Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Been thinking of quitting

There is currently a thread at AN/I where all the mud in the world is being thrown at me. This is because I have argued very firmly that the the use of the word "poached" is not neutral. The editor who used the word got sick of my insistence that using the word was wrong, and took me to AN/I, where the usual pile-on of dirt from everyone whose POV pushing I have got in the way of is underway.

To me, it's a simple blue sky, content and POV issue. This editor is blatantly pushing a POV against a sporting code that is challenging his favourite one for audience share and, in this case, players. Well, that's my view obviously. I could be wrong. But I haven't been persuaded yet. I'm not really interested in opinions on the particular issue. What does concern me is that Wikipedia's processes allow a trivial issue like this to go so deep into our appalling justice system, where mud gets thrown with impunity. I don't want personal sympathy. I just wish we had a better way of dealing with matters like this. I was becoming a bit depressed.

So I thought, just walk away. I haven't yet. Of course the pretence for justice at AN/I could stop me in my tracks anyway. If I disappear for a while, you will all know why. It will be one for one of those two reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Be tough & stick around. I'm still here, with no intentions of retiring. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Collaboration.—Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of us face much worse than that on a daily basis, and if you expect justice anywhere on WP then I'm afraid you're destined to be disappointed. Eric Corbett 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that thread does not appear to be going anywhere but civility is something we all need to understand is an editor retention issue. "Justice" may be the wrong idea here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention getting discouraged is something I am going through as well...but there is light at the end of the tunnel.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Which tunnel might that be? Eric Corbett 00:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For me it is the light and not the tunnel that is important. But for me, its the way I see admin reacting to the community lately and the way my last technical issue was quickly and quietly handled. No...not the Arb Com thing involving the Gender Gap issue. I'm glad it is being looked into but that is not light, just an important enough issue to look into, not something I think determines how I feel about Wikipedia/Wikimedia in general. I don't have your page watch listed but I did just look and being one of 18 superb collaborators says a lot about you Eric...for whatever that may mean to you, but it means something to me and a lot of editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48, I would like to think I have some experience with "quitting". I quit for two years back around late 08 to late 10, before coming back and deciding I needed to become an admin, which I did 18 months later. I think about quitting on at least a couple times a year. I don't use the phrase flippantly either, I'm very sincere, and have typed out my "take my admin bit" and previewed, but didn't save, one time. It is a frustrating place. I'm frustrated as hell right now with a great many things, and while I'm swamped in the real world, my frustration is why I spend what little free time I have elsewhere and not here right now. I find I need to take extended wikibreaks at least once or twice a year, to keep from screaming and running out of the room with my hands waving over my head. It is harder to do if you are involved in the processes, like GA, FA or for someone who is an admin like me, because there is always some politics playing out that require you peek in some and sometimes comment. This is one reason I've unwatchat ed all the admin boards and just staying away from as much "process" as possible. Some days, I actually get some editing in, and I like that. My point being that maybe you need to pull back 80%, and switch only to non-controversial article titles for a while. I know its sometimes tough, but for your own sanity (and pleasure), it might be helpful. I've seen you take a beating before, and I've been critical when I felt it was appropriate (and hopefully it wasn't perceived as a beating). You have a blunt way, which I personally don't have a problem working with, but some just don't understand how cutting through the bullshit and being honest isn't the same as being "rude", and most of the time, you aren't rude, just blunt. You can't flip a switch and become something you aren't (nor should you want to), but you can flip a switch and go edit something that is being neglected, and just spend less time here overall, at least for a month or two. You might try that first, if you haven't yet. Put yourself out of the line of fire for a bit, let the wounds heal up. Dennis 2¢ 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way I would ever be allowed to become an Admin. I have upset too many of them; the bigots and POV pushers among the Admin clique. I have also continued to push the line the Admins should always be as willing to block other Admins who behave badly as they are to block other editors. Too many bad Admins have seen me push this line, and have done some public hate talking about me because of it. So, no chance I could ever become an Admin. As for sticking to non-controversial articles, you would hope that sports articles might fit that bill, but it was because of a POV pusher on one of them that I was most recently taken to AN/I. Might look at some gardening topics. Are they safe? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power that cilantro has on people ;) As to sports, I've always found them to be hotbeds of edit warring and arguments. Pre-bit, I did a lot of mediating at MMA discussions, back when it was the worst sewer pit on the wiki, so I actually have some experience with them. At first glance, you would think they would be cut and dry editing, but arguments over GNG, templates, infoboxes, what is trivial and what isn't....sports pages are full of passionate people, and a few worshipping fanboys. Video game articles can be problematic as well. As you know, even when you are right, and when the other guy is an idiot, if you both pull a 4RR, some admin will just instinctively block because of that magic line in the sand. Dennis 2¢ 15:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though I personally resolve to avoid anything more than 1RR, I'm sure somebody can drag a skeleton out of my closet and say "Look - he edit warred with me! Strong oppose!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO HiLo, it depends on one's reputation & who's watchlist one is on. The Pile-on effect can occur anywheres on this project. But again, don't be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hilo asked so many users to fuck off that he is unsurprisingly on too many watchlists.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone! There's a perfect example of a stalking, POV pushing Admin who has me on his Watchlist, because I embarrassed him and he would LOVE to get rid of me. Yes, you can fuck off! HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are lying again. And I had this page on my watchlist long before I learned of your existence. Though, indeed, I would like to see you indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Although when a fellow apparatchik re-grants admin rights to a Commons admin thrown off for stalking another, and when they wheel-war twice with WMF to do so, then you give them your full support within minutes. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your point being?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm assumingly on quite a few watchlists, myself. But, that's not going to discourage me :) GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you do not tell to fuck off to everybody you have minor disagreements with.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry ymblanter, but you taking me to AN/I (and losing) because I was getting in the way of your POV pushing, allowing all the usual bullshit that happens in that disaster of a justice system, is NOT a minor disagreement. POV pushers coming to MY Talk page to tell me they don't like me, is NOT a minor disagreement. It's a pain in the ass. And let's make this clear, you tried to get me blocked, and were told you were wrong. As I have pointed out many times, Admins are a protected species here, so you suffered no consequences. But I now I get "Look, HiLo is always being taken to AN/I, so he must be bad", while all the while YOU were the problem. You are a big problem for this project. Now stop stalking me, accept that you were wrong, and fuck off. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think I am POV pushing, which I obvioulsy deny, take me to ANI, prove it, and get me topic-banned, no problem. Until you have accomplished it, pls stop repeating this bullshit. I have ben elected admin last year with more than 100 votes. Try to get elected - and we see how much all your hate talk costs.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the kind of bullying post that only an Admin can make with no fear of negative consequences. You KNOW nothing will happen. I hope others are watching your behaviour here and seeing the obvious problems badly behaved, bullying, POV pushing Admins cause. Thank you for highlighting the problems here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe that you'd be elected again if you stood at RfA today Ymblanter? I think rather few admins would, which is why there's such a resistance to term limits. Eric Corbett 22:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I would be elected again, but I would not have an difficulties voluntarily resigning if a sizable number of users become seriously upset by my activity as admin. So far, onlr two users have been vocal about it, and both have large amount of sceletons in their cupboards, so that I am not yet prepared to take it as a sign of community discontent.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please describe the skeletons in my cupboard. Note that mentioning being taken to AN/I by you, or any others, where there was no conviction, cannot rationally count. Even some of my convictions have been overturned, and ALL were cases of me responding to POV pushers. Any case where any of the evidence was "Look how many times he's been brought to AN/I" can also obviously not count. So go ahead. Describe my skeletons. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You consistently assume bad faith of the others, and you are consistently incivil by the standards of the vast majority of the editors. This is attested also by your block log. I can even tell you more, if you stop assuming bad faith, and if you start behaving, I would have no issues with you. If you do not believe me and think I am biased, start an RFA and see what others say.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to have a rational discussion with you. I told you that nothing at AN/I could really count, especially when it comes from you. And how can I assume good faith with a Putin hating POV pusher who took me to AN/I because I was getting in the way of his bigotry, and lost? There has to be a limit to assuming good faith with such editors as you. You obviously failed to assume good faith with me. I know you are biased, but because you are an Admin, you are immune from sanction, and an RFA would be pointless. And I know you can't even see the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you asked me a question if you are not prepared to listen to an answer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was to see if you really did have an answer, and you didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I thought you are genuinely interested to know what you problems are and how your behavior is seen by the others, and why you are taken to ANI so often (not even by me). Apparently, you are not interested. It is ok with me. I am not here for the mud throw competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know why I get taken to AN/I. There are two overlapping reasons. Firstly, I get in the way of POV pushers such as you, and they'll do anything to try to silence me. Secondly, I at times use language some here don't like. This language comes fairly naturally to me, but I do at times emphasise it to get the attention of others to the bad behaviour of some editors, again, such as you. It's a long time since I've had a real block. Early on I tried to fight the piling on of abuse and bullshit from uninvolved editors, such as you at my most recent visit there. I learnt that the best approach is to make a clear and simple statement about the bad behaviour I was getting in the way of, then just move on. The bigots usually spout so much crap their complaints go nowhere. One block I had earlier was when some NRA supporting Admins fought over how long I should be blocked for for stating a truth they didn't like. I don't go near NRA discussions any more. Rational thought is dangerous there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm one of the two users who have previously expressed concern regarding Ymblanter, let's make that three. WER is not an appropriate forum to resume a previous interpersonal conflict, and shows lack of maturity and judgement. NE Ent 10:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not. Ok, good, couple of more, and I resign as administrator, no problems. I have other things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't throw f-bombs at anyone. But, I don't mind editors who do throw them. We each have our own style. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we allowed to have our own style? I thought we were all supposed to be Jimbo clones, although if we were, very little would ever get written. Eric Corbett 23:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Giggle Giggle :) GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Editor Retention isn't a good place to get in a bare knuckle fight, folks. Dennis 2¢ 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as nobody retires, WP:RETENTION's goal is being met ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought for a while we are discussing really important things here, but apparently we are not. This is a pity, but there is not much I can do beyond stopping responding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We do discuss important things, like retention, in the broadest of senses. If a discussion gets personal or turns into a personal debate, however, we ask people to take it their own talk pages or other appropriate venue. WER isn't a mediation board and we don't pick sides. We have no authority to function in an administrative roll for Wikipedia, nor do we want it. Dennis 2¢ 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I do not generally agree. If we are discussing editor retention for arbitrary editors, we are discussing a spherical cow. For example, if we have (just a hypothetical example, no relation to this thread) a vandal who was blocked for vandalism and he now complains how badly he is treated by administrators, we should not start discussing relation between administrators and non-administrators, with usual parties around. We should tell him to stop vandalizing. And then we can discuss why is is bad to vandalize Wikipedia, and what is the best strategy to stop vandalizing. In this thread, I tried to bring the discussion at a similar level, but, unfortunately, I was extremely unsuccessful, to the point I was told three times to fuck off and told by two users that they do not trust me as administrator. On the second thought, I should not have done it at all, but in my opinion, starting in this thread a discussion about POV-pushing administrators is extremely pointless. It serves no purpose except for implying that I am a POV-pusher. To avoid this in the future, I am going to unwatch WER, simnilarly to how I am slowly unwatching other pages in WP; and WT: namespaces.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first post in this thread does not seem to be trying to discuss the reasons for a specific undesirable behaviour, and the best strategy to try to address these reasons. I believe it would indeed be more productive to isolate why certain actions are bad, why they occur, perhaps in context of actual examples, and discuss how to address these issues, and you (or anyone) are welcome to initiate a conversation in this direction. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I perfectly characterized typical behavior of the topicstarter, but I also feel that discussing the issue will only lead to further throwing mud and not to anything reasonable. Unfortunately. You are welcome to discuss (in a separate thread) whether it is good for editor retention to tell people to fuck off, but I will not join this discussion anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our understanding sounds kind of similar—for better or worse, further discussion of a personal issue is problematic, but going to the next step would be good: as you stated, why is it bad to do X, where X in your example was "vandalize Wikipedia", and what is the best strategy to stop X. I understand if you would prefer to leave the discussion to others; nonetheless, thoughtful contributions from everyone will always be welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, he didn't mention names, and our goal wasn't to agree or disagree with any specific instance, it was to simply say that we all feel that way sometimes. Again, we aren't here to take sides or resolve ANI style problems. Most of the time, we don't even deal with individuals, but if they come here, we are human, and will offer an ear. We offer advice, such as moving away from controversial topics and instead work on simpler stuff that also needs work. You personalized it with your participation, and in particular, the way you expressed yourself. I don't know the Truth® in this particular situation, but it doesn't really matter as (again) we aren't an admin board nor do we dispense justice here.

Is it good for retention for editors to tell each other "fuck off"? That is better as an abstract discussion rather than in the middle of a dispute between the two of you. Or at least not until the dust settles, where it can be discussed in a less emotional way. It wouldn't be the first time that particular discussion has taken place here. Dennis 2¢ 23:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's might be a long time before the dust settles when ymblanter keeps showing his obsession with getting rid of me by popping up in threads that have nothing to do with him and brings up completely irrelevant bullshit. When people do that, with no fear of negative consequence because of their protected status as an Administrator, the temptation to tell them to fuck off is very strong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reopened this from Lightbreather's close because the last thing anybody wants to see when they're disillusions with Wikipedia is their concerns being full heartedly dismissed. In this case, 'hatting' may have that effect. I myself have been disillusioned by WP:ANI and recently too, and the fact that an editor may want to quit and we may be able to help them is appropriate for an open discussion, who's last reply is not that long ago. Tutelary (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's actually quite important to me. I prefer the encyclopedia continue to benefit from HiLo48's contributions, but I'd also like less of the drama his overly blunt to some ears language chronically generates. I prefer the encyclopedia continue to benefit from the thankless scutwork of admins -- it's called a mop for a reason -- but I'd also like them to act in a way as like to deescalate a situation as inflame it further. NE Ent 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (in response to [1]) NE Ent 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Do they still issue admins with mops? I thought it was just egos and halos these days.

How many admins do you see doing "mopwork"? How much mopwork actually needs an admin bit anyway? How much instead do we see, "If you disagree with me again, I'll block you, peasant"? There are still a handful of good admins around, many of whom pop up constructively here, but overall it's worse than it ever was: clique-ridden and biased. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see Lightbreather's hat. Thanks for removing it Tutelary. Lightbreather's comment with the hat was "Personal conflict not important to project or related to Wikipedia editor retention in general." Seeing this as a personal conflict is part of the problem here. It might seem only personal, but it's real, and it's a case of an imbalance of power. I will keep on trying to stop anyone's POV pushing whenever I see it and whoever does it. I did not single out ymblanter, and I am not stalking him. I don't watch his edits. I have no idea where he is editing, apart from when he turns up to disagree with and pour shit on me. It's him, an Administrator, who has made this personal by stalking me, and watching MY edits. And perhaps, again, I shouldn't be targeting ymblanter directly here, but the system that gives him free reign to keep doing what he is doing. I am convinced that there is no effective discipline process for Administrators here. A totally protected, but unthreatened and powerful species is not good for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Ent, and on previous occasions opined just that with HiLo48 at ANI. Same with admin. It's why I take breaks, why I listen when others tell me I need a break (you being one of them). People don't realize how stressful it is being admin, but still, if you can't do the job without fanning flames, take a break. We all are going to bump heads from time to time so we have to learn to not go overboard, to cool off before jumping back. It isn't necessary that we like everyone, just that we are able to work near them.

I work in a pressure cooker of a job, and all employees have been there for many years. We WILL tell each other to "fuck off" or worse from time to time, and actually get in an occasional yelling match. Including me. This doesn't happen every every month or every quarter, but once or twice a year. Then we go do our jobs. There, everyone is a type A personality and damn good at what they do, just high strung... similar to here in a way. Is it ideal? It depends on your perspective. 95% of our competitors have gone out of business in the last 5 years, so I tend to think that "excellence" requires a degree of friction. The key is knowing how to move forward and not holding a grudge against the world or an individual. We aren't islands, we need each other even if we bump heads sometimes. It's true at work and at wiki. Dennis 2¢ 12:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

IF Wikipedia is not a workplace (you've claimed elsewhere on this page that it is not: that it is "supposed to be fun, a hobby, not work"), then sharing this kind of personal experience isn't really relevant. However, if WP is a workplace, there is no reason why it has to be a reflection of your workplace, whatever the heck it is, or HiLo48's, where a woman told him he should curse to fit it. If we want the world to take the encyclopedia seriously (I do), we should take seriously the environment in which we create it, so that it is welcoming to all, and not just to the men and women who thrive (or at least get by) in an aggressive, obscenities-are-perfectly-acceptable place. I actually enjoy work - when I work in a place where civility policies are enforced. Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What it boils down to

Since others felt this discussion needed to be re-opened and hashed out here, then here is my take on HiLo48 (and others') complaint: Some want to be able to "pour shit" (using HiLo's term) on other editors whom they have identified as POV-pushers (or whatever else other content infraction they have identified) rather than follow civility policies and use the proper forums to settle content disputes. This "some" do not like civility policies because it's against their preferred communication style (at least online style) and wastes their time by asking them to use what they see as "drama boards" to settle content disputes. And then, to add insult to injury, some admins actually have the gonads to enforce the policies. However, this "some" needs to take the next step and accept that Wikipedia is now trying to make the project a welcoming place to editors of all styles, and not just those who thrive, or at least get by, in the hostile, it's-ok-to-tell-someone-to-fuck-off environment that it's been for... how many years now? It's a primarily (not completely, but primarily) alpha male way of communicating. It's inappropriate for a diverse community. It needs to be left behind in the frontier that was the early Internet landscape, and a new model needs to be adopted for a more diverse, civilized, professional, and welcoming community. Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• A quote from De Es Schwertberger comes to mind: When two people come together, a strange phenomenon occurs. Each tries to establish superiority over the other. This is either accomplished by growing over the other, or cutting the other down. As a result, each develops defense mechanisms to prevent being cut down as well as improving its own state. Virtually all of human attention is involved in this process. It has become so complex that the original state of human oneness has been quite forgotten. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• When you say that Wikipedia now is only open to people that conform to your particular brand of civility, you are defining a smaller community, you are excluding those that built the place when it was a more rough and tumble place. In general, it is more refined than than, speaking as someone who's been here long enough to remember. No one wants more incivility and no one is endorsing the idea of allowing person attacks, but what you are talking about is changing Wikipedia into an intolerant place, a place where you conform to a Politically Correct definition of "civility" or you leave. And saying that being brusk is an "alpha male" way to communicate is brazenly sexist and doesn't belong here. Dennis 2¢ 17:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How on earth, or better, why, do you leap from "Wikipedia is now trying to make the project a welcoming place to editors of all styles" (what I wrote) to "Wikipedia now is only open to people that conform to your particular brand of civility" (how you "paraphrased"? it)?

I absolutely disagree with your assessment that I or others are trying to change Wikipedia into an "intolerant place." Or a "Politically Correct" place (with the aggressive capital "P" and "C" to try to belittle what I'm talking about). This has been said elsewhere: it's about simple civility rules that you'd find in any diverse workplace. And when you break those rules, you get a warning. You might even get two or three warnings. But after a point, you are expelled from the community. And don't lob that "sexist" bomb at me again. Read the works of experts if you want proof that primarily (not completely, but primarily, as I said above) alpha males behave this way. Here's one for you:

• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fighting For Our Lives". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 3-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Boys Will Be Boys". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 166-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fast Forward: Technologically Enhanced Aggression". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 250-. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (section, "Gender on the Internet")

Question: Is this project interested in retaining ALL good editors, or only those who are a good fit with the existing, and yes, sexist, culture? Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• No Lightbreather, it doesn't boil down to that at all. I say that occasionally using language that's in the Lightbreather-defined set of non-approved words is far less uncivil than being a POV pushing, power abusing Administrator who stalks other editors he would like to get rid of, but never uses one of those Lightbreather-defined set of non-approved words. By singling out one (IMHO) ultimately quite harmless form of stronger interpersonal communication, you effectively condone the other, and hence lose some of my respect. It's NOT helping to build a better encyclopaedia when you ignore the POV pushing. And please don't make this is a male vs female thing. It's simply not. It was a female co-worker in a job I was doing around ten years ago who suggested I should swear more in order to fit in better. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a set of approved words. You guys keep hauling out the same weary arguments, but they're non-arguments. Also, define "occasional." Is it like "civility" itself, and cannot be defined, or enforced? How many times have you used "fuck" in one form or another in the past 30 days? And you don't get to decide who's POV-pushing and then "pour shit" on them: judge, jury, and executioner. You use the approved processes - which do not include calling people names or otherwise demeaning them. You give your evidence. They give theirs. If you can't work it out, you start moving up the DR chain. You don't get shortcuts because you've logged "x" edits, or have the approval of Tom-, Dick-, or Harry-Admin who's been rubbing elbows with you on Wikipedia for "x" years. It might be a formula for retaining certain old-school approved editors, but not new, green, and diverse editors. Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, HiLo48, by your own logic, if it's OK for you to single out, harass, and attack those whom you have decided are POV pushing (which there is a policy about), then it's equally OK for others (admins or not) to single out, harass, and attack you for incivility (which there is also a policy about) if those others have decided you are being uncivil. (I don't believe harassing and attacking is ever justified, but it seems to be OK for you and some of your admin and non-admin peers - as long as whomever is doing the harassing and attacking has "x" edits or "x" years of contributions under his belt.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, as long as you want to claim that the problems are "alpha males" and that all the crude language is the fault of these crude men, you aren't going to find much of an audience here. We judge by each other's deads, we don't stereotype people. At Wikipedia, each of us has a contribs history. That is how we judge the contributions of each other. Wikipedia is a meritocracy, and as such, your claims that all men are bad and crude or most of the aggression at Wikipedia is because we are "alpha males" simply don't belong here. It literally fits WP:SYNTH. More importantly, it is sexist, pure and simple, and it is unwanted here. If we start tolerating sexism against men, then we have to tolerate it against women and we already have enough sexism here without you adding yet more. Take it somewhere else, preferably off Wikipedia. Dennis 2¢ 18:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. I never said "all men are bad or crude" (nor by extension that all women are good and refined). Are you not considering what I am saying, or are you simply trying to shut me down quickly without a legitimate argument? Lightbreather (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right there is a good example, implying I'm shutting you down for some reason other than your arguments are invalid. What reason would you imply? When you blame the problems at Wikipedia based solely on someone's gender, then you aren't part of the solution, you have become part of the problem. It is still sexist, it is just coming from the other direction. So no, we absolutely are not going to get into a "the aggression and swearing at Wikipedia is because of alpha males" discussion. That doesn't address the issue of under-representation of women at Wikipedia, and just drives a wedge into the issue, forcing people to agree with you or be on the "wrong side" of the issue. Dennis 2¢ 19:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Twisting my words, as you've done at least three times in this discussion (the latest by saying that my argument is that Wikipedia's problems are based "solely on someone's gender" - which is not my argument) isn't an argument on your part: it's a straw man. The truth is, you and some others like you don't want to talk about even the possibility that incivility in the form of very common standards like the use of obscenities in mixed company or the workplace is an editor recruitment or retention problem because it threatens the environment that the agonist base is defending. Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to address one little point here that I haven't addressed and my words speak for themselves: If you want to turn the civility policy into something akin to what it would be at work, you have an uphill battle. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be work, and if the civility policy here was the same as the proverbial Fortune 500 company, half the people would leave. This is supposed to be fun, a hobby, not work. As for using "obscenities" in "mixed company", I'm literally dumbfounded, mouth agape. You are saying we must treat one gender differently than another, which is in fact, sexist. How you don't see that, I have no idea. So yes, any policy that says we treat men and women differently, I would be against, and I wouldn't be alone. You never get equality when you are asking for special treatment. More importantly, there is no way to tell gender, or even verify it. You are asking editors to think about gender instead of being "color blind" to it. No, I'm not for that. That isn't something we would promote here either, special treatment for a class of editor, nor changing civility standards to "office expectations". WER is not a political body and not the place to try to promote these things. Dennis 2¢ 20:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose mixed company may be simplified to mean mixed gender, but I'm talking about more than gender. Gender plays a part because GENERALLY men and women tend to communicate and approach conflict differently. You're hearing treat men and women differently... as the way men treat each other is the norm and to treat women differently is to coddle them or some such. I'm saying that to treat each other in the agonistic way that one encounters on Wikipedia is GENERALLY the way men treat each other and is not necessarily the norm or better than other ways. Lacking any other evidence about whether someone is male, female, black, white - mixed company - we should be more civil with each other, not less. We should not assume that being aggressive and calling names is the norm and treating anyone else differently is coddling. Who made your way of communicating with your (mostly male) peers the norm that others should "live up" to? Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are saying we must treat one gender differently than another: No! I am saying we should treat everyone the same - with a higher standard of civility (such as our policy dictates) and not a lower one (which is what is actually enforced). Your way of treating each other is confrontational, often to obscene levels, and that not does not make for a more welcoming and productive environment. It makes for a hostile environment that only some of those who edit here, or who would like to edit, are able to feel welcome and to be productive in. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In five years I haven't noticed a sexist culture here at all but I don't go looking for it. I have noticed pov pushers, coi editors, editors who can't write a sensible sentence, editors who don't/won't/can't comprehend what they read, overlinkers and triviamongers. Perhaps that is because I usually concentrate on content not talk pages. I find it difficult to tolerate talk-page politicians, long-winded, droning-on arguments about who is and isn't civil or what is and isn't right. I don't much care for dragging up past history or picking over old wounds, settling old scores, snivelling about perceived wrongs, folks who attack others without even noticing they're doing it, pages and pages of rehashing arguments and having the last word. I can/could do/probably have done some/all of those things and more but I am not perfect and am aware when I do it. This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave. As far as attracting new editors I'd steer them right away from talk pages and encourage them towards content. Content beats politics anyday in my book and if the balance swings towards politics that's when I'll look for the exit. J3Mrs (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This project should be trying to retain editors who contribute decent content for the reader, not those who persist in looking for the worst in others, making assumptions and telling others how to behave: Read the discussion that precedes this "What it all boils down to" section break. Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, AFTER I told you about the woman who recommended that I swear more in the workplace in order to better fit in, you have said silly things like "it's about simple civility rules that you'd find in any diverse workplace" and "incivility in the form of very common standards like the use of obscenities in mixed company or the workplace". Perhaps your standards are not so common after all. (And I'd be interested in how diverse your own experience really is.) You are ignoring others' points. You are not discussing. You are telling us, without considering others' words at all. Who is doing the harassing? HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

One woman told you to swear more at work in order to fit in better, and that's all the evidence you need to believe that all around the English-speaking world, the way people conduct business together in the most collegial way is to swear. Have you read none of the evidence that has been presented at multiple forums indicating that this is NOT true? Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, isn't it interesting how this discussion has turned from you, poor HiLo48, being harassed by an admin, to maybe the problem is not the same tired arguments you guys keep throwing out? If you have a problem with someone in particular - take your evidence to the appropriate forum. If it's about editor retention, I'm suggesting you guys might be neglecting a problem. Not only neglecting, but aggresively pushing it away whenever the possibility is broached. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL would likely be the best place, for this civility topic. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear God... would you not say males are intrinsically and terminally uncivil? What can be done? If God is female will she not severely punish every last one of them? Should we try to punish them all right now, or should we allow her justice to unfold in her own time? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some notes:

• alphabetically Dennis Brown, HiLo48 and Lightbreather are all making true statements; but they're not entirely true.
• Because we are diverse, we have to accept that our experiences are not universal. e.g According to this CNN [2], it is concurrently true that "In some professions cursing is accepted and can even help you fit in to an environment," and "Constantly using foul language, however, can make it difficult to fit into a professional environment," This produces a conundrum for Wikipedia ... how do we accommodate editors from all types of environments?
• I read Tannen's You Just Don't Understand when it came out (24 years ago???) -- great read, and greatly helped my communication skills.
• Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-29/Recent_research#informal informal mechanisms are significantly more important than the formal.

Though "one formal mechanism was found important—the policies" (except, apparently, when it comes to civility?) Lightbreather (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Per [3] ]"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." That's a WP:RS, not synth. And while, of course, a single source does not NPOV article make, the fact that that's published perception of Wikipedia should be cause for concern.
• Many of the adjective used above to describe other discussion participants writing, e.g. "alpha male," "sexist," "tired," "politically correct," "twisted" and more. Since this is supposed to be editor retention, not another drama and/or dispute resolution board, can we focus on trying to find what points we agree on, and work on building common ground -- that is, a win-win. Or is hopeless, and we can have either one segment of the potential editing population, or the other, but not both? NE Ent 02:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • When someone comes here in frustration, and others jump in with blame, that is what you get. Pointing fingers, either at individuals or genders, is outside of what we do here. In the meantime, I was getting real Editor Retention work done via email, not so ironically, with an established yet unhappy female editor. That isn't jabbering about theory, that is actual practice. Dennis 2¢ 02:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The message I am getting from Lightbreather: Men are bad. Some words are bad. POV pushing, bullying Admins don't matter. I'm getting frustrated again, and when I get frustrated I sometimes tell people to fuck off. I won't this time. But I'm still frustrated. I cannot agree with someone who thinks words she disapproves of are a bigger problem than badly behaved Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: "The message I am getting from Lightbreather: Men are bad. Some words are bad. POV pushing, bullying Admins don't matter." HiLo48, what you are hearing is NOT what I have said or am saying. Please don't make me out to be saying things that I'm not, or "pushing" something that I'm not. Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The message I am getting is clear- some contributers to this page are trying to address the serious issue of editor retention and others are trying to pour petrol on flames. I have always viewed CIVILITY as an extreme POV that wierdly Wikipedia chooses to support not to ban. I tolerate editors who change my spelling and remove 'u' where my dictionary tells me they are needed. I cannot understand why anyone would not tolerate me using a 'u'. I accept their language code, and they accept mine. Some of the terms that upset the contributers here are used as terms of endearment in places I have worked. You are not going to retain editors if you put your POV before the project and insist that a large portion of the world are untouchables because there language code is different from yours.

I concede that it can be a bit astonishing when you find that the language your mother would not let you use- is common parlance in a new social environment, but if you aren't familiar with those contexts (Linguistic insecurity)- then you sit back, listen and learn- you don't make a fool of yourself by revealing you ignorance. There is an interest C- class article Register (sociolinguistics) that partially explains the phenonoma but it still requires work. I personally come from a socio-economic group that would look stupid writing raw anglo-saxon four-letter words- and a little surprised to find ex-Etonian Government ministers using it comfortably and un-threateningly with senior civil servants- and to hear it used between silks in the Inns of court. They changed register when addressing the public. I had to address my POV of what was normal to take on board this new fact.

So can we read the links I have provided, examine our POVs and see if the Civility page needs to be altered. Then get this thread back on focus and articles created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I last posted here I have visited a country pub here in Australia. Males and females were present in roughly equal numbers. It wasn't a down market gathering. One mature aged gentleman walked and said to another "How are ya, ya silly old cunt?". Many heard it. Nobody was offended. Words don't hurt. It's the meaning that matters. POV pushing, badly behaved, bullying Admins, however, are another matter. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Try the word in my presence bucko, it won't go as smoothly as your experience. Dreadstar ☥ 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I understand why Australian rules football is only played in Australia. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, by all means! If it's OK for Australians at a country pub, then it's certainly appropriate among English speakers from all over the world who are trying to discuss and agree upon often contentious encyclopedic content without the benefit of body language, eye contact, shepherd's pies and pints. Lightbreather (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty tolerant when it comes to strong language, but that is a word we need to avoid at almost all costs. I understand that in the UK and Australia, the word is offensive to many, but not as much as the US, but still, it needs to be avoided at Wikipedia. To me, that isn't even about gender (although from my experience, women do take being called a cunt with a more violent reaction here state-side). I see the word from time to time and strongly discourage it, as a simple sensitivity to the huge number of people it DOES offend. Where I grew up, "cunt" was much, much worse a word than "fuck", and it still is to me. If for no other reason than it has been used as a weapon against women and is so offensive to so many. Kind of like how a black man might call another black man "nigga", but we don't do that here. If it slips out, I can accept a heart felt apology and just move on without a blown up drama-fest, but seriously, it needs to be avoided. Even if it isn't an insult in your home town, at some point you have to compromise a bit and avoid things that you *know* really hit the bone with other users in other countries, just out of respect. Dennis 2¢ 21:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  America is a strange place, a mystery to many of us. I have never seen or heard a woman being called a cunt; if that's something you routinely do in the US then you should indeed stop it. Just as WP should stop calling men dicks. Or is there some kind of double standard in play? If you can provide me with a rational explanation of why it's OK to call someone a dick but not a cunt then you'll win a coconut. Eric Corbett 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  Although I love coconut, I probably won't be winning one today. The best I can offer you is "tradition". That is what decided "shit" was a bad word and "feces" was a good one. I'm very aware that word acceptability is dynamic, just as calling someone "retarded" or "negro" was at one time acceptable. American's take the word "fuck" much more seriously (and nip slips on TV as well, collectively we are prudes, are we not?). The terms "dick" and "cunt" are not on par in the US, I'm just not smart enough to say why. I do know that as a child, calling someone a "dick" would have gotten my mouth slapped, but even uttering "cunt" would have drawn the kind of retribution that they put parents in jail for nowadays: I literally would have been beaten. It is just a cultural thing, just as all curse/swear words are cultural things, and on this side of the pond, most of the 330 million consider "cunt" as #1 on the list. I'm offering an opinion on the wisdom of it, just saying that really is how it is, nationwide, for the majority of people. That doesn't justify a drama-fest, hanging, banning or even groveling, just a sincere "I'm sorry if you were offended" will suffice, and preferably, avoidance of the term simply out of respect because you know it offends most yanks, and in particular, female yanks. I won't be a hard ass about it, I'm just saying it really should be avoided. I understand it might slip from time to time, but we are all wordsmithy enough to find better alternatives the rest of the time. I don't want a policy around it and it doesn't require you agree with the logic behind it, just understand that it really does upset a number of female yanks, many of which have been on the receiving end of that word by piece of shit man. It is used by some as a hammer against women here. Dennis 2¢ 22:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  Well it isn't used as a hammer against women here in the UK, in Australia, or in any other English-speaking countries that I'm aware of. It's just a word. Eric Corbett 22:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)That's why it's one of the three words that the BBC will not print without mandatory referral to a reviewer. And why Eric Corbett keeps going on and on about it, in one forum after another. Because you see, it's just a word. —Neotarf (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not one of those who keep running from forum to forum to complain about anything. Do the facts mean nothing to you? Eric Corbett 23:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Listen. I'm quitting you guys. So carry on, pip pip and cheerio, or whatever. Maybe a smarter woman than I will come along and explain this in a way that you can "get." Or maybe a smarter man will figure out how to make the importance of this to recruiting and retaining a diverse group of editors. But as long as you're happy with 85% to 90% men, and a style of "discussing" that these men (and 10% to 15% of women) are OK with, who cares, right? Just so long as you don't have to change anything about your own behavior. Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to quit then quit, if you don't, then don't make a song and dance about it. And above all don't assume that you're in any way smarter than those who disagree with you, because I can assure you that you're not. Not by a long way. Eric Corbett 23:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If HiLo is entitled to sing and dance about thinking about quitting, then I sure as hell am not going to feel bad about doing or saying whatever I want on my way out the door. Besides, I am sooo looking forward to your comments while I'm about it. They should be entertaining for everyone who follows along, including my little-ol' dumb self. Lightbreather (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you confuse civility with politeness. Out of politeness, if your feminist colleagues don't cite you in support of their position against me then I will have nothing further to say about you. Eric Corbett 23:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So "don't make a song and dance about it"? We have just had an innocently wide-eyed question, asked over and over again on Jimbo's talk pageabout that very question: "Could you please provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by Eric Corbett. I have not seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Wikipedia by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. Yours in perpetual hope" Is no one interested in the answer? —Neotarf (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The question was asked of Jimbo Wales. What was his answer? Eric Corbett 23:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Eric was a bit new to this thread, not sure how you are linking him to someone wanting to leave here. I wouldn't blame HiLo either. Eric and I (and HiLo) disagree with the use of the word, so what, it is just two perspectives. Neither is forcing their opinion on the other, just expressing it. Disagreeing is part and parcel of working at Wikipedia. No one is getting rude or out of hand here, quite the opposite. I would rather use example and persuasion rather than blunt force and threats to get my points across as I've found it more effective with most people. Again, finger pointing is no substitute for conversation. If people want to discuss how that affects retention, we can do that, but we will disagree. That's fine, as long as we actually try to at least understand the other's point of view. Dennis 2¢ 23:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  May I be allowed push my politeness theme? Some years ago I was teaching a course in the Netherlands, and at one point I said something like "well, of course you could do something like that, but it wouldn't be fair". Which to my astonishment led to me having to explain what "fair" meant, a word that apparently has no equivalent in Dutch. Or so I was told at the time, although no doubt Drmies will be along to correct me. But to me civility and politeness are two very different ideas, and politeness is by far the more important, even though it's unrecognised here on WP. To give just one example, I was recently banned from posting on Jimbo Wales' talk page, but he and others kept discussing me on there, without allowing me the right of reply. That's impolite. If I called you, Dennis, an arse-licking son-of-a-bitch that would be uncivil. But if you think about it, which of those two trangressions is the more undermining? Eric Corbett 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  It was a member of your clique who posted the question. —Neotarf (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have a "clique". But are you really putting that forward as the reason why Jimbo ignored the question? Is he unable to speak for himself? Eric Corbett 00:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  I suspect Jimbo ignored the question because he's tired of that stuff appearing over and over and over, and does not want to give it oxygen. But not to worry, I'm sure there are plenty more enablers around. —Neotarf (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I speak for happened on Jimmy's page. I quit going there and find myself happier for it. And yes, being talked about without being able to opine is not cricket. It's his talk page, so I guess that is his right, but still. I'm more concerned about the saccharine coated comments that sound polite (no cussing), but are actually more destructive than calling someone an arse. Undermining comments, "I wouldn't expect you to understand, you aren't a doctor" or "you're new, you have no idea how it really works" or similar condescending flavored comments. I've gotten plenty of those over the years, and frankly, I would rather have been called an arse than talked down like I was an idiot. Dennis 2¢ 01:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"[I'm] not sure how you are linking [Eric] to someone wanting to leave here." Dennis Brown, Eric is the one who suggested that an editor could "act like a cunt" [4] (though, of course, he did not suggest that I am or that anyone else is a cunt, the darling prodigy), after I asked at WP:AN how to go about creating a civility board. Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at this discussion, where you said you wanted to leave, not all discussions all over the wiki. Again, I've already made my opinion clear that I don't like the use of the word. I don't want to hang someone for using it, but I would (and have) consistently discouraged it. Dennis 2¢ 01:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Argh, jeez. Got a little off track here.

The origin of this thread was "Been thinking of quitting" (the title). The editor is depressed and seeks advice. Well that's what we're here for. Advice to follow.

So, first of all... while I don't know about the merits of "poached" thing in particular, in looking at the larger picture I see that the editor has been blocked four times. The editor has been dragged to about ten WP:ANI threads. The editor defends his right to use what a lot of people (wrongly or rightly) consider to be foul and insulting language. These are facts.

Here's my take in it, also informed by your posts directly above: you're abrasive. That's not necessarily a deal-killer, depending on other factors such as what else you bring to the table and other things. However, presence of other factors doesn't make this fact not a fact: you're abrasive.

I realize you don't get this probably. It's OK not to get this. You don't feel inside that you're abrasive. This happens. It's OK not get this emotionally, but it's not OK not to hear this and understand this on an intellectual level.

We all have had to do this from time to time in life. Bosses, spouses, friends, neighbors... they all have to tell us from time to time "Hey, did you realize you're doing X and that's not functional?" and we need to be able to hear this and adjust accordingly. It's like if someone tells you you've got a piece of food on your chin, you (hopefully) don't go "Me? I'm not a slob. There's no food on my chin". That would not be functional. Addressing the problem with a napkin is functional. Same deal here.

OK. You're abrasive. It's not the end of of the world. Steve Jobs was abrasive and he did OK, and so forth. You came here asking advice and my advice follows.

What I would recommend is stop being abrasive. This is win-win because its helpful to others as well. For goodness' sakes don't edit in areas where you are emotionally involved. That'd be like hanging around in bars if you're a recovering alcoholic. Instead, pick some area that you're not that invested in -- there are literally millions of subject areas here. Very very many national sports areas that are underserved if sports is your interest. Find out about them and fill out those articles. And be collegial rather than abrasive while doing it. I guarantee that your block problems and ANI problems will melt away like magic.

But if you don't want to do that or can't, you could be like "OK, I'm abrasive. That's how I roll and I like myself that way. I'm gonna get blocked sometimes, I'm gonna get dragged to ANI a lot, and I'm gonna have people say bad things to me sometimes, and that comes with the territory of being me". Own it. Don't whine. It's unbecoming. we can't expect everyone to like us, you know. You need to be OK with that.

So pick one, editor. Cowboy up. You can't have it both ways. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're seeing this in isolation. NOTHING happens on Wikipedia in isolation. Being nice to POV pushers simply encourages them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't have a block problem. I don't actually break the rules, so I have developed a strategy these days that usually gets the complainer into more trouble than me. Unless they are an Admin, of course. No negative consequences for POV pushing Admins. And I WAS at a sports page. I dared to suggest, nicely at first, because it was so completely obvious to me, that "poached" was not a neutral word. Then it all went bad. So this is not about blocks. It's about being taken to AN/I by POV pushers, who use the fact that I have been taken to AN/I so often (by POV pushers) as proof that I am bad. It stinks. AN/I sucks. Admins suck, becasue they won't punish other Admins. This place stinks. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re "I don't actually break the rules, so I have developed a strategy these days that usually gets the complainer into more trouble than me." No, you're not understanding what we're trying to do here. "Getting people into trouble" is not one of goals here. You do break the rules, otherwise you would not have your history of blocks and ANI discussions and so forth. You break the civility rules quite a bit: not agreeing with a rule is not the same as not breaking the rule.

But OK, this is not something that you agree with. I understand. We are not all gifted with good self-assessment skills, and I'm sure you have other compensating merits.

So let me try another tack. Have you noticed generally in life that you have problems? Have you had trouble at work or school, been disciplined or suspended or fired a few times? Do you generally have trouble getting along with schoolmates, co-workers, teachers, and bosses? I'm not asking if this occurs due to any fault of yours, just if it occurs. It may be simply that you have some ineffable and unchangeable quality that causes people to pick on you for no rational reason, or it may be that others are jealous of your gifts, or you may just be unlucky, or whatever you wish to ascribe this to.

If this is a pattern generally, perhaps you should consider modifying your behavior even though the other party is always at fault or if it seems that way to you, simply as a practical method for being happier. The details of how you might modify behavior I leave to your intelligence and imagination, or I or others would be willing to give you pointers. This is good advice that will work on the Wikipedia and can carry over into everyday life also, and will also make other people happier, so win-win.

If you don't have these problems and generally get along fine outside of Wikipedia, perhaps you should consider that Wikipedia is the problem. It may be that there is something about creating an encyclopedia that attracts blackguards. In that case the functional and healthy thing to do would be find another avocation. Don't worry about us -- we'll manage. Find some place in this world that makes you happy, which doesn't seem to be happening here.

But no, I would not go with the "getting other people in trouble" strategy. It's wrong, is not likely to end well, and is not likely to make you happy in the long term... and if it does make you happy, then we are dealing with an entirely different problem here. 19:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)