Template:ACE2018 discussion

Fred wrote : "For example, suggestions such as "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." are unlikely to make women feel welcome."

I'm annoyed by this because people keep quoting it out of context. The specific post in question is this one from Eric Corbett towards Lightbreather and includes fair comment such as "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce .... incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." which tends to get left out in favour of the bit with the "juicy word" in it. The wider discussion was about a Civility Board, following the shut down of Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance in 2012.

The fall out from this comment ultimately caused three arbitration cases : Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. In retrospect, would it not have been easier to ignore the terse language and focus on the underlying point made in the post; namely that civility is too often in the eyes of the beholder, and hence trying to find a solution that keeps the project on track is very difficult?

Finally, Lightbreather did not quit Wikipedia because Eric used the word "cunt" (his comment is not directed at anyone so to say he called anyone that is factually incorrect), she left because she was banned by the Arbitration Committee. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did once call Jimmy Wales a "dishonest cunt" on his talk page. But despite all of the bad press surrounding that word I used it very sparingly, never considered it to be a gender-based insult any more than "dick" is, and never used it to or to describe any woman. Obviously though the myth is more interesting than the facts. Eric Corbett 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair also, Fred's own comment here is unlikely to make women feel welcome in the conversation. He isn't calling anybody a cunt either, but I'm not sure using the word to make a remark more "colourful" (juicy?) or "memorable" is any better. As you can see, I still remember it after all these years. It was a bit off-putting. Laddish. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I understand that you found it to be "laddish", but I don't agree that makes it so. Eric Corbett 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett: If you think yourself better placed than me to evaluate its chilling effect on women, that's fine. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

What conceit is it that leads you to believe that you speak for all women? Or even for most women? Eric Corbett 01:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a woman is probably better placed to speak about how women feel about issues affecting women than a man would be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that comment could have a chilling effect. It was laddish and certainly boorish. I wasn't going to comment here, but reading it again I just couldn't ignore it. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, just don't expect me to share it. Eric Corbett 18:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that his response to my question about his spat on the questions page did not impress me. It failed to address the main concern (how he felt that any angry and insulting tirade against another user) was in keeping with the tone and attitudes an arbcom member must have (well I hope would have). In fact his response to me was faintly dismissive. This is a shame as I would like to see civility more strongly enforced (which was his stated aim), I am just not sure it can be done by someone who themselves seems to ignore our civility rules when tyhey feel it is justified (the very attitude I think we need to tackle with greater vehemency).Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the latest bit of self serving abuses of admin privileges means I am not not sure he should even be an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to the opening thread of this discussion, I saw this comment this evening, where Tony Robinson called Donald Trump a cunt, and there seem to be plenty of women supporting him, including one saying "Not a c*** as he is neither deep enough or warm enough. What he is is a strong and potent case for celibacy!!" I'm all for improved civility here, but bashing people over the head for "bad words" just does not work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, a discussion about laddishness isn't helped by posting more of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laddishness? From Sir Tony Robinson? He said upfront that such language was usually unacceptable, but then posted an example of when he thought it wasn't and got a large endorsement (although admittedly from a rather loud echo chamber). Still, it proves that people are perfectly capable of throwing "c bombs" when the situation mandates it, irrespective of gender. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to say although it's unlikely I would have voted since I haven't for quite a few cycles now, I actually feel quite strongly about civility and that our current extremely lax enforcement is putting off a lot of editors. If I was going solely from the statements, I would have put Fred Bauder near the top of my list. I barely recognise the name, so had no initial opinions, and it probably doesn't help that the only reason I'm here is because of the mess that blew up on ANI. But I suspect even if I were to completely put aside the circumstances surrounding the de-admining, and even if I were to completely put aside the personal stuff that lead to the end of their career as a lawyer, I would be voting a definite no once I read the question section. What I see is extreme evasiveness, a treatment of anyone who asks a question they don't like an an enemy etc. Maybe some of the questioners don't agree with your platform and views on civility, and maybe their questions are partly as a result of it. It doesn't mean you have to behave so poorly in response. And while it's perhaps a worse after the recent problems where I could understand emotions are now high, I think (I didn't check dates exactly for everything) it's bad enough if I restrict myself to before then. And I'm not happy about this, as I said, what was said in their statement was exactly what we need. I can only hope that this doesn't put future candidates running on a similar platform since it's something we desperately need. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to the above, an unwillingness to accept any real responsibility for what happened (a mild "I was not alone", as if the other parties were admins, and mainly about how he expected others to do it for him him, in effect it is everyone esles fault). As well as a extraordinary amount of doublespeak, going on about how he will stand up to incivility and aggressive tactics whilst being pretty damn aggressive and uncivil). In fact his responses indicate that if this were to happen again he would not act any differently (even bring in his real life, in a tone of "I have had to fight all my life injustice". As I said above, I agree we need tougher enforcement of civility, but not by people who have a "but not towards me" attitude, not by eds who are this tone deaf to their own failings.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shall definitely be voting to oppose this Candidate. Totally unsuitable. Morphenniel (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this response by the candidate in a back-and-forth with Ceoil to be an entirely inappropriate threat: "I can see that you feel free to act as ugly as you wish here, an assessment which I believe is true. I would change that and enforce Civility. You, should you continue to engage in ugly behavior, would be subject to sanctions, and, if you are unable to control your behavior, which I suspect is true, would not be able to participate on Wikipedia. So, in a way, you are fighting for your life. I understand." Obviously, this candidacy is already sunk to the bottom of the deep blue sea but I would like to register my strong objection nonetheless. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official statement on Fred Bauder's standing as candidate

The electoral commission has discussed the issue of Fred Bauder's nomination and agrees that he is to appear on the voting ballot. After discussing the the definition of being in good standing, the committee has opted to consider good standing as "to not be subjects of an active block". Fred's block was lifted before the nomination period was closed, thus his nomination has been restored. Fred Bauder is also reminded that unless the questions outright attack or out users, questions cannot be moved or removed from the candidate's questions page.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]