Gerard outlines "How to raise the tone of the wiki", Satire - nay irony itself - is dead Options

[Kato]

David Gerard outlines his proposal to "raise the tone of the wiki". The proposal includes:

That is:

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

As if these ironic blockbusters were not enough, Gerard adds:

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.

Gerard, voted this year's Dick of Distinction for his unstoppable obnoxiousness, has broken the new record of lack-of-self-aware irony, previously held by Jossi.

I mean, lets take a look at some of Gerard's handywork. This one was so bad it made The Register magazine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157139762

[gomi]

But if Wavy Davy Gerard were to grace us with his presence, he would no doubt say:

A personal attack in the defense of Wikipedia is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of enemies of the Wiki is no virtue!

Why, I have here in my hand a list of 327 card-carrying members of Wikipedia Review. This menace has invaded the inner sanctum of the Wiki we hold dear. We must root out these communists trolls and vandals and .......

[Bottled_Spider]

I'm almost convinced Gerard is taking the piss with all this. So far he's included these descriptive little pieces re. his fellow Wikipedo's :

"blithering stupidity", "socially inept", and "a sufficient number of Wikipedian (sic) act enough like arseholes".

And this 'Carcharoth' person. Has he no self-respect? Imagine mixing with Dave. Wank.

But if Wavy Davy Gerard were to grace us with his presence, he would no doubt say:

"Fuck. I clicked on the wrong link. Help!"

[Lar]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing.

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others. Hence maybe instead of starting by listing names, starting by saying there's a problem is the way to go.

And if only perfectly civil folk can point out that the level of discourse has deteriorated, then nothing will ever happen, as there ain't none such.

Finally, if ArbCom plans to actually take some action about it, and take action by starting with admins, I'm all for it.

[Kelly Martin]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing.

Or you could laugh because you know that there's a problem that needs fixing, and that David Gerard is a big part of the problem. Somehow, I doubt he'll be one of the first lined up before the wall.

[dtobias]

But in your comments there, you endorsed Tom Harrison, whose essay seems to me to be rather sexist (presuming women to be helpless damsels in distress who should stay away from anywhere where things might get nasty, and men to be the sort of louts who make things nasty), and validating the drama-queen-ism against "harassment" as practiced a couple of years ago by SlimVirgin & co., as well as the BADSITES idiocy ("And God forbid we should tell people not to link sites that attack our volunteers.").

[Lar]

But in your comments there, you endorsed Tom Harrison, whose essay seems to me to be rather sexist (presuming women to be helpless damsels in distress who should stay away from anywhere where things might get nasty, and men to be the sort of louts who make things nasty), and validating the drama-queen-ism against "harassment" as practiced a couple of years ago by SlimVirgin & co., as well as the BADSITES idiocy ("And God forbid we should tell people not to link sites that attack our volunteers.").

I endorsed:

"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."

I make no comment on his essay. Just that it's been "a concern of mine" too. Maybe I need to clarify that because I don't necessarily either intend to endorse or disendorse his essay. I have had significant differences with Tom harrison over the years... doesn't mean I don't agree with that particular phrasing.

[Bottled_Spider]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but ....

I make no comment on his essay.
I don't necessarily either intend to endorse or disendorse his essay.
I have had significant differences with Tom harrison over the years... doesn't mean I don't agree with that particular phrasing.

Jeeeeeeeesus! You're the interwebs forum equivalent of fish & chips without salt, vinegar & brown sauce.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others. Hence maybe instead of starting by listing names, starting by saying there's a problem is the way to go.

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

[Lar]

Jeeeeeeeesus! You're the interwebs forum equivalent of fish & chips without salt, vinegar & brown sauce.

"His blandness goes to 11!"

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

There better not be, or I've been played for a sap again.

(stop the presses, sun rises in the east, film at 11)

[Kelly Martin]

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

DING DING DING DING DING DING
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

There better not be, or I've been played for a sap again.

Imagine that.

[Cla68]

David Gerard outlines his proposal to "raise the tone of the wiki". The proposal includes:

That is:

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

I think David Gerard is right, and if he means it I think he should be willing and able for his own behavior to be held up as an example of how not to behave around the project.

[GlassBeadGame]

David Gerard outlines his proposal to "raise the tone of the wiki". The proposal includes:

That is:

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

I think David Gerard is right, and if he means it I think he should be willing and able for his own behavior to be held up as an example of how not to behave around the project.

Yes, civility is only for inside the hive. Outside Wikipedians are encouraged to dance on other people's skulls.

[gomi]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing. David Gerard and I have had our differences ... but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

I will choose the "laughter" option, because -- in at least this case -- in addition to your blandness you are joining Gerard in being monumentally full of BS.

If of all the problems that plague Wikipedia, you believe that "personal attacks" are chief among them, then you live in the same la-la land as Wavy Davy. Wikipedia utterly scholarly and intellectually bankrupt? That's a problem! A sack of misinformation, lies, and defamation about individuals? That's a problem! A culture of ban-happy, circle-the-wagons administrators, with no checks, no balances, no term limits, and no accountability? That's a problem. Partisan editors pushing political and social agendas while protected by an admin bit? That's a problem. But people being rude to you online? Not. Get a grip.

You want to deal with rudeness from the entrenched boob-ocracy? Dispossess them. Make it real mop-and-bucket work, and make it temporary. There is no number of Gianos you can "make an example of" that will improve Wikipedia half as much as doing so to a Jayjg or two.

[Kato]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing.

I'll laugh. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[EricBarbour]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

As soon as Gerard admits, IN PUBLIC, that HE was the source of many
of these PR disasters, I'll give him more credit.

Until then, as he himself said:

:I've made it a hard block again, because Judd Bagley or a minion was right back again using it. Also, I can see lots of usernames through the IP, but most or all are Bagley/overstock.com. (ps: Fuck off, Bagley.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What is with you, Larry? Do you come here to invite us to mock you?
Surely you know by now that statements like the above will open you to belittlement?

[Bottled_Spider]

David Gerard and I have had our differences over the years but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

What is with you, Larry? Do you come here to invite us to mock you?
Surely you know by now that statements like the above will open you to belittlement?

Right! And make people say "That Lars is a mentalist!!!"

[Lar]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing. David Gerard and I have had our differences ... but he's right about this. Maybe none of us are very good at looking at ourselves in the mirror, and better at recognising it when we see it in others.

I will choose the "laughter" option, because -- in at least this case -- in addition to your blandness you are joining Gerard in being monumentally full of BS.

If of all the problems that plague Wikipedia, you believe that "personal attacks" are chief among them, then you live in the same la-la land as Wavy Davy. Wikipedia utterly scholarly and intellectually bankrupt? That's a problem! A sack of misinformation, lies, and defamation about individuals? That's a problem! A culture of ban-happy, circle-the-wagons administrators, with no checks, no balances, no term limits, and no accountability? That's a problem. Partisan editors pushing political and social agendas while protected by an admin bit? That's a problem. But people being rude to you online? Not. Get a grip.

You want to deal with rudeness from the entrenched boob-ocracy? Dispossess them. Make it real mop-and-bucket work, and make it temporary. There is no number of Gianos you can "make an example of" that will improve Wikipedia half as much as doing so to a Jayjg or two.

Most of this isn't just directed at Gomi...

It's **a** problem. It's not the biggest. Not by far (and problems are part of systems, you don't fix any one problem in isolation)... I put BLP way above it.

But there seems to be a lot of complaining here about people being massively toxic over there... isn't that a good fraction of, say, the JzG subforum is about? Isn't it a good fraction of the criticism of quite a few admins and functionaries? Toxic is not good. Anywhere. It drives people away, people who maybe came to WP to see why their BLP is messed up and have no idea they are sticking their hand in a buzzsaw. So ya, it needs fixing. And admins are the place to start. They're supposed to set an example. Better them than random content writers. They want the buttons they can damn well hold up some standards.

So someone over there is saying maybe let's fix it. ... and some other voices are saying yes, you're right, it is a problem. You think they're wrong, there's no problem? You think the people saying "what problem" are right? You're confused. Be glad someone spoke up. Maybe something will happen. Maybe it will fizzle out like so much else. But if you want a perfect person to fix it, you need a plastic jesus to come to life for you and tackle it. Ain't gonna happen.

Maybe that makes me a sap. Oh well. I'm a sap. You don't like it? Kiss my ass.

Maybe that makes me a target for mockery. That's really big of you wankers... if that's the best you got, you need to get different hobbies. Because a lot of you can just go fuck yourselves, you're getting realllllly tiresome. All complaining and no action.

How's that for some incivility? Good thing this ain't WP, innit?

Right! And make people say "That Lars is a mentalist!!!"

Singular, numbskull. It's Lar, short for Larry. Not Lars. Misstating people's names means you're either stupid or you can't come up with a better insult.

Yes, civility is only for inside the hive. Outside Wikipedians are encouraged to dance on other people's skulls.

That was a stupid ass thing to say and he should never have said it, and should go apologise for saying it.

[gomi]

Maybe that makes me a target for mockery. That's really big of you wankers... you need to get different hobbies.

No, if I wanted to mock you, I would have said something about staring at tiny plastic blocks for too long, and the addling effect that would seem to have had. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

In truth, as seemingly the only important Wikipedian who is not a closeted spy, a zoophile, a polygamist, a NAMBLA and/or Orange Order member, or (*gasp*) an attorney, you normally are a paragon of reasonableness. Thus the surprise at your common cause with David Gerard.

[everyking]

I commend Gerard for making this proposal and I agree that the time has come to take a firm stand against incivility. The necessary first step, of course, is to ban David Gerard. Then we can stop, assess, and determine whether any further measures are necessary.

[Bottled_Spider]

Right! And make people say "That Lars is a mentalist!!!"

Singular, numbskull. It's Lar, short for Larry. Not Lars. Misstating people's names means you're either stupid or you can't come up with a better insult.

Message received loud 'n' clear, Lars. Clear as an unmuddied lake; as an azure sky of deepest summer. If there's one thing I can't stand it's some numbskull that misstates someone's name just to get a cheap laugh. So don't you worry, Larsy - it'll never happen again. You can rely on me!

[LaraLove]

You can laugh, or you can get behind the notion that there's a problem and it needs fixing.

And if only perfectly civil folk can point out that the level of discourse has deteriorated, then nothing will ever happen, as there ain't none such.

Finally, if ArbCom plans to actually take some action about it, and take action by starting with admins, I'm all for it.

It's a problem in the way it's unevenly enforced. Some of the examples given, however, like pointing out that there are a lot of asshole admins, is not a personal attack. It happens to be a fact. There are also plenty of people who refrain from making personal attacks who could present such a proposal. NYB or Jayvdb, for example, would not elicit uncontrollable laughter from readers as is the case with it coming from Gerard, who is quite possibly the most uncivil, shameful character on Wikipedia.

Civility isn't the issue either. The utopian civility policy is bullshit. People cannot be expected to be polite all of the time, especially on a project like Wikipedia. If people cannot vent their frustrations and anger at people with whom they are having issues, they bottle it up and eventually go batshit insane. The bigger issue is the fragile little flowers on Wikipedia that claim to be men but cry like toddlers when someone says something to hurt their widdle feewings. As the_undertow frequently pointed out, there's is no policy that says you have the right to be unoffended. If you (and this is anyone in general) are an asshole admin and find yourself offended by someone saying "there are too many asshole admins", then you'd be best to go cry in the shower and stfu on-wiki. We shouldn't be coddling hypocrites with such delicate sensibilities.

Lastly, it should not start with just admins. It should start with those in positions higher than admins. It should start, as so many have already pointed out, with Gerard himself.

<snip>
Maybe that makes me a sap. Oh well. I'm a sap. You don't like it? Kiss my ass.

Maybe that makes me a target for mockery. That's really big of you wankers... if that's the best you got, you need to get different hobbies. Because a lot of you can just go fuck yourselves, you're getting realllllly tiresome. All complaining and no action.
<snip>
Singular, numbskull. It's Lar, short for Larry. Not Lars. Misstating people's names means you're either stupid or you can't come up with a better insult.

People, people... you're not supposed to push the red button!

[LaraLove]

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 - Wiki me up® 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to see Fayssal dismiss Gerard's "fuck off" edit as a lone lapse of judgment for the year. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/thumbsdown.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

Civility isn't the issue either. The utopian civility policy is bullshit. People cannot be expected to be polite all of the time, especially on a project like Wikipedia. If people cannot vent their frustrations and anger at people with whom they are having issues, they bottle it up and eventually go batshit insane.

Relationships that exist exclusively on Wikipedia are not, in any meaningful sense, relationships. It follows from this that ingredients that may indeed be critical to real relationships - including the emotional and frank discussion of feelings - aren't usually necessary on Wikipedia. Moreover, even if you do feel the need to be hostile with somebody you "know" on Wikipedia, why on earth would you insist on doing so on-wiki for all to see? The only explanation I can think of is that you want everyone to see it, because being the dramatic centre of attention is the primary goal of the exercise.

(The "you" above is the generic "you", incidentally - the one synonymous with "one", only less pompous. I'm not aware that you were problematic in this regard back in your Wikipedia days.)

If people need to vent, fine; let them vent, and then, when they're finished, they can log back on to Wikipedia. Requesting some basic level of politeness in what is nominally a collaborative effort to assemble an information resource is not unreasonable.

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

This isn't an unreasonable hypothesis, but I'll be more inclined to believe it if somebody can tell me who these inconvenient voices are (bearing in mind that Gerard's been firm about starting with admins).

[dtobias]

If people cannot vent their frustrations and anger at people with whom they are having issues, they bottle it up and eventually go batshit insane.

...or they come here to WR, a useful place for venting frustrations, but also where the truly batshit insane can be found as well.

The bigger issue is the fragile little flowers on Wikipedia that claim to be men but cry like toddlers when someone says something to hurt their widdle feewings.

Though there are some who claim that it's the women who are fragile, helpless damsels in distress who need protection by the gallant enlightened men against hurt feelings caused by the rest of the male population who are all obnoxious louts.

[LaraLove]

Relationships that exist exclusively on Wikipedia are not, in any meaningful sense, relationships. It follows from this that ingredients that may indeed be critical to real relationships - including the emotional and frank discussion of feelings - aren't usually necessary on Wikipedia. Moreover, even if you do feel the need to be hostile with somebody you "know" on Wikipedia, why on earth would you insist on doing so on-wiki for all to see? The only explanation I can think of is that you want everyone to see it, because being the dramatic centre of attention is the primary goal of the exercise.

(The "you" above is the generic "you", incidentally - the one synonymous with "one", only less pompous. I'm not aware that you were problematic in this regard back in your Wikipedia days.)

If people need to vent, fine; let them vent, and then, when they're finished, they can log back on to Wikipedia. Requesting some basic level of politeness in what is nominally a collaborative effort to assemble an information resource is not unreasonable.

There's a good number of people that don't do off-wiki communication. One editor, for example, refused to use email or other forms of off-wiki communication because he's afraid someone will track his ass down. So, much needed discussion never took place between us.

As far as my days on wiki, I had my emotional moments of uncivil outbursts. Not because I sought attention, but because I was pissed off and some assholes needed to be put in their place. Also, my talk page was known as a free zone from the civility (not NPA) police. It's all pretty well explained on my current user page intro.

As long as the project is stupidly open to every 10-year-old, their brain-dead pot-smoking older brother, insane mother and quack dad, you can't expect people to "collaborate" peacefully. What needs to be dealt with is the polite POV pushers. The people who have no idea about the topic they guard, so civilly arguing their wrong points.

Also, it's worth pointing out that all these cries about general incivility being personal attacks is not helping anything. The definition of "personal attack" is "referring or directed to a particular person in a disparaging or offensive sense or manner, usually involving character, behavior, appearance." Therefore, saying "Fuck those people" (as is stated and labeled a PA in the wiki discussion) is not a personal attack, as "those people" have not been specified as any particular individuals. It is merely uncivil.

The bigger issue is the fragile little flowers on Wikipedia that claim to be men but cry like toddlers when someone says something to hurt their widdle feewings.

Though there are some who claim that it's the women who are fragile, helpless damsels in distress who need protection by the gallant enlightened men against hurt feelings caused by the rest of the male population who are all obnoxious louts.

Oh my god. Let me dig through pages and find all the men that cried like whinny little girls because I hurt their feelings. Holy hell. Lara, the mean playground bully. There are far more whinny men on that project than women. If these people would just suck it up and move on, there would be far fewer problems.

[JoseClutch]

Though its entirely thinkable there's a list of names already, and this little essay is nothing more than positioning to use "civility" as a lever to push out some inconvenient voices.

This isn't an unreasonable hypothesis, but I'll be more inclined to believe it if somebody can tell me who these inconvenient voices are (bearing in mind that Gerard's been firm about starting with admins).

Indeed, an actual crackdown on admin behavior is something I could sign up for. Even if it cost me my own bit. But more than once bitten ...

[Sarcasticidealist]

There's a good number of people that don't do off-wiki communication. One editor, for example, refused to use email or other forms of off-wiki communication because he's afraid someone will track his ass down. So, much needed discussion never took place between us.

Sure. But I trust that you won't claim that most of the public incivility on Wikipedia is the result of people refusing to enable the "E-mail this user" option.

As long as the project is stupidly open to every 10-year-old, their brain-dead pot-smoking older brother, insane mother and quack dad, you can't expect people to "collaborate" peacefully.

I'd agree with that. But what's to be gained by incivility?

What needs to be dealt with is the polite POV pushers. The people who have no idea about the topic they guard, so civilly arguing their wrong points.

Agreed. But is the solution to make the whole place really unpleasant in the hopes that they'll leave. Sarc's First Rule of Non-Profit Governance (which can also be applied to the Wikipedia community) is that the most insane person always wins. If you turn Wikipedia into a hellishly unpleasant environment, who's going to be the last one standing? It won't be the people with balanced lives, outside interests, and the ability to gain respect for their views in mainstream environments.

Also, it's worth pointing out that all these cries about general incivility being personal attacks is not helping anything. The definition of "personal attack" is "referring or directed to a particular person in a disparaging or offensive sense or manner, usually involving character, behavior, appearance." Therefore, saying "Fuck those people" (as is stated and labeled a PA in the wiki discussion) is not a personal attack, as "those people" have not been specified as any particular individuals. It is merely uncivil.

I agree that there's a distinction. I just don't agree that incivility serves any legitimate purpose on Wikipedia.

[LaraLove]

Indeed, an actual crackdown on admin behavior is something I could sign up for. Even if it cost me my own bit. But more than once bitten ...

Another one of my reasons for heading out is because it was becoming increasingly difficult for me to watch my words. Rather than spend my time there spewing venom, I decided it was time to head out.

There's a good number of people that don't do off-wiki communication. One editor, for example, refused to use email or other forms of off-wiki communication because he's afraid someone will track his ass down. So, much needed discussion never took place between us.

Sure. But I trust that you won't claim that most of the public incivility on Wikipedia is the result of people refusing to enable the "E-mail this user" option.

O, of course not. Some people just need to be put in their place at times.

As long as the project is stupidly open to every 10-year-old, their brain-dead pot-smoking older brother, insane mother and quack dad, you can't expect people to "collaborate" peacefully.

I'd agree with that. But what's to be gained by incivility?

Here's the thing. It's human nature for people to disagree and argue. There's a difference in incivility and what people on wiki cry incivility for. If I tell you "You're wrong!" Well, some people consider that uncivil. That's incorrect. Also, just because someone uses some profanity when they are upset does not necessarily have to be considered a blockable offense. If someone is upset and proclaims "This is bullshit!" While uncivil, it's not necessary for everyone else to make a big deal of it... but people do for some users, though not all.

It reminds me of an RFC for someone who'd retired and put in their retirement banner that they were sick of stupid admins or something. I forget the exact wording, but it was deemed an attack page because one admin assumed it was directed at him. Completely stupid. It validated the point being made in the banner, called attention to the admin that no one would have ever connected the statement to, and was basically a prime example of over-sensitivity by men on the project. Sexist essay writers should read that RFC. I'll try to find the link.

What needs to be dealt with is the polite POV pushers. The people who have no idea about the topic they guard, so civilly arguing their wrong points.

Agreed. But is the solution to make the whole place really unpleasant in the hopes that they'll leave.

Surely not, but it also shouldn't be expected to be rainbows and butterflies all the time. I don't think Wikipedia should become the online version of the Wild West, but it also shouldn't be expected to be some hippie knoll in the springtime.

[Sarcasticidealist]

O, of course not. Some people just need to be put in their place at times.

Publicly? Or only publicly if privately isn't possible?

Here's the thing. It's human nature for people to disagree and argue. There's a difference in incivility and what people on wiki cry incivility for. If I tell you "You're wrong!" Well, some people consider that uncivil. That's incorrect. Also, just because someone uses some profanity when they are upset does not necessarily have to be considered a blockable offense. If someone is upset and proclaims "This is bullshit!" While uncivil, it's not necessary for everyone else to make a big deal of it... but people do for some users, though not all.

I don't know of anyone who would claim "You're wrong" is uncivil. If such people do in fact exist, all I could say to them is "You're wrong." As for profanity, it's not in and of itself uncivil - "This is bullshit" isn't inherently uncivil, I don't think, unless the implication is "What person X is saying is bullshit", in which case it probably is. But either way, what's the point of saying "This is bullshit"? What end does it accomplish?

It reminds me of an RFC for someone who'd retired and put in their retirement banner that they were sick of stupid admins or something. I forget the exact wording, but it was deemed an attack page because one admin assumed it was directed at him. Completely stupid. It validated the point being made in the banner, called attention to the admin that no one would have ever connected the statement to, and was basically a prime example of over-sensitivity by men on the project. Sexist essay writers should read that RFC. I'll try to find the link.

You're thinking of Law Lord's RFC, I believe (I'm quite partial to Law Lord, because he was one of a small handful of users to display my election userbox on his page during the last WMF Trustee election). He said he was tired of impolite admins, not stupid ones. And yes, I agree, there was no incivility there. And there will always be reasonable disagreements over what is and isn't uncivil. I'm not defending the proposition that incivility is easily and unambiguously identifiable; I am defending the proposition that Gerard and Lar are both right when they say one of Wikipedia's problems (ranking, as Lar said, well below some of its other problems) is that people are allowed to be chronically and persistently unpleasant.

Surely not, but it also shouldn't be expected to be rainbows and butterflies all the time. I don't think Wikipedia should become the online version of the Wild West, but it also shouldn't be expected to be some hippie knoll in the springtime.

I don't believe I've ever been seriously accused of incivility, but I'm even more sure that I'm never been accused of being a peace and love style hippie. I find Jimbo's more saccharine pronouncements to be as nauseating as you likely do, but I prefer them to "Fuck off, Bagley" and the like.

[LaraLove]

O, of course not. Some people just need to be put in their place at times.

Publicly? Or only publicly if privately isn't possible?

Honestly, in many cases, publicly. I think it is often necessary that others see that someone else has said what they were thinking.

I don't know of anyone who would claim "You're wrong" is uncivil. <snip> But either way, what's the point of saying "This is bullshit"? What end does it accomplish?

I really, really wish I had the diffs on hand. Twice I've seen editors cry that telling someone they were wrong in a content dispute was uncivil. Completely stupid, but a true story.

<snip> And there will always be reasonable disagreements over what is and isn't uncivil. I'm not defending the proposition that incivility is easily and unambiguously identifiable; I am defending the proposition that Gerard and Lar are both right when they say one of Wikipedia's problems (ranking, as Lar said, well below some of its other problems) is that people are allowed to be chronically and persistently unpleasant.

This is my concern. I don't believe it is often "reasonable disagreements" when it comes to debating whether or not a comment is uncivil. Also, Gerard's proposal seems to be aimed at personal attacks, which is precisely what I spoke of above. Conflating incivility and personal attacks is a chronic problem on Wikipedia. So that presents two clear and guaranteed issues. Editors who can't distinguish between the two, and those who can't even identify incivility from personally offensive remarks.

I agree that it is a problem as well. I didn't mean to give the impression that I didn't. But I don't think that Gerard is the one that should be presenting it, rather he should be the first example, and I don't agree with Lar making admins the target. I think it should start further up the chain.

[Lar]

I agree that it is a problem as well. I didn't mean to give the impression that I didn't. But I don't think that Gerard is the one that should be presenting it, rather he should be the first example, and I don't agree with Lar making admins the target. I think it should start further up the chain.

Further up the chain? That works for me too.

Message received loud 'n' clear, Lars. Clear as an unmuddied lake; as an azure sky of deepest summer. If there's one thing I can't stand it's some numbskull that misstates someone's name just to get a cheap laugh. So don't you worry, Larsy - it'll never happen again. You can rely on me!

I knew I could rely on you... and you came through! Thanks! I just wanted to make sure others knew I could rely on you too.

[Bottled_Spider]

Message received loud 'n' clear, Lars. Clear as an unmuddied lake; as an azure sky of deepest summer. If there's one thing I can't stand it's some numbskull that misstates someone's name just to get a cheap laugh. So don't you worry, Larsy - it'll never happen again. You can rely on me!

I knew I could rely on you... and you came through! Thanks! I just wanted to make sure others knew I could rely on you too.

Your mission of making sure that others knew you could rely on me too has been 100% successful, Mr. Deltoid Lars, me old droogster! Cheers!

[Eva Destruction]

Sometimes Wikipedia is beyond parody.

[Kato]

Sometimes Wikipedia is beyond parody.

Keith Richards is up next, to decry the evils of drug use.

[Cla68]

Sometimes Wikipedia is beyond parody.

Notice Elonka's use of the word "demote" to describe the removal of admin privileges.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Milton Roe]

Sometimes Wikipedia is beyond parody.

I liked "maintain low tones with me" MUCH better (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Kato]

Elonka writes (bolding mine):

However, if there ''are'' consequences, then once the administrator community is emulating a better standard of behavior, this will ripple out into the community

I have a hard time believing that WP is a "community" as it is, but there's an administrator community now?!?

[Milton Roe]

Sometimes Wikipedia is beyond parody.

Keith Richards is up next, to decry the evils of drug use.

Ah yes, Keith Richards, "a mortal who cannot killed by ordinary means." Which possibly explains why Depp used him for the model for our sometimes-immortal-but-gruesome guyliner pirate, Captain Jack Sparrow, shown previously. Who turns out to be lot like the drunken Stephano and Trinculo in The Tempest.. I'm struggling for archetypical closure here, but can't seem to find it. Anyway, for our irony/parody hit, haven't we already seen Jimbo Wales decrying the government using the internet to invade people's privacy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Sometimes Wikipedia is beyond parody.

Keith Richards is up next, to decry the evils of drug use.

Ah yes, Keith Richards, "a mortal who cannot killed by ordinary means." Which possibly explains why Depp used him for the model for our sometimes-immortal-but-gruesome guyliner pirate, Captain Jack Sparrow, shown previously. Who turns out to be lot like the drunken Stephano and Trinculo in The Tempest.. I'm struggling for archetypical closure here, but can't seem to find it. Anyway, for our irony/parody hit, haven't we already seen Jimbo Wales decrying the government using the internet to invade people's privacy? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

What about Bill O'Reilly staging a confrontation with someone on a bus and then immediately segueing into a piece about paparazzi? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)