I've lain low with regard to Jimbo Wales' block of me, because I wanted first to wait and see if the matter might work itself out if I gave it a few weeks (see contributions). I've been working at Wikipedia for five years, mainly writing content—you can consult Raul654 for the quality of my work, if you like—and I guess I had a notion that some value might accrue to that, but it seems I was mistaken. I'm taking an indefinite break, not just because Jimbo Wales has called me a "toxic personality"[1]—a quite remarkably personal attack, from which he had to be pried loose in a meanly unapologetic statement.[2] And not just because of the demeaning way he blocked me: without warning; without discussion; in retaliation and punitively; blocking a user with five years of squeaky clean block log under her bra; blocking a user vulnerably asleep and thereby incapable of self-defence; blocking without care for context ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]); and blocking in a hurry.
And he blocked me under the banner of holding himself "to the highest standard", yet. No, it wasn't just that, but because other issues have been piling up, making me mull over whether this is a good place to be: compare User:Yomangan's farewell message, and Llywrch's post.
I'll save people a question: what made me expect satisfaction, even an apology, from Jimbo Wales? Well, I didn't really, for it was not, in my view of his personality, to be expected. But I've become aware that he has—in secret corners of the project—in non-transparent places—received some major criticism for his block of me, and I guess I figured he might have the grace to admit to me and/or others that the block was problematic and that it demonstrated extra low rather than extra high standards.[9] No soap, though. Indeed perhaps you and I had a culture clash, Mr Wales: California[10] versus Northern Europe. Hasta luego, all my friends. Probably I'll return one day, even though it seems so un-tempting right now; but I understand that people do. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Crap. Well, do what's best for you and what you enjoy, many thanks for all your contributions and your sense of fun which was much appreciated. Sad, dave souza, talk 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about this. And Giano, too. Who is going to finish the encyclopedia now? Sandstein and Jimbo will have to work overtime now. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought such a situation could ever arise. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return as soon as possible. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think she could use a wikibreak, she's been under a lot of stress :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California vs. Northern Europe? Seems more like Gordon Gecko vs. Mitt liv som hund's Ingemar. CEO's have no place at volunteer projects, and the CEO personality has no place outside of a reality television show.

In my own look through history, people get obsessed with the letter over the word, the word over the sentence, when they're afraid, when they're stressed, when they don't understand. "I don't know what's going on here, but that one said 'shit!'" is the attitude of the puzzled authoritarian. It's the reflexive attitude of the person whose action confesses instantly that there is coercion but not control. Well, the idea that there would be either one in such a place, in such a case, is laughable, and can only be proof that we're looking at a neolithic mindset. Geogre (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, degenerated as it may be with all its committees, behavioral guidelines, and pettifogging patrollers, is still a social experiment in taming the neolithic mindset. Largely failed in that respect, in my opinion. Or rather, it has contributed much to the development of the elaborate neolithism that dominates nine out of ten disputes these days. Enough of that. Bottom line: fscking crap. Kosebamse (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, see this garden? It's like your contributions over the years to this project—rich, colourful, deep, multifaceted. Mr Wales was wrong to block you. Please don't give that incident false dignity by reacting to it. You're strong and it will pass soon. Badge of honour, if you ask me. So please, if you must take a break, make it short, will you? We need you. Tony (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah, humbug. :-( Tex (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Californian of Northern European descent, it's certainly my hope that there needn't be any cultural clash between those two places. I can assure you that Signior Wales's actions are not representative of California. As for this Californian: He hopes you'll be back before too long and values your contributions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon my return to civilization, I am disgusted at the way you have been treated - and even more disgusted that not one Arb had to the common decency or guts to publicly stand up and defend you! What a bunch of cowardly little shits they are. Giano (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new question and suggestion:

1. Civility is the quality of behaving in a way that allows for civilization
2. Civility is that which allows the civil society to function
3. Civility has nothing to do with taboo or politeness, everything to do with the social group functioning politically.

If these statements are true, and I think they cannot be doubted (borrowed from other users), then blocking a productive (building relationships and content) user is uncivil, while calling someone a twelve headed gastropod is not. Calling someone a miniature scat is irrelevant compared to blocking someone who builds and enables building.

Bishonen is well known as a defender of the blocked, as a questioner of the received wisdom of blocking. Such a person is inevitably going to annoy and inevitably going to be invaluable, as long as she uses rational argument and evidence. In all of her defenses of the rapidly blocked, she has proven her cases. She has been, in these cases, working tirelessly and thanklessly to keep the project functioning, to put the brakes on mob rule.

Bishonen has also been one to coordinate efforts and social interactions between editors. She has argued against power, which, of course, will antagonize the proponents of power, but it is also invariably an important position in keeping a multifocal and open project functioning. It is vital for the "civil" side of Wikipedia that there be no log jam of power brokers. Nor has she done so with inflammatory language or off-wiki tools, as many others have done.

It therefore seems to me fairly clear that Bishonen is a force for and of civility and civil construction at Wikipedia.

Blocking people with whom one disagrees is a long time taboo at Wikipedia. No one is supposed to do this. From the earliest moment of the project's creation, people were supposed to seek the uninvolved before doing something like blocking. However, when a person uses a term like "toxic personality" (n.b. "personality," not "edit," not "action," not "words"), that establishes that the block is performed out of malice or anger. It is a violation of the blocking policy.

Supposing that there are different standards of behavior for different users at Wikipedia is to suppose that there are special people. Such a belief puts the lie to the very founding impulses of the project, where all contributions were to be seen as equal. If some contributions are to be weighted more than others, then, indeed, there are holy and unholy users, and yet there is no way of telling who those people are. To my knowledge, there has never been a process at Wikipedia for selecting such a person, as selections of administrators carry no such warnings.

If there is no special status inherent or adherent, then Jimbo's block of Bishonen is administrative abuse and a breech of WP:CIV.

Therefore: should an RfAr be opened on Jimbo Wales to seek his demotion? Is there no other way to solve these fundamental misunderstandings? Can Jimbo no other way give up the illusion of "god king" and "CEO" and other such concepts of infallibility? Can there no other way be an apology and a measure to prevent more such Alexander Haig-like command? Utgard Loki (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.

Over at User talk:GiacomoReturned#So!, Giano suggests that you still care about this block from Jimbo, and above he complains that Arbs have done nothing. That isn't quite true, as Casliber did mention his "dismay" over at Jimbo's talk page, and Jimbo did clarify that he did not intend to label you as a toxic personality. However calls for an RFAR, or a desysop, are terribly premature. You have both been around for long enough to know that dispute resolution starts with a one-on-one discussion. I am guessing you meant to start that with this post, however there are a lot of bystanders on both user talk pages, so I recommend that you two have a discussion on a separate page somewhere in userspace, either your own or you can use my userspace if you wish for me to exercise some control over unhelpful heckling. I would rather not become involved, but I will ask Jimbo to engage with you, if you are willing to have a one-on-one discussion with him. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, John. I will have a discussion with Jimbo if he's willing. However, since you mention it, I should point out right away that I'm unimpressed by Casliber's intervention (however well-intentioned) and by Jimbo's "clarification". I'll explain why if the occasion arises. A new subpage in my own space would be appropriate; I can't believe heckling would be a problem, once I explain to the too-helpful that the audience is supposed to be with the king, not the courtiers. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have taken the liberty of changing the tongue-in-cheek heading for a more direct one. This is not a moment for cuteness.--Wetman (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I would prefer that the original section name was preserved to put this in the right light of the accused, but I have added it as a hidden section name for now, as there is an incoming link. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "toxic personality" Mr Wales referred to, then? Tony (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question for him to answer; I am just endeavouring to set up a forum for Bishonen and him to chat in the hope it will allow these lingering questions to be answered. See also his clarification where Jimbo acknowledges that his use of "toxic personalities" was not ideal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]