Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Badger Drink

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diffs?[edit]

Please read the RfC/U instructions. Evidence is to be presented in the form of diffs. If this RfA is about behaviour that the filer considers needs to be changed, diffs of that behaviour are required for the benefit of those who might want to comment. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate this point; however, as a great deal of the evidence of long-term incivility is actually contained in Badger's edit summaries (not, obviously, in the automated ones), it seemed simpler, over-all, without picking on interactions between Badger and any particular editor/s, just to link to the one (contribs) page where all these things can be seen in one go. I can certainly go and hand-pick diffs to particular incidents, if required, but in the context of this being a (possibly atypical) long-term and Wiki-wide problem, it seemed a little redundant to have multiple diffs each with a poorly-judged edit summary, rather than one link to all of them (not to mention other editors having to click on multiple links rather than just the one, which could end up being both extremely frustrating and unnecessarily time-consuming).

From WP:CIVIL, under the heading of 1. Direct rudeness, we have

  • (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

... and the edit summaries themselves really do seem to be the best possible way to illustrate this ongoing problem. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list took roughly 15 minutes to research and create. Feel free to add any of these diffs to the RfC. —SW— gossip 22:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belittling editors and/or grossly uncivil comments in edit summaries
Unnecessary comments at RfA
Incivility and rudeness when dealing with other editors
Snottywong, you're wonderful (as always). I hunted out a few to try to illustrate stuff, but, frankly, I'm sooo tired, and in pain and morphine, that you've done a far, far better job than I possibly could. Many and sincere thanks. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of all RfA oppose votes and additional oppose related comments by Badger Drink (Disclaimer: I'm providing this list 'as is', and it may contain some errors. I'm not making judgement, it's up to the individual to assess whether these comments are appropriate for RfA or not.) Source: ToolServer:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment here: the Pastor Theo diff (yes, I do wish it hadn't been that one!) seems to illustrate that not only does Badger Drink have trouble understanding when something he does is uncivil, he actually seems to have a strong antipathy towards "civililty" even as a useful way of communicating, and an intolerance of anybody who prefers civility. In his own words: " Project does not need another member of the Civility Brigade offering condescending self-righteous tsk-tsking during heated debate. Hastily throwing cold water on any and every heated debate leaves us with nothing more than lukewarm results." I think the Project needs more people to whom civility in interaction is important - so it's now fairly apparent why Badger is (a) so irritated by this, and (b) actively doesn't want to be civil. It seems that he sees civility itself as wishy-washy tepid weakness. This may be the key to the whole issue. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe there is a message in there, that Badger Drink had picked up on something he otherwise didn't articulate about honesty? Does that not occur to you? I would much rather blunt and honest people than civil and otherwise. Did you not read the concerns at the Zhang RfA? Badger Drink was not isolated in his concern. Do you really think that his civility is a much more of a concern than honesty? I should add that I wanted to support as I have had good dealings with Steve myself, but we have to be scrupulous, and I found myself reading the exchange with Durova, thinking, "facepalm" over and over. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

This seems like a repeat of WP:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz, just with different participants, and perhaps a semitone lower on the scale of witty incivility. After having seen that RfC/U unfold, I don't know what can be realistically expected here. Voluntary changes in behavior seem rather unlikely. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that the KW one was about a few issues, with incivility only a small part (though it degraded further) - I can see the similiarities. Unfortunately, there is no better way to deal with such issues on wikipedia. WormTT · (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and these issues to have to be dealt with. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are better ways to deal with perceived problems than distorting others' comments and alleging political-POV pushing, but WTT obviously does not have a clue as yet. Here again, WTT, still a wet-behind-the-ears administrator, lectures another writer about civility, while letting his RfA-Deform buddies engage in personal attacks against Badger Drink.
This time at least, WTT don't seem to be prancing to Demiurge1000's tambourine. A small step for WTT, a negligible step for WP.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KW, thanks for your comments. I think it's clear that you came to this RfC since you have a problem with me. I didn't start this RfC (which shows a clear pattern of incivility) and I stand by every comment I've made. I had hoped that you'd made progress since your RfC, it is disappointing that you are still displaying many of the same behaviours. Such a shame. WormTT · (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WTT,
I have engaged in a number of RfCs, when I felt an injustice was done.
You are here on this page, letting others engage in personal attacks and incivility towards Badger Drink. This is similar to your partisan behavior against me and towards your friends.
My above response was motivated by your failure to learn from CasLiber, yet again. You could have helped make this RfC useful. Yet again, now as a secondary RfC critic, you have been making this RfC a partisan attack against Badger Drink. A mediation (or broader RfC) would have facilitated a discussion of conflicts, and might have offered a semblance of fairness and incentive for Badger Drink to participate.
This RfC is a difficult instrument to master. You have already learned bad habits whose unlearning will take you time. Remember that you are a new administrator, and still inexperienced.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be dishing out a lot of accusations lately, KW. Maybe you can demonstrate your considerable RfC skills for us and back up your accusations with evidence. You claim that I've engaged in personal attacks throughout this RfC; and that WTT is an enabler of these attacks, motivated by secret partisan affiliations. I'd love to see some evidence that these accusations aren't just the product of your overactive imagination. —SW— soliloquize 00:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cusswords are not the problem![edit]

It's not the odd dropping-in of a cussword - it's the mental approach that is the problem. I don't seem to be able to make this understood. Also, Badger's comment "which seems to have so wracked Pesky that in the span of one hour he went from "appreciating my concerns" to calling for a civility block over the exact same concerns" doesn't reflect the truth here.

Concerns are fine. Expressing concerns is fine. Incivility is not fine. The "civility issue" is nothing to do with Badger's concerns. It's to do with incivility. (And, by the way, I'm female, British, and have school-age grandchildren. And adult offspring who can at times swear like troopers without bothering me. That's not an excuse, but it may be an explanation for "pompous legalese and painfully condescending schoolteacher-speak". Gender, age, and nationality.)

Also, Badger seems to be under the illusion that I have "vapid, frivolous, and/or completely bogus concerns of two-faced individuals who are just upset that I didn't support their pet RfA candidate and are seeking petty retribution". This is so far from being the case. I don;t have "pet RfA candidates", and my concerns (whether considered to be "vapid, frivolous, and/or completely bogus" or not) have nothing whatsoever to do with retribution. Anyone who has regular dealings with me knows me better than that. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent misunderstanding re "history" - clarifying[edit]

(Outside (procedural objection) by Mkativerata)

  • "I have only recently encountered User:Badger Drink, so have little or no history."

What I meant was not that I had not taken a good look at Badger Drink's (contributions / interactions) history, simply that I had little or no "personal history" with him. I apologise for any misunderstanding this may have caused. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: there are also now probably enough diffs to show anyone unfamiliar with this that it is a long-standing issue, which others have tried to persuade Badger to address in the past. As far as I can see, the procedural objections here are overcome now (at least the stated ones). Diffs will have dates on soon, showing that the problem extends back to (at least) 2008. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't-believe-this-is-happening-now Objection[edit]

"Despite the claim that the timing is coincidental, given the nature of Badger's claims, this sort of thing just feeds into it"

I'm not saying that the timing is coincidental here. Clearly it was the incivility at the RfA which first caused me to look at Badger's history (actually, to find out whether that particular example was just a temporary glitch - all of us have had bad days, I'm sure). However, regardless of the timing, this is not about that RfA. It's about the ongoing history of persistent and widespread incivility which I discovered as a result. Being uncivil to one person, or one group of people, in one set of circumstances is a whole different kettle of fish from being apparently uncivil to so many people, whether they've ever had any personal interaction or not, under so many different circumstances.

It may seem dumb! (It probably is! I don't make any claims to being perfect!) But I do tend to address issues when I find them, rather than waiting for the politically-correct moment to do so. If I find three copyvios by the same person while I'm doing new page patrol, I drop the NPP to go right through their contribution history to find and deal with the (almost inevitable) others. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Hi, please could you expand the diffs section to include dates or at least month and year. I think it would also help to add the context of the proportion of his edits that are uncontentious. I appreciate that this is a bit of work but I think it important to show that it is an ongoing issue. We also need diffs showing that various editors have expressed concerns and tried to resolve matters. For example this Oct 2008 remark was incivil and I raised it on his talkpage. Ta ϢereSpielChequers 15:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get back to that tomorrow? Only had about 3 hours sleep last night! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also ask what counts as "uncontentious"? Calculating the proportion is likely to be subjective, as there's a number of edits he's made with edit summaries that could be better and no editor has raised issues, however I'd suggest that they are part of a pattern. WormTT · (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose someone much smarter than I am could come up with a clever tool for checking out the number of automated vs. non-automated ones, as well? Obviously automated edit summaries don't count as 'editor's own words'. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this perhaps? WormTT · (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the blighter I was thinking of! :D I really have to go and rest now - combination of too much pain, not quite enough morphine, not nearly enough sleep ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added dates and re-ordered diffs by date. —SW— chat 17:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the dates SW. Uncontentious is a broad term. I suppose there are a couple of issues to consider here. Firstly are these isolated incidents from someone who is normally civil, or are they merely extreme examples from someone who is frequently almost as bad as this? Secondly, if it escalates further then I think we need to be realistic, regardless of policy there will be some considering whether the good edits that Badger drink does should outweigh the bad. ϢereSpielChequers 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the one notion with which I disagree. The quality of his other edits shouldn't even come into play. Even if he was writing 12 new featured articles every day, it doesn't give him license to storm about the project shouting "FUCK YOU!" to everyone he meets. If there is a pattern of incivility, then it is a violation of WP:CIVIL, regardless of the user's other work. It's clear to me that he is particularly uncivil; I think all that's necessary is a statement from BD saying "Yeah, I know I can be a jerk sometimes. I'll try to tone it down a bit." That's all. But his response here is a predictable one, and I have no doubt that he'll continue going along the same path, unless forcibly given the choice to either be civil or stop editing Wikipedia. I don't think the problem is that BD doesn't know how to be civil, or doesn't understand how his comments could be perceived as uncivil. He knows he's being uncivil, and he chooses to continue. It's not difficult to be civil, it's really not. It may just be that Wikipedia won't be as much fun for BD if he has to be civil. —SW— soliloquize 21:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For neutrality to avoid concerns of cherry-picking, I have listed all BD's RFA comments where he has opposed. They are listed in the order of the ToolServer report. Anyone using PopUps only needs to move the mouse over to see their content. In my opinion, it reveals a pattern going back to 2008 which is basically back to when he made his first edit (Aug 2007).
For an editor with only 3,818 edits in that time of which around 45% are to talk/discussion/meta pages, IMO the extent of incivility is exceptionally high, and demonstrates a pattern that will not be rectified without sanctions. Whether this discussion is focused on PA/civility issues, the tone of his communications is extremely inappropriate for this project;Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the point you just made about sanctions; I am generally opposed to discussing sanctions in the context of an RFC/U. The RFC/U should be a vehicle for intervention, a last step to prevent sanctions, not a means of enacting them. The RFC/U should be about building a consensus that a problem exists, about presenting the problematic user with that evidence, and about encouraging them to change their behavior. Sanctions may become appropriate down the line if things don't change, but the RFC/U shouldn't be started with that goal in mind, it should be started with the goal of avoiding formal sanctions. --Jayron32 06:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only contributor to this discussion who has suggested that some measures may be necessary: "...unless forcibly given the choice to either be civil or stop editing Wikipedia". That a problem exists probably does not at this stage need a long debate to decide - we are not psychologists (well, at least I'm not) and we don't need a consensus to tell us that the sky (or in this case, the air) is blue. The evidence appears to be firmly fact based. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to avoid sanctions if this is at all possible; but if Badger flatly refuses to interact constructively with us at all here, and (more to the point) continues as before with the disrupting behaviour, it's hard to think of any other way forward. We're giving Badger every opportunity here to avoid any kind of sanctions. We're doing the best we can. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a partial quote from wp:RFC/How_to_present_a_case#Desired_outcomes_in_user_RFCs

Many editors that start RFC/User pages are understandably very frustrated with behavioral issues. At some level, they really want the outcome to be a vindication for their work and punishment for the other editors.

However, RFC/U discussions are not designed to impose solutions on the unwilling. "The community" may facilitate the discussion, or it may provide views by outside editors, but it will not force a user to change his/her behavior through the RFC/U.

Cardamon (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Which goes on to say:.

The goal is dispute resolution through working together, not outside punishment. Consequently, the desired outcome needs to be both something that could be agreed to by all of the involved parties, and something that could implemented by the involved parties themselves.

And lists ten example of possible outcomes. If you are going to quote something, please consider citing the full context. Essays are not Wikipedia policies - and the cited one is authored by twelve 'hall monitors' who I assume represent the views of the entire community. That said, where all ten outcomes presume the voluntary agreement of the subject of the discussion, what suggestions do you have in a situation like this where the subject appears to be uncooperative? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that you followed the link and read the whole essay; I hoped people would do that. That’s why I labeled the quote as partial, and provided an exact wikilink. However, I thought the chunk I quoted was long enough.
How to go forward when the subject of the RFC does not want to cooperate is a good question, which comes a bit late. A better question might have been how to convince Badger Drink that he wanted to cooperate, and a better time to ask it might have been before the RFC was filed. Doing that now might be difficult, but here are some suggestions, which are not just for Kudpung. One way to start would be for enough people were to acknowledge that Badger Drink had every right to make the oppose !vote he made in Steven Zhang’s RFA, with the argument he made, and with the wording he used. This would help to allay suspicions that this RFC is somehow really about retaliation for his !vote. Then you might look for an intermediary (no, not me) that he respects, and who respects him, to present your case to him. Lowering the emotional temperature of this RFC would also help. Cardamon (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, this has been explicitly stated several times already. I would never have started this without going through Badger's contributions (mainly noting the tone of edit summaries), checking his talk page, and seeing if the incivility issue had been an ongoing problem, which others had already tried to deal with, directly with him. What I saw in that history - way pre-dating the RfA, was what triggered this. Without the RfA, that history would probably never have come to my attention, as I've never encountered Badger Drink before. Once it had come to my attention, though, it was clearly something which was creating a "toxic atmosphere" around this editor, and about which something needed to be done to avoid further damage. (I thought I'd made that adequately clear already, here and elsewhere, but apparently I hadn't made it clear enough.)
Everyone is allowed to !vote either to support or to oppose. I really can't put this concept any more clearly than Fluffernutter has already done, so I will quote her words here:
  • "Badger had a right to oppose on the RFA, yes, for nearly any reasoning he liked. And in a meta sense, sure, he had the right to oppose in a manner designed, it appears, to be as offensive as possible; sure, he had the right to spend literally years engaging in a similar manner over and over; sure, he had the right to, when asked to account for his behavior, descend into more name calling on this RfC. The different between the first "right" and the latter "three"? The first is compatible with the privilege of continued editing rights on Wikipedia. The latter three aren't. Badger can be as nasty as he likes, to whomever he likes - as long as he realizes that that behavior is incompatible with also being a Wikipedia editor, and if he continues it, that privilege may be revoked.
Repeat: this RfC/U is not about Badger Drink's oppose vote. End of. It's about three years of intransigent and deliberate incivility, left, right and centre. (Other wiki-acquaintances and I often find ourselves on opposite sides of a fence, without any acrimony, and I have no trouble being "friends" with editors who really can't get on with each other - it doesn't affect my own ability to get on with either of them. It's nothing about vindictive sides-taking!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pesky, perhaps we are parsing Fluffernutter's statement differently. I interpret it as saying that Badger Drink's specific oppose (the one that, through several steps, gave rise to this rfc/u) was blockworthy. That doesn't give much reassurance that this rfc/u is unrelated to that specific oppose !vote.
Why do I interpret Fluffernutter's statement in that way? I do so because: 1) It says that the "latter three" things are not compatible with "the privilege of continued editing rights on Wikipedia". 2) I interpret "oppose in a manner designed, it appears, to be as offensive as possible" as Fluffernutter's opinion of Badger Drinks's specific oppose. And 3) "oppose in a manner designed, it appears, to be as offensive as possible" was one of the last three of the 4 things Fluffernutter mentioned. Cardamon (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Cardamon, my recollection was at fault there. (I blame ... errrmmm ... something.) I think it was actually BD's comments after his oppose !vote which were problematic. Apologies again - I seem to have muddied the waters, and didn't intend to, at all. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

self deprecatory[edit]

 One piece of evidence now withdrawn ϢereSpielChequers 12:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this would appear to be self deprecatory and I'd suggest striking it out of the RFC. It may not look good to any bystander seeing such an edit summary, but no-one other than himself should have taken it personally. ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, obviously. That was a bit of facepalm humour, and of course should be seen as such :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you're right. I didn't realize that he was the "retard" who added the malformed {{fact}} tag in the first place. —SW— yak 21:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should hear the names I call myself ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block log[edit]

I think there are two points worth noting about the user's block log:

1). It exists, nobody seems to have mentioned it yet, and two of the three blocks appear to have been for civility issues

2). Both were undone by others showing how there is a lot of uncomfortableness with disciplining users for incivility (though I disagree with the implication of User:Beeblebrox's unblock edit summary, there is no block immunity just because a user takes the issue to WQA - I have, however, not researched the underlying facts here).

--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there had been one, though (in my judgement) on that one both editors were equally at fault.(Adding: which is why I didn;t think it was entirely appropriate or fair to bring up that particular instance here.) I didn't know about the other ones. Incivility following heavy provocation is a bit different from randomly-broadcast-to-all-and-sundry incivility (though I'm not saying that either is acceptable.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my proposal (section 1a)[edit]

My offer of some kind of buddying is really sincerely meant; I'd be very happy if Badger could see his way clear to working with me on this issue. I don't think he'd find me patronising, or condescending, if he were actually to work with me (taking into account differences in age, gender, and nationality). I'm not at all a harsh taskmaster/mistress, and I hope a few other editors can vouch for me on this one. I would genuinely do my very best not to wind him up or throttle any sense of humour (humour is a vital part of retaining sanity!) Just a bit of gentle nudging in the right direction, and possibly be someone to turn to for advice any time he might have trouble working out how to put something without making it a personal attack. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the offer is sincere, but I think that if any mentorship were introduced it should be with someone who hasn't been in dispute with him. I.E. None of the editors who filed this RFC. Also I'm not convinced that mentorship is appropriate here, the change of behaviour that we request is not complex, nor would it be difficult. ϢereSpielChequers 11:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WADR, we can teach people how to edit, create pages, and patrol pages, but we can't teach them to grow up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree I don't think mentorship would help. I don't think he would agree to it in the first place and it would only reinforce his argument that people are acting as if this is school. OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is very school-playground-like, though! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman arguments[edit]

I think it's important that we don't allow the civility issue here to be derailed by strawman arguments (RfA conspiracy theories, focussing on an RfA vote, etc.) as opposed to addressing the issue of long-term civility issues wiki-wide). Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important that comments are taken in context - yes, many comments are..erm..more colourful than they need be but they don't spring out de novo, as if one decides, "hey I'm gonna type me some incivil comments" or something. I am looking though some of the situations now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good. I'm really not happy in confrontational situations, I like to try to explain, where possible. I hate biting; I try to be as unemotional as possible. I'm far happier in NPP and editing articles! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky though, because then the next step is citing problematic interactions in other users...and dragging up more stuff to argue about and so on. hmmm.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know! That's really why I didn't think it fair to drag up the one block of which I was aware - it just would have been unjust, with the six of one and half a dozen of the other situation with that one. Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to check my own interactions with anyone and everyone else, though :o) It's also why I did point out that the whole civility thing is not just an issue with Badger - our standards here are just slipping with respect to quite a number of editors :o( Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this rate, I can see people suggesting that we have an RfC on whether to do away with the core policy of civility altogether! It seems to be viewed as unpopular and / or unenforceable. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Civility...I think started an RfC a couple of years ago somewhere in there too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe! My first encounter with Wikipedia talk:Civility! Interesting ... Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence is a place I've spent a lot more time in. And, of course, the never-ending npp ... I don't know which RfC you were referring to; searching for RfC in the archives over there threw up an awful lot of hits! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sounds of wikipages ruffling) damn...was here somewhere...found Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Civility_restriction_RFC#Issue_A:_Low-level_civility_issues .....(long pause) aha! here it is --> Wikipedia:Civility/Poll Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the independent summary (Silk Tork) : 74% of 65 responders feel the current civility policy is too lenient; with the majority of those feeling in particular that the policy is inconsistently applied. The remaining 25% are evenly split between those who feel the policy is satisfactory or is too strict. 49 responders feel the policy is unenforceable.
Discussions about the talk page contents that were removed as incivil by an arb were summarised (Casliber): ad hominem section stays off the page. My blunder. I should have removed it before. Wikipedia isn't a battleground and a section like this detracts much more than it can possibly add. We all need to be on the same side and look forwards, not back.
Turning this RfC/U into another meta battle ground is unproductive. Incivility is incivility, as common sense will judge - the vast majority of regular editors are civil people, and it's time for some enforcement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, many thanks for finding that one for us. It made interesting reading. As it's so old, it seems to show that unless we put our collective foot down and take firm (but fair) action on this kind of issue, the problem will never go away and we will continue having editors either driven away from the project as a whole, or driven away from certain areas of it, by those who regularly get away with long-term incivility. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query re the perception of civility (not re Badger in particular)[edit]

out of scope - nothin to do with the subject of the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does anyone have any genuine information about whether males and females view civility differently? Is the whole "civility thing" a possible reason why we have trouble attaining the normally-expected 50/50 ratio of male to female editors? Is the perceived borderline between "collegiate argument" and "flaming row" a gender-difference thing? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this rfc user talkpage should be a host for general civility discussions - its out of scope. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No change in behavior[edit]

While not quite as bad as the comments in the RfC diffs, this edit summary from a few hours ago shows that Badger isn't going to make any effort to be nicer. To be clear, I don't think this particular edit summary is block-worthy or even necessarily a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, but it's certainly not a comment coming from someone who is taking this RfC to heart in any way. It seems that this RfC will only serve as evidence when it comes to the inevitable block that BD will be getting. —SW— verbalize 05:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not an offensive ES per se, it does not lend to credibility that Wikipedia is a serious undertaking, and it does not convince that Badger sees it as one. Anyone who stays around to contribute to Wikipedia and who appreciates the work of a vast number of genuinely committed editors, should preferably moderate their tone and lead by good example. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is really very disheartening. And it's exactly where agreeing to use drop-down edit summaries would have prevented it, too. There's nothing shameful in using a pre-worded multiple-choice type edit summary; but there is something shameful about this (deliberate) poking two fingers up at all those who've agreed here that this is a problem. That is willful defiance. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that imposing a sanction forcing editors who are persistently derisory or uncivil in edit summaries to use only the options available in the multiple-choice menu would be one which could be applied on an equal-to-all basis, and be a starting point for considering other options for dealing with incivility. It may seem "patronising and sanctimonious" to some people - but then any application of authority, and imposition of restrictions to modify behaviour, seems patronising and sanctimonious to a certain type of mentality. Little steps like that, if they had ArbCom "approval" (for want of a better word), which allow the problematic editor to continue to edit provided they don't indulge themselves with the problematic behaviour in question, could well be one way of starting to address the increasing problem of disruptive, long-term incivility issues. Combined with (for example) a week-long block for any (and every) instance of violating any such restrictions, would at least have some deterrent value (and protect other editors from incivility, personal attacks, and general unpleasantness while the block was in place.)
Problem / aggressive dogs don't have to be put down - but having an owner under a restriction of "Your dog must wear a muzzle any time he's out of your house" is quite common, and very effective. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on a what you mean by "certain type of mentality"?Leaky Caldron 11:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can try (forgive me if I'm not clear!) Basically, the kind of mentality which sees anyone who's concerned about incivility as being thin-skinned, needing to grow up, making a fuss about nothing, the "Civility Police" (which is rapidly becoming a very derogatory term, in itself!); the kind of mentality that sees any attempt at insisting on modifying or moderating behaviour as being "schoolmistressy/mastery", kindergarten techniques, hall-monitor-behaviour, do-gooders, self-righteous, priggish, pompous, and all those other terms. As opposed to being genuinely concerned and prepared to help. I suppose it's really just a case of being unable to WP:AGF. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you deduce from my earlier remark about imposing drop down edit summaries being "patronising and sanctimonious" that my attitude towards civility is characterised by some or all of those adjectives? That is hardly an assumption of good faith on your part, is it?Leaky Caldron 12:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't making any deductions about you personally; I was simply doing my best (and I did ask for forgiveness in advance if I wasn't clear) to answer your question above. (It's a kind of "all cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats" thing.) We're all entitled to the occasional one-off snark; it's not the same as having a habit of it. There's a huge difference between enjoying a pint of beer / glass of wine / cocktail (whatever) and being an alcoholic. Is that any clearer? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose block[edit]

I don't want to waste too much time here - so, please forgive any indication of alacrity, and my brevity;

Diffs/evidence above shows a clear breach of AGF, an inability to edit in a collegiate mannner, and an unwillingness to accept important civillity norms.

Thus, use should be blocked, forthwith, to prevent disruption (specifically, antagonistic, aggressive, non-collgeiate behaviour), until user is prepared to acceed to our norms.  Chzz  ►  10:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I would support this - this is the wrong venue. As I understand it, RfC is meant to propose solutions not sanctions - and rightly so, generally the participants in an RfC will be polarised and are unlikely to either agree a sanction or carry it out. Sanctions should be handed out by the community, from a place like WP:AN or from Arbcom. WormTT · (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very hard to think up other ways of handling this kind of situation if the editor involved flatly refuses to interact with the process at all, let alone acknowledge that the concerns are valid. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We carry on until consensus is reached at this page. If the editor will not interact with the process the community (or arbcom) is likely to take that into account if this is escalated. WormTT · (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI discussion, where formal admin intervention may have been possible was closed, before a consensus had been reached, as being sent here, an informal non-binding process. Either this RfC will remain open until it reaches a consensus, or it peters out unresolved after 30 days for lack of of it, or it will be taken to to arbcom - which must be done before this RfC is closed. Nevertheless, if Badger's inappropriate behaviour completely ceases during this time, it could be taken as a tacit agreement to desist: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we don't block a user via this venue. This is about collecting evidence and presenting community opinion regarding this user's behavior. Independently, and having nothing to do with this page, if the user has done something blockworthy recently, please start a discussion at WP:ANI and a discussion over blocking should go on there. Here is not the appropriate place to have such a discussion. --Jayron32 13:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, we don't block a user via this venue. But we can comment on whether a block is the only solution to the problem, the user appears to be incorrigible and ANI is not really the correct forum for a long term offender. No individual incident involving this user is likely to get them blocked at ANI. If it needs to go to ArbCom then it probably needs to go to ArbCom but there is nothing wrong with using this forum to "request" "comments" about whether the user's behavior is subject to reform or even worthy of our attention. While I agree that the purpose is to propose solutions, not issue sanctions, I don't see where we have limited RfCs to proposing solutions that don't include sanctions, it just doesn't have the guaranty of participation necessary to make sanctions legitimate - so if consensus is that the user is not going to reform (which I think it is) then the options are 1) drop it (unlikely), or 2) take it to ANI (pointless), or 3) take it to ArbCom. I think 3 is probably the only reasonable solution.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put up a proposal 4, which is basically that Badger should agree to abide by WP:CIVIL taking particular note of the problems / requirements in that proposal. If he won't even agree to do that, then I think you're right, and ArbCom may be the only way forward. :o( Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ANI regularly blocks and/or bans users for patterns of problems. If you have seen a pattern of problems, especially since the RFC/U has started, and think that this pattern of problems warrents a block, gather some diffs of things he's done recently and ask for a block/ban. If we're still talking about the stuff leading up to this RFC/U, the idea here is to avoid a block by encouraging a behavior change. IF this RFC/U does not lead to a behavior change, THEN we can start discussing sanctions. Carts and horses should arrange themselves in proper ordering type deals. --Jayron32 17:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing no effort to change here. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed on his talk page out that whilst Badger Drink has every right to not participate in the RfC, ignoring the valid issues raised is problematic. If he carries on past that, I'm happy to take it to AN. WormTT · (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could wave a magic wand and just make him less angry; it can't be nice being that angry all the time :o( Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One person's vendetta[edit]

I can't help feeling that this entire rfc/u would vanish if it weren't for Pesky poking the fire, energetically. I must admit I find it incredible that the admin sub-community tolerates such boorish tedious behaviour. If as much effort had been put into any one article it would be GA by now.Greglocock (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greglocock, although I respect your right to feel that way, all I am attempting to do is to answer questions and respond civilly and fair-handedly to concerns raised here, and to take on board suggestions (such as Jayron's, above) and respond appropriately. I'm not happy, therefore, that you describe my behaviour as "boorish" and respectfully request that you strike that comment.
P.S. I'm a British granny with school-age grandchildren, and definitely not a man! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pesky, I can see where you are coming from, but seriously the 2 examples above don't hold water. They were a fairly accurate description of the edits. I would urge you not to keep public lists, or at least stop adding to what is already here. Although strictly applicable to user pages, it will begin to look like WP:POLEMIC#POLEMIC. Leaky Caldron 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. But there's really no need to describe another editor's work as "unnecessary bullshit", or "ero-fanfic". It's perfectly OK to think it, but not to say it. That kind of thing is explicitly covered in WP:CIVIL. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CIVIL : (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")

"Rambling crap" is pretty much a straight paraphrase of "unnecessary bullshit". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs linked above are not blockworthy on their own, but I think they clearly show that BD is not making any attempt to improve his behavior. If he does make a particularly blockworthy comment at some point in the near future, it should simply be taken to ANI, referencing this RFC/U, and a short block should be uncontroversial. —SW— converse 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, thanks for those changes :o) I'm sorry you find it tedious - but you don't have to join in, it's not compulsory to be here! Thinking along terms of being a mum-to-adults, and a gran, maybe if we could get people to realise that "civil" is the kind of behaviour you'd like your best friend to show to your mum, or your gran, then we might get somewhere! P.S. I don;t feel like doing another GA just yet - did one only a couple of weeks back. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pesky's background[edit]

Kindness CampaignThis user is a member of the Kindness Campaign.

Just to avoid any further misunderstandings about history and motivation, I've been a member of the Kindness campaign since very shortly after my comeback to Wikipedia, and since over 12,000 edits ago. That's where I'm coming from. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be rude or offensive, but let's try to remember that this RfC is about Badger, not you. I think I've learned more about you and your personal life than I did about Badger's editing patterns throughout this whole process. As it seems clear to me that Badger has no interest in cooperating with this process, I'd say it's about time to close this and move on to more productive things. —SW— yak 15:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's next?[edit]

So what's the endgame here? It's pretty obvious that the person doesn't want to engage, so that mediation and so forth is not in play. The evidence here is pretty damning, and I think it fair to say that this is not the kind of person you want in your organization.

It seems that one option is "let it go". This seems unsatisfactory to me. What's the point of this exercise if a person can just ignore it (or, rather, openly defy it) and there's no further escalation? I'm not in favor of that.

So what's next step? I'm not too familiar with these things. I think possibly a request for a site ban -- I'm not sure how that works, and Wikipedia:Banning policy is kind of vague, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction is inactive. I think one just asks for one at the admin noticeboard, I guess.

Or opening an ArbCom case, asking that ArbCom encourage the person to pursue other career opportunities? This seems like a natural next step. If the ArbCom wants to not take the case or rule in the person's favor, that's OK, but it'd be worthwhile to clarify this, I think.

I dislike making a federal case of things, but I don't see another path here, and I'd be willing to open the case if that's the right thing to do. Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, this RfC serves as evidence that Badger has been formally notified of the community's disapproval of his behavior. Should he continue down the same path, this RfC will make it easier to pursue blocks and bans. Otherwise, the next logical step is ArbCom, but I'm not convinced that there is enough here to warrant an arb case (although I'm certainly no arbcom expert). —SW— babble 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to have been some significant improvement in BD's edit summaries recently; either nothing has riled him, or he's taken the hint. Probably worth while somebody keeping an eye on the situation to make sure the lesson really has been learned, but it's looking good at present. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not leading this RfC, but I too have noticed a significant improvement in Badger Drink's edit summaries. I would have no issue with filing this away for now. I would suggest taking it to AN if he degrades again and otherwise moving on. Remember that an RfC cannot sanction, only help improve. WormTT · (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A careful watch over his future ES and comments won't do any harm, and if he steps out of line again he shouldn't be surprised if an admin blocks him immediately with the rationale that this RfC and its preceding AN/I have been sufficient warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, the best thing to do is leave the RfC alone for a while - if we have a week or so inactivity I think we could get an uninvolved admin to archive it. However, as long as people are still adding to it, we should keep it open. Recent experience has shown me that closing an RfC early doesn't help. WormTT · (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored section, per WP's talk page guidelines. That 15 12 of you signed a rant without looking up "goyim" is relevant to judging your maturity and disability to conduct an RfC[edit]

This discussion isn't going anywhere. The arguments have gone off into abstracts of how to identify and contextualize derogatory terms. Frankly, a derogatory term is going to depend on a person's culture; similar to gestures. In an international forum such as Wikipedia, we must be culturally aware and use clear and concise terms to express our opinions. The editors in this discussion are not going to change each others view on the context or the meaning of "goyim". Anyone who has a viewpoint is welcome to explain their viewpoint on the RFC and seek endorsement. I strongly suggest that anyone involved in this discussion not revert this close.--v/r - TP 18:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Meshegas fun der goyim: "I feel I'm almost a Jew"[edit]

Badger Drink's edit summary included a goy toy, "only a truly befuddled, naive goyim would present something so condescending as fact", worthy of Ed Begley, Jr.'s character in A Mighty Wind or me.

I couldn't help but laugh!

Then you all seem to be in on the fun, too!

Begin quote[edit]

Outside view by Panyd

There appears to be a cognitive dissonance within the project which says that if a user can contribute competently to articles (pillar 1), then they can completely ignore civility (pillar 4). This should not be the case. Incivility, especially borderline-racist incivility (I don't know what else you can call the perojative term Goyim, especially when used in that context), is not something we should ever tolerate. That this incivility has then been compounded by a refusal to participate in RfC, as well as calling the individual who opened it a vapid, frivolous, and/or completely bogus...two-faced individual, is ludicrous. Why are we allowing this?

Editor retention is dropping by the month. New editor rates are also decreasing by the month. This issue is larger than simply the editor to hand but I must ask; Do we honestly think the allowance of continued incivility for the sake of one good editor is worth losing however many potential new editors are driven off by this behaviour? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. As writer PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. A-bleepin'-men! Turning out quality content is not, repeat, is not a "get out of jail free" card for violating one of our pillars. It's just not, no matter how many people believe we should look the other way when that particular pillar is chipped away at. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely! The real irony is that surely any editor who can contribute good NPOV prose in an article, or many articles, can make the effort do so so elsewhere in their communications? If an editor were incapable of writing clearly, and concisely, and inoffensively in articles, one might understand it. But when someone who can so obviously do the right thing "where it counts" (content creation) chooses so deliberately not to do it when interacting with other editors, it seems like a real case of waving two fingers at Pillar 4. Pillar 1 is not, and never should be, or be considered to be, immunity from compliance with Pillar 4 (or any others!) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. I've spent years asking for the secret cheat sheet that says how many good contribs let's you tell someone to "Fuck off", or let's you piss all over another user. Surprisingly all the users who spend time defending these "good contributors" can never provide it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  6. --Jayron32 02:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  7. And this rule isn't just stated in Pillar 4, it's also Founding Principle 4, listed in the simplified ruleset, and, my favorite, it's the second of the three points of the Trifecta. Notice that "don't be a vandal" and "don't have a sock" are listed. In reality, "don't be a vandal" is merely a subset of the same principle. These should be treated just as seriously, but we often overlook civility because the direct effect on content is not obvious and some of our content is disputed/controversial. Look at some of our sister projects that have fewer issues with content disputes and vandalism (e.g. Wikisource) and you will find that issues of civility are frequently recognized as far more important. On some of those projects there are no other important disputes.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  8. Especially considering that Badger's contributions thus far aren't very extensive, I think some would agree that his contributions along with his disruptive comments are a net negative. —SW— prattle 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  9. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  10. Kaldari (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  11. Right. This is systemic problem. See my point above re questioning if (V(BD) >= N x V(A) x P). There's a limit to how much "eternal September" type behavior it is healthy for the this project to tolerate, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  12. Badger may be a competent editor, but he's not irreplacable. I personally find his attitude to be extremley childish and based on his unwillingness to even participate in this RfC (behavior which, if you'll pardon my expression, is comparable to that of a child covering his ears and going "la la la"), I doubt he's willing to change. -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)This was waywardhorizons's 15th edit. Cardamon (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

After quote[edit]

I thought that this was a mean-spirited RfC. Now I realize that it's just a joke.

I didn't catch how many of you were laughing with Badger Drink's irony, by filling your English comments with grammatical blunders or self-parodies, for example, waywardhorizons's "la la la". (Revised per SW)

At risk of spoiling the fun, let me explain to less sophisticated readers that goyim is plural. In Yiddish, some nouns are singular and others are plural. Apparently English has a similar distinction. Writing a goyim was a joke!

Take my wife, please!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. I'm not up on Yiddish but that doesn't necessarily make me unsophisticated. I'm happy that you know Yiddish but there's no need to trot out some knowledge you have as a club. I'm sure I know things you don't. This is why we work together. I doubt that the editor's misuse of the plural was actually intended as a joke. If it was, it was so pedantic as to be not recognizable as a joke, and so no joke at all.
As to errors of grammar, well, we write pretty fast in talk space and of course we'll make some. This means little if there's no pattern of general illiteracy. I'm not seeing where waywardhorizons comment that you cite is not reasonably cogent I don't appreciate your insulting attitude. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deplorable. What little respect I had for your comments is now gone completely. The quoted comment has no incorrect uses of a plural noun, the only mistake is the misspelling of "extremely" and arguably a missing comma. Certainly not worth the insult. I've received comments from you which were grammatically much more difficult to understand. —SW— express 04:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you are all signing formal complaints about an editor (Badger Drink) without bothering to understand what you are signing, before launching into chicken little tirades.
Racism! Racism! The sky is falling!
Please strike through Panyd's "outside view" and all your signatures, and we can happily strike through my comment, which aimed to shame you into stifling your conniptions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your point is, really. I have tried to understand your point, but can't. If one were to remove totally the section which you apparently think is a joke, and also anything unsupported by diffs-in-comment, we're left with:
There appears to be a cognitive dissonance within the project which says that if a user can contribute competently to articles (pillar 1), then they can completely ignore civility (pillar 4). This should not be the case. Incivility, [ ... snip ...] is not something we should ever tolerate. That this incivility has then been compounded by a refusal to participate in RfC, as well as calling the individual who opened it a vapid, frivolous, and/or completely bogus...two-faced individual, is ludicrous. Why are we allowing this?
I think that's the basic sentiment that people are in agreement with. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they should also read words they don't understand. Festinger's cognitive dissonance applies to persons. Wikipedia does not have cognitive dissonance. Wikipedia does have strawmen, such as this one being ritually burned here. Wikipedia does have diversity and its editors express contradictory principles, unlike the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution. This RfC is permanently attached to Badger's account, and you all cannot be bothered to write intelligent, accurate complaints. It is a pity that these bullshit complaints are not attached to your accounts.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Pesky, I wouldn't let KW trouble you. He has a unique sense of humour and has been known to see jokes in the past which are not apparent to most people. For the record the "goyim" quote was discussed at length at AN/I, and whilst there was no consensus that the comment was in fact racist in context - indeed many people found it mildly amusing due to the subject matter which was being removed and the ignorance of the clearly non-jewish person who put it there - I don't see a single suggestion that it was clearly a joke because the plural was used instead of the singular. So, to me, it appears that KW has missed the joke, but happily found himself another one to keep him amused.
Oh and KW, you may want to check how many people signed the comment. You appear to have had another counting issue. WormTT · (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WormTT/David,
The ignorance, arrogance, and obsessiveness driving that ANI thread make Panyd's rant and others' cant seem like a cherubic choir.
Pity that Panyd didn't make any effort to read the context of the diffs, or had difficulty understanding and remembering the main points of that ANI thread---which clarified that a common Yiddish word used in everyday English is not racist---before writing another fatuous outside view.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I've basically stopped paying attention this page in the hopes that conversation will die down and it can be closed through lack of activity - especially since there has been a marked improvement in Badger Drink's edit summaries. No such luck on the quietening. As to your point, Panyd stated in her view that she thought Badger Drink's comment was "borderline racist" as the term used was pejorative. Whilst you may not agree with that point of view (and nor do I, you'll notice I never actually signed that comment), there were many at the ANI that did agree with it. So whilst there was no consensus that it was racist, there was also no consensus that it wasn't. Those who signed Panyd's statement read her comments, thought about them and agreed - that should be respected, even if the point of view doesn't match ours. Suggesting that Panyd "didn't make any effort to read the context" is unfair and could be regarded as a personal attack if you have no evidence to back that up. WormTT · (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@WTT,
Your reading and writing have not improved here, either.
"There was no consensus at ANI." You must be joking! There were a couple hold outs who wouldn't listen to patient explanations, and others who just laughed at the hold-outs.
My suggestion was absolutely fair, given the policy of AGF. An honest person who read the ANI would have noted that many people at AFI thought the suggestion that Badger Drink was using "goyim" in a racist manner was ludicrous. In fact, the ANI discussion seemed to reach consensus that it was not racist.
The hold-outs did raise the concern that "goy" could be used pejoratively, , and it's clear that the majority thought that this worry was a non-issue.
In summary, you are defending the fatuous labeling of "goyim" as racist, without linking to the ANI discussion. If Panyd and the 12ish signatories want respect, they need to apologize.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the thread a number of times and I don't see things as so clear cut. I would suggest that this is a case of confirmation bias, dismissing those points of view which you disagree with. In any case, we are unlikely to agree on this matter, despite the fact that we hold the same point of view, so I'll leave it there. WormTT · (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly troubled, by any means. The strawman arguments here are apparent to the vast majority of us in any event, I think. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "incivility is something we should never tolerate" has no basis in policy. Indeed, the civility policy notes that incivility occurs when adults discuss important topics. Personal attacks are objectionable as is habitual baseless incivility. That's not the hysterical rant you all signed, or the conniptions some of you added.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yiddish is often called the most sentimental language, and public use of goy is often affectionate or ironic. Shaggatz in public is similar, but has a bit more mustard on it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kiefer, yes, I do know a bit about Yiddish. But forget that, it's not important. Incivility occurs only when an individual - or more than one - decides to be uncivil. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of your comments anyway, KW? First of all, your assumption that no one understood the grammatical mistake is false. I do know what "goyim" means, and I did realize that it was incorrectly plural from the start; long before your comments here. But even if hadn't realized that, how does that affect the purpose or the outcome of this RfC in any way? The grammar of Badger's edit summary was not the issue, it was the fact that he was referring to an editor using an ethnic slur. Regardless of whether the grammatical error was a deliberate attempt at a joke by Badger (which I don't believe for a minute), it's still not an appropriate comment. Also, even if you could somehow invalidate this comment and prove that it isn't uncivil or a personal attack, there are still 20 some odd more diffs which show a clear pattern of incivility. You accuse everyone else of being in a clique that is conspiring to gang up on Badger and promote various editors at RfA, when really it is only you who is being cliquish by unreasonably defending your wikibuddy, whose examples of incivility are beyond crystal clear. —SW— prattle 17:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Snottywong,
My discussion here is limited to Panyd's apocalyptic statement and the amen-comments by some signatories.
If you wish to discuss the general RfC, please open up another thread. If another editor then writes something intelligent, then I would probably respond.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SW, I've lived in New York City for years and have had more than a few Jewish friends, etc. You have no idea what you are talking about, if you think that use of "a goyim" was an ethnic slur.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KW, I've also lived in New York City in years past, and had a Jewish roommate for several years. I do know what I'm talking about. Maybe you should look at List of ethnic slurs#G, which says the following about the term "Goy": In English, usage may be controversial, it can be assigned pejoratively to non-Jews. (my emphasis) I'll admit that "Goy" isn't perceived as badly as words like "Nigger" or "Kike", but it is still absolutely used an ethnic slur in many cases. The non-offensive equivalent for referring to a non-Jew is "Gentile". —SW— chatter 18:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is defective, and your histrionics unwarranted.
The word "nothing" can be used to mean "pussy", and is frequently used so in certain context. Just like "goy" and "goyim".
Shall we next hall haul you before RfC when you next write "nothing"?
Does anybody else have something to add?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... has something strange happened to you recently? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KW, your last comments are incomprehensible. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. —SW— confer 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try it slowly ....
You reasoned
  1. "Goyim" can be used derogatorily.
  2. Derogatory words are objectionable
  3. Therefore, the use of "goyim" is objectionable.
For comparison, I gave this example:
  1. "Nothing" can be used to mean "pussy" (slang for vagina).
  2. The sexist use of "pussy" is objectionable.
  3. Therefore, the use of "nothing" is objectionable.
I did not think it worthwhile to sketch the parallel syllogism before. I certainly don't think it useful to formalize the reasoning further.
"Gentile" sounds anachronistic and prissy.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you gone a bit off-track, here? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGFing and having seen confusion before, I tried to explain the logical parallelism, why that argument was bad. (There was a nice article mentioned in the NY Times, years ago, stating that Yiddish was displacing Latin as the favored foreign language of law journals (or was it court decisions?).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't possibly be putting this forward as a serious argument. I'm not even going to waste my time pointing out the obvious gaping holes in your misguided logic. I'm done with this thread. —SW— speak 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a word to the wise, Kiefer, it's a bad idea to criticize other editors' minor errors in spelling and grammar on talk pages. It's an especially bad idea if you are then going to write "Shall we next hall you before RfC...". Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus,
My criticism focused on the fatuity of attacking Badger Drink's use of the allegedly "racist" word "goyim" despite the ANI discussion, which was already linked in the diffs. It seems that Pandyd and the signatories jumped at the chance to condemn Badger Drink, using only the quotations given in the diffs, without examining the diffs. (Thanks for catching my homonymic substitution of "hall" for "haul".)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a little leeway could be given here for an editor possibly "going through a bad few days", and this thread really doesn't need any more additions. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice this until today. I'm not going to say much about having my comment used as an example, other than I don't appreciate it, especially from somebody who seems to be having trouble linking (fixed those for you, by the way.) -waywardhorizons (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed[edit]

The subject is now indef blocked. Since they cannot respond and cannot edit at all, this page is no longer serving any purpose. Should the editor be unblocked and return, this could be restarted in circumstances warrant. Jehochman Talk 12:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Badger_Drink&oldid=1137447604"