros to respond. --Ali'i 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust is not a boolean value. When somebody's trust is going downhill, a temporary desysopping may motivate them to change behavior if they are not listening to feedback. Jehochman 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Has it worked? After five years of ArbCom, there should be enough of a history to crunch the numbers. Durova 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They have not done temporary sysop access removals before, except for the fairly recent case of SlimVirgin, as far as I know. A while back I compiled a list of all the sanctions that had been implemented by ArbCom. During that exercise I read through most of the old decisions. Jehochman 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The last two cases I can think of with short-term desysoppings were RfAr/InShaneee (10-day desysopping; user left the project, apparently as a result of either the suspension or the arbitration case) and RfAr/Jeffrey O. Gustafson (30-day desysopping; user said that he had gotten the message and that the suspension works, but we haven't seen too much of him lately either). Before that, there were a couple of short-term suspensions in the Brandt deletion wheel war case. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests (WP:RFAR/C) contains what is supposed to be a complete list of all historical arbitration cases and remedies, if anyone wants to survey this more thoroughly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of February 26

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny

Original announcement

Question on CU/OS

Alison (talk · contribs) just resigned from CheckUser and Oversight. Nearly every time I have ever emailed the Oversight list, she has been the person to respond, and according to Wikipedia_talk:CHECKUSER#Checkuser_usage, she does/did about 20-25% of all checkusers. Will the committee be appointing people to fill her roles? For oversight it is easy enough to pick the next person from User:ST47/CUOS 2009 for Oversight, EdJohnston (talk · contribs), but the next person for checkuser would be Kingturtle (talk · contribs) who failed by 2.6% and 6 votes. Will new checkuser elections be held? Will the oversight elections be re-run? Thanks. MBisanz 23:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, we would rather not overload the community with another election this soon after the latest (including the fact that we want to analyze the election process itself to see if it can be improved before the next iteration). At this time, while the loss of Alison is regrettable and will be felt, I think we have an adequate number of oversighters — especially after the newbies get in the rythm — and I don't think there is an urgent need to fill the seat. Mind you, we'll be keeping an eye on the workload and the queue times with an eye to readjusting that evaluation if we notice something amiss. — Coren  00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Alison will most definitely be missed. But thanks to the elections, we don't really have any shortage of good CU's or oversights. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay makes sense, but we also just lost Kylu (talk · contribs), so Arbcom may need to act sooner or later on the checkuser front. MBisanz 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We will keep a close eye on the situation, including the response time for oversight and urgent checkuser requests. Personally I might be inclined to make a couple of appointments if there is a growth in the backlog, but we have probably created an expectation that future appointees will have been elected (either directly as checkusers/oversighters, or as arbitrators), such that there would be howls if we changed paths.

This is one of a number of places where I want to express my thanks for Alison's exceptionally hard work in these capacities. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Original announcement

Ireland article names

Regarding remedy 2 of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Remedies: On January 26, I accepted the appointment as a moderator. Two weeks ago I started a wikibreak because I need more time for things that are important in my live now. I tried to honor my commitment by sporadically showing up just for the Ireland question, but I now realize that this is not practical, and I made an announcement at WT:IECOLL#Resignation. In reply, someone proposed that I should ask an arbitrator to join instead of me. I think this makes sense, as ArbCom is very familiar with the issue, and an arbitrator would enjoy a position of authority, which seems to be needed at the moment. — Sebastian 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)