User:AP295

<mediawiki xmlns="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.11/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.11/ http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.11.xsd" version="0.11" xml:lang="en">
  <siteinfo>
    <sitename>Meta</sitename>
    <dbname>metawiki</dbname>
    <base>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Main_Page</base>
    <generator>MediaWiki 1.43.0-wmf.27</generator>
    <case>first-letter</case>
    <namespaces>
      <namespace key="-2" case="first-letter">Media</namespace>
      <namespace key="-1" case="first-letter">Special</namespace>
      <namespace key="0" case="first-letter" />
      <namespace key="1" case="first-letter">Talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="2" case="first-letter">User</namespace>
      <namespace key="3" case="first-letter">User talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="4" case="first-letter">Meta</namespace>
      <namespace key="5" case="first-letter">Meta talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="6" case="first-letter">File</namespace>
      <namespace key="7" case="first-letter">File talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="8" case="first-letter">MediaWiki</namespace>
      <namespace key="9" case="first-letter">MediaWiki talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="10" case="first-letter">Template</namespace>
      <namespace key="11" case="first-letter">Template talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="12" case="first-letter">Help</namespace>
      <namespace key="13" case="first-letter">Help talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="14" case="first-letter">Category</namespace>
      <namespace key="15" case="first-letter">Category talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="200" case="first-letter">Grants</namespace>
      <namespace key="201" case="first-letter">Grants talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="202" case="first-letter">Research</namespace>
      <namespace key="203" case="first-letter">Research talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="206" case="first-letter">Iberocoop</namespace>
      <namespace key="207" case="first-letter">Iberocoop talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="470" case="first-letter">Schema</namespace>
      <namespace key="471" case="first-letter">Schema talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="482" case="first-letter">Config</namespace>
      <namespace key="483" case="first-letter">Config talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="710" case="first-letter">TimedText</namespace>
      <namespace key="711" case="first-letter">TimedText talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="828" case="first-letter">Module</namespace>
      <namespace key="829" case="first-letter">Module talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="866" case="first-letter">CNBanner</namespace>
      <namespace key="867" case="first-letter">CNBanner talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="1198" case="first-letter">Translations</namespace>
      <namespace key="1199" case="first-letter">Translations talk</namespace>
      <namespace key="1728" case="first-letter">Event</namespace>
      <namespace key="1729" case="first-letter">Event talk</namespace>
    </namespaces>
  </siteinfo>
  <page>
    <title>User:AP295</title>
    <ns>2</ns>
    <id>12630964</id>
    <revision>
      <id>26631445</id>
      <timestamp>2024-04-18T13:04:36Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Created page with "Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.  1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).   2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back.   ~~~~"</comment>
      <origin>26631445</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="385" sha1="6jz9z4nigfc1n0abf8rkb1v0zn6ywso" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>6jz9z4nigfc1n0abf8rkb1v0zn6ywso</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26635122</id>
      <parentid>26631445</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-18T21:46:10Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26635122</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1044" sha1="g71paazgw7iegwkvk424gy3kbhstrxz" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:STICK  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]],  [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| just drop it]]. Just [[w:WP:COAL | catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>g71paazgw7iegwkvk424gy3kbhstrxz</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26635149</id>
      <parentid>26635122</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-18T21:51:12Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26635149</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1040" sha1="r72rdlfsoujeyk813ayuzir9i1so5vj" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]],  [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| just drop it]]. [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>r72rdlfsoujeyk813ayuzir9i1so5vj</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26635152</id>
      <parentid>26635149</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-18T21:51:26Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26635152</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1042" sha1="4b7uq5qxmet21r17p8tfn4yjhic6wlr" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]],  [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| just drop it]]. [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>4b7uq5qxmet21r17p8tfn4yjhic6wlr</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26635487</id>
      <parentid>26635152</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-18T22:51:56Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26635487</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1179" sha1="23ay1fjcnhuoqim5vfprszde0mi8g1m" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]],  [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| just drop it]]. [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? Let's do something about that. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 22:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>23ay1fjcnhuoqim5vfprszde0mi8g1m</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26635490</id>
      <parentid>26635487</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-18T22:52:13Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26635490</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1105" sha1="i1tjwh033rgzwj6bou9lq4fte9f19oc" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]],  [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| just drop it]]. [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? Let's do something about that. 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>i1tjwh033rgzwj6bou9lq4fte9f19oc</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26642629</id>
      <parentid>26635490</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-20T07:30:14Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26642629</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="1739" sha1="k6ip7rzn2wuey26vgso0bjbapl5xzby" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>k6ip7rzn2wuey26vgso0bjbapl5xzby</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26648206</id>
      <parentid>26642629</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-20T22:43:35Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26648206</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="2490" sha1="awbehw0m69l5a8a9r2mkwf5s2s8fkfr" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>awbehw0m69l5a8a9r2mkwf5s2s8fkfr</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26648227</id>
      <parentid>26648206</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-20T23:00:13Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26648227</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="3532" sha1="46xkbs77t5s87qdfg3todvi8x6m44yx" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]].

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>46xkbs77t5s87qdfg3todvi8x6m44yx</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26648231</id>
      <parentid>26648227</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-20T23:05:26Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26648231</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="3536" sha1="181emidxiggxz6ut2x4j8hn3gfbrxxt" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]].

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>181emidxiggxz6ut2x4j8hn3gfbrxxt</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26648241</id>
      <parentid>26648231</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-20T23:09:20Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26648241</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="3626" sha1="nyr6y5i6ob6yyr9gb6n334u9loofcma" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>nyr6y5i6ob6yyr9gb6n334u9loofcma</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26648292</id>
      <parentid>26648241</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-21T00:04:23Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26648292</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="3747" sha1="iqc1gqpc9z1awow08vnm251djs6myxg" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>iqc1gqpc9z1awow08vnm251djs6myxg</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26649018</id>
      <parentid>26648292</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-21T03:31:17Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26649018</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4052" sha1="idsu15onbv3v6hifxuv3k8uccowd9ad" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>idsu15onbv3v6hifxuv3k8uccowd9ad</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26649029</id>
      <parentid>26649018</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-21T03:42:39Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26649029</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4194" sha1="o9pfb736cpz851hldu1mazasv0yrnl3" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>o9pfb736cpz851hldu1mazasv0yrnl3</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26649087</id>
      <parentid>26649029</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-21T04:20:31Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26649087</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4658" sha1="3ysvqahivcgqp2l3lygzwlvg17as5f7" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is falsely presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>3ysvqahivcgqp2l3lygzwlvg17as5f7</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26649122</id>
      <parentid>26649087</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-21T04:27:41Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26649122</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4744" sha1="1inic9ctn20jbxv2vxcbg6sk8vzpyop" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>1inic9ctn20jbxv2vxcbg6sk8vzpyop</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26649156</id>
      <parentid>26649122</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-04-21T04:44:04Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26649156</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="4993" sha1="f2kv7h1mqdki6ohwpzbs9aygkajynjm" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)</text>
      <sha1>f2kv7h1mqdki6ohwpzbs9aygkajynjm</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26822956</id>
      <parentid>26649156</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-05-23T10:48:50Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26822956</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="11645" sha1="p3i3k8wx8poe0w5juplmf6278i110wp" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 


-A practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations and some other observations. (which I've may move to its own page under ''Requests for comment/''):

When a sysop or admin blocks someone, they should cite both (a) specific policy and (b) substantive diff(s) or permalink(s), either with on the recipient's talk page or (ideally) in the block log entry. It takes only a moment to include this information. Without it, an observer or uninvolved party cannot straightforwardly assess the fairness of a block or whether a block complies with policy. Likewise, the recipient of a block cannot make a convincing argument in their own defense, as the blocking admin/sysop hasn't made a concrete, falsifiable statement in the first place (apart from some variation on "you are blocked", usually followed by a glib comment). Its absence also precludes (or at least complicates) the public investigation of potential biases or other patterns in the aggregate, since one cannot easily associate each block with the contribution(s) it resulted from. This is the minimum amount of information needed for public accountability and at the very least should be provided with blocks issued to autoconfirmed users. Wikimedia projects promote the impression that they are open public participation. The UCoC uses [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideographs]] like &lt;inclusive&gt;, &lt;diverse&gt; and &lt;accessible&gt;. The enforcement guidelines emphasize &lt;transparency&gt; and fairness. This seems quite at odds with how blocks are presently handled. What I am proposing here would make it plainly obvious if a block was issued unfairly or against policy.

Sometimes instead of (b) the blocking sysop/admin gives a nonspecific description of where the alleged violation occurred, even though it would take only an extra few seconds to paste a link. This is favorable to abuse for the reasons I've already explained. The only exception should be deleted versions or pages. Additionally, sysops/admins often cite essays instead of official policy. This convention likewise serves no purpose except to facilitate abuse: If a user has not plausibly broken any official rule or policy then they should not be blocked, and if official policy is inadequate then it should be changed. It is deceptive to call one set of rules "official policy" while enforcing another set of rules categorized and labeled as "essays": "''Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines].

Why would any project state that it "''has no firm rules''" yet actually have pages upon pages of rules? Rules can be broad and rules can be adjusted or changed, but when rules are 'soft', vague or needlessly overwrought, it is usually a sign that they were written by people who do not intend to respect those rules themselves. The entirety of UCoC section two (along with a number of 'essays' and a sizable chunk of official wikipedia policy) could just as well be replaced with the sentence "observe common decency and show respect to other users". The exposition in [[w:WP:NOTBURO]] and [[w:WP:5P5]] does not constitute a serious argument against having a fair, concise and consistently-enforced set of rules, the value of which is self-evident. Consider this specious portion of [[w:WP:NOTBURO]], "''Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.''" It seems to excuse any expedient departure from official policy (e.g. an abusive block), suggesting that such an event should be interpreted as failure of ''the community'' to ''document accepted practice'' rather than a failure on part of specific members to observe the current rules. This wouldn't per se be unfair if the official rules were actually changed to reflect how admins, sysops, and other "whitelisted users" behave. For example, if some essay represents de-facto policy then let it be ''called'' official policy. "Whitelisted users" is a phrase I found in wiktionary's blocking policy [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Blocking_policy&amp;oldid=59702792]: "''It is rare, but occasionally there will be a seasoned contributor, even an administrator, who is causing trouble; such cases must be handled with diplomacy. It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions.''" A bit on-the-nose, no? How is any other user (aside from those on the "whitelist") supposed to know they'll be blocked for something that doesn't violate a reasonable interpretation of official policy? How should ''they'' divine which of the many contradictory essays or unwritten rules "reflects practice"? 

I go on. Wikipedia's appeal policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Direct_appeal] gives one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ''". The sysop/admin who issued the block obviously isn't going to agree, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the block. The rest of the sentence further qualifies this already-weak assurance, "''but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''". Why wouldn't it simply read "If you've been blocked unfairly, you'll be unblocked"? Is that not reasonable? Again one gets the sense that these rules are written without any intent to enforce them fairly and consistently. Rules for thee and not for me. I could talk about the profusion of thought-terminating essays, which in my experience are typically cited well before a dispute reaches its conclusion. (see my metawiki userpage) There's also AGF, which outright demands credulity from the user. Since it can only be enforced insofar that a user ''says'' what they ''assume'', it could be restated (more-or-less equivalently) as "do not question the motives of others". Yet despite these things, I believe that implementing this simple proposal would go a long way toward curtailing abuse, simply by way of making it plain to see. I intend this as policy proposal and a critique of current policy, not a critique of any particular admin or sysop.


[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>p3i3k8wx8poe0w5juplmf6278i110wp</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26822957</id>
      <parentid>26822956</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-05-23T10:49:11Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26822957</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="11617" sha1="hvqitpesjn3i33ahk47qewastnnlbdq" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 


-A practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. (which I've may move to its own page under ''Requests for comment/''):

When a sysop or admin blocks someone, they should cite both (a) specific policy and (b) substantive diff(s) or permalink(s), either with on the recipient's talk page or (ideally) in the block log entry. It takes only a moment to include this information. Without it, an observer or uninvolved party cannot straightforwardly assess the fairness of a block or whether a block complies with policy. Likewise, the recipient of a block cannot make a convincing argument in their own defense, as the blocking admin/sysop hasn't made a concrete, falsifiable statement in the first place (apart from some variation on "you are blocked", usually followed by a glib comment). Its absence also precludes (or at least complicates) the public investigation of potential biases or other patterns in the aggregate, since one cannot easily associate each block with the contribution(s) it resulted from. This is the minimum amount of information needed for public accountability and at the very least should be provided with blocks issued to autoconfirmed users. Wikimedia projects promote the impression that they are open public participation. The UCoC uses [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideographs]] like &lt;inclusive&gt;, &lt;diverse&gt; and &lt;accessible&gt;. The enforcement guidelines emphasize &lt;transparency&gt; and fairness. This seems quite at odds with how blocks are presently handled. What I am proposing here would make it plainly obvious if a block was issued unfairly or against policy.

Sometimes instead of (b) the blocking sysop/admin gives a nonspecific description of where the alleged violation occurred, even though it would take only an extra few seconds to paste a link. This is favorable to abuse for the reasons I've already explained. The only exception should be deleted versions or pages. Additionally, sysops/admins often cite essays instead of official policy. This convention likewise serves no purpose except to facilitate abuse: If a user has not plausibly broken any official rule or policy then they should not be blocked, and if official policy is inadequate then it should be changed. It is deceptive to call one set of rules "official policy" while enforcing another set of rules categorized and labeled as "essays": "''Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines].

Why would any project state that it "''has no firm rules''" yet actually have pages upon pages of rules? Rules can be broad and rules can be adjusted or changed, but when rules are 'soft', vague or needlessly overwrought, it is usually a sign that they were written by people who do not intend to respect those rules themselves. The entirety of UCoC section two (along with a number of 'essays' and a sizable chunk of official wikipedia policy) could just as well be replaced with the sentence "observe common decency and show respect to other users". The exposition in [[w:WP:NOTBURO]] and [[w:WP:5P5]] does not constitute a serious argument against having a fair, concise and consistently-enforced set of rules, the value of which is self-evident. Consider this specious portion of [[w:WP:NOTBURO]], "''Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.''" It seems to excuse any expedient departure from official policy (e.g. an abusive block), suggesting that such an event should be interpreted as failure of ''the community'' to ''document accepted practice'' rather than a failure on part of specific members to observe the current rules. This wouldn't per se be unfair if the official rules were actually changed to reflect how admins, sysops, and other "whitelisted users" behave. For example, if some essay represents de-facto policy then let it be ''called'' official policy. "Whitelisted users" is a phrase I found in wiktionary's blocking policy [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Blocking_policy&amp;oldid=59702792]: "''It is rare, but occasionally there will be a seasoned contributor, even an administrator, who is causing trouble; such cases must be handled with diplomacy. It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions.''" A bit on-the-nose, no? How is any other user (aside from those on the "whitelist") supposed to know they'll be blocked for something that doesn't violate a reasonable interpretation of official policy? How should ''they'' divine which of the many contradictory essays or unwritten rules "reflects practice"? 

I go on. Wikipedia's appeal policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Direct_appeal] gives one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ''". The sysop/admin who issued the block obviously isn't going to agree, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the block. The rest of the sentence further qualifies this already-weak assurance, "''but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''". Why wouldn't it simply read "If you've been blocked unfairly, you'll be unblocked"? Is that not reasonable? Again one gets the sense that these rules are written without any intent to enforce them fairly and consistently. Rules for thee and not for me. I could talk about the profusion of thought-terminating essays, which in my experience are typically cited well before a dispute reaches its conclusion. (see my metawiki userpage) There's also AGF, which outright demands credulity from the user. Since it can only be enforced insofar that a user ''says'' what they ''assume'', it could be restated (more-or-less equivalently) as "do not question the motives of others". Yet despite these things, I believe that implementing this simple proposal would go a long way toward curtailing abuse, simply by way of making it plain to see. I intend this as policy proposal and a critique of current policy, not a critique of any particular admin or sysop.


[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>hvqitpesjn3i33ahk47qewastnnlbdq</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26822958</id>
      <parentid>26822957</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-05-23T10:51:21Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26822958</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="11640" sha1="huvxwtuyrmkzo29v83xoccdmg0wf3ns" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 


-A practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I wrote following with that intention to start an RfC, which I'll probably do at some point.:

When a sysop or admin blocks someone, they should cite both (a) specific policy and (b) substantive diff(s) or permalink(s), either with on the recipient's talk page or (ideally) in the block log entry. It takes only a moment to include this information. Without it, an observer or uninvolved party cannot straightforwardly assess the fairness of a block or whether a block complies with policy. Likewise, the recipient of a block cannot make a convincing argument in their own defense, as the blocking admin/sysop hasn't made a concrete, falsifiable statement in the first place (apart from some variation on "you are blocked", usually followed by a glib comment). Its absence also precludes (or at least complicates) the public investigation of potential biases or other patterns in the aggregate, since one cannot easily associate each block with the contribution(s) it resulted from. This is the minimum amount of information needed for public accountability and at the very least should be provided with blocks issued to autoconfirmed users. Wikimedia projects promote the impression that they are open public participation. The UCoC uses [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideographs]] like &lt;inclusive&gt;, &lt;diverse&gt; and &lt;accessible&gt;. The enforcement guidelines emphasize &lt;transparency&gt; and fairness. This seems quite at odds with how blocks are presently handled. What I am proposing here would make it plainly obvious if a block was issued unfairly or against policy.

Sometimes instead of (b) the blocking sysop/admin gives a nonspecific description of where the alleged violation occurred, even though it would take only an extra few seconds to paste a link. This is favorable to abuse for the reasons I've already explained. The only exception should be deleted versions or pages. Additionally, sysops/admins often cite essays instead of official policy. This convention likewise serves no purpose except to facilitate abuse: If a user has not plausibly broken any official rule or policy then they should not be blocked, and if official policy is inadequate then it should be changed. It is deceptive to call one set of rules "official policy" while enforcing another set of rules categorized and labeled as "essays": "''Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines].

Why would any project state that it "''has no firm rules''" yet actually have pages upon pages of rules? Rules can be broad and rules can be adjusted or changed, but when rules are 'soft', vague or needlessly overwrought, it is usually a sign that they were written by people who do not intend to respect those rules themselves. The entirety of UCoC section two (along with a number of 'essays' and a sizable chunk of official wikipedia policy) could just as well be replaced with the sentence "observe common decency and show respect to other users". The exposition in [[w:WP:NOTBURO]] and [[w:WP:5P5]] does not constitute a serious argument against having a fair, concise and consistently-enforced set of rules, the value of which is self-evident. Consider this specious portion of [[w:WP:NOTBURO]], "''Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.''" It seems to excuse any expedient departure from official policy (e.g. an abusive block), suggesting that such an event should be interpreted as failure of ''the community'' to ''document accepted practice'' rather than a failure on part of specific members to observe the current rules. This wouldn't per se be unfair if the official rules were actually changed to reflect how admins, sysops, and other "whitelisted users" behave. For example, if some essay represents de-facto policy then let it be ''called'' official policy. "Whitelisted users" is a phrase I found in wiktionary's blocking policy [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Blocking_policy&amp;oldid=59702792]: "''It is rare, but occasionally there will be a seasoned contributor, even an administrator, who is causing trouble; such cases must be handled with diplomacy. It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions.''" A bit on-the-nose, no? How is any other user (aside from those on the "whitelist") supposed to know they'll be blocked for something that doesn't violate a reasonable interpretation of official policy? How should ''they'' divine which of the many contradictory essays or unwritten rules "reflects practice"? 

I go on. Wikipedia's appeal policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Direct_appeal] gives one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ''". The sysop/admin who issued the block obviously isn't going to agree, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the block. The rest of the sentence further qualifies this already-weak assurance, "''but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''". Why wouldn't it simply read "If you've been blocked unfairly, you'll be unblocked"? Is that not reasonable? Again one gets the sense that these rules are written without any intent to enforce them fairly and consistently. Rules for thee and not for me. I could talk about the profusion of thought-terminating essays, which in my experience are typically cited well before a dispute reaches its conclusion. (see my metawiki userpage) There's also AGF, which outright demands credulity from the user. Since it can only be enforced insofar that a user ''says'' what they ''assume'', it could be restated (more-or-less equivalently) as "do not question the motives of others". Yet despite these things, I believe that implementing this simple proposal would go a long way toward curtailing abuse, simply by way of making it plain to see. I intend this as policy proposal and a critique of current policy, not a critique of any particular admin or sysop.


[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>huvxwtuyrmkzo29v83xoccdmg0wf3ns</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26822959</id>
      <parentid>26822958</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-05-23T10:51:45Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26822959</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="11639" sha1="b6g6zo5rcpd0zj6781psm4oxj9ls0zw" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 


-A practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I wrote following with the intention to start an RfC, which I'll probably do at some point.:

When a sysop or admin blocks someone, they should cite both (a) specific policy and (b) substantive diff(s) or permalink(s), either with on the recipient's talk page or (ideally) in the block log entry. It takes only a moment to include this information. Without it, an observer or uninvolved party cannot straightforwardly assess the fairness of a block or whether a block complies with policy. Likewise, the recipient of a block cannot make a convincing argument in their own defense, as the blocking admin/sysop hasn't made a concrete, falsifiable statement in the first place (apart from some variation on "you are blocked", usually followed by a glib comment). Its absence also precludes (or at least complicates) the public investigation of potential biases or other patterns in the aggregate, since one cannot easily associate each block with the contribution(s) it resulted from. This is the minimum amount of information needed for public accountability and at the very least should be provided with blocks issued to autoconfirmed users. Wikimedia projects promote the impression that they are open public participation. The UCoC uses [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideographs]] like &lt;inclusive&gt;, &lt;diverse&gt; and &lt;accessible&gt;. The enforcement guidelines emphasize &lt;transparency&gt; and fairness. This seems quite at odds with how blocks are presently handled. What I am proposing here would make it plainly obvious if a block was issued unfairly or against policy.

Sometimes instead of (b) the blocking sysop/admin gives a nonspecific description of where the alleged violation occurred, even though it would take only an extra few seconds to paste a link. This is favorable to abuse for the reasons I've already explained. The only exception should be deleted versions or pages. Additionally, sysops/admins often cite essays instead of official policy. This convention likewise serves no purpose except to facilitate abuse: If a user has not plausibly broken any official rule or policy then they should not be blocked, and if official policy is inadequate then it should be changed. It is deceptive to call one set of rules "official policy" while enforcing another set of rules categorized and labeled as "essays": "''Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines].

Why would any project state that it "''has no firm rules''" yet actually have pages upon pages of rules? Rules can be broad and rules can be adjusted or changed, but when rules are 'soft', vague or needlessly overwrought, it is usually a sign that they were written by people who do not intend to respect those rules themselves. The entirety of UCoC section two (along with a number of 'essays' and a sizable chunk of official wikipedia policy) could just as well be replaced with the sentence "observe common decency and show respect to other users". The exposition in [[w:WP:NOTBURO]] and [[w:WP:5P5]] does not constitute a serious argument against having a fair, concise and consistently-enforced set of rules, the value of which is self-evident. Consider this specious portion of [[w:WP:NOTBURO]], "''Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.''" It seems to excuse any expedient departure from official policy (e.g. an abusive block), suggesting that such an event should be interpreted as failure of ''the community'' to ''document accepted practice'' rather than a failure on part of specific members to observe the current rules. This wouldn't per se be unfair if the official rules were actually changed to reflect how admins, sysops, and other "whitelisted users" behave. For example, if some essay represents de-facto policy then let it be ''called'' official policy. "Whitelisted users" is a phrase I found in wiktionary's blocking policy [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Blocking_policy&amp;oldid=59702792]: "''It is rare, but occasionally there will be a seasoned contributor, even an administrator, who is causing trouble; such cases must be handled with diplomacy. It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions.''" A bit on-the-nose, no? How is any other user (aside from those on the "whitelist") supposed to know they'll be blocked for something that doesn't violate a reasonable interpretation of official policy? How should ''they'' divine which of the many contradictory essays or unwritten rules "reflects practice"? 

I go on. Wikipedia's appeal policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Direct_appeal] gives one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ''". The sysop/admin who issued the block obviously isn't going to agree, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the block. The rest of the sentence further qualifies this already-weak assurance, "''but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''". Why wouldn't it simply read "If you've been blocked unfairly, you'll be unblocked"? Is that not reasonable? Again one gets the sense that these rules are written without any intent to enforce them fairly and consistently. Rules for thee and not for me. I could talk about the profusion of thought-terminating essays, which in my experience are typically cited well before a dispute reaches its conclusion. (see my metawiki userpage) There's also AGF, which outright demands credulity from the user. Since it can only be enforced insofar that a user ''says'' what they ''assume'', it could be restated (more-or-less equivalently) as "do not question the motives of others". Yet despite these things, I believe that implementing this simple proposal would go a long way toward curtailing abuse, simply by way of making it plain to see. I intend this as policy proposal and a critique of current policy, not a critique of any particular admin or sysop.


[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>b6g6zo5rcpd0zj6781psm4oxj9ls0zw</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26822964</id>
      <parentid>26822959</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-05-23T10:54:22Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26822964</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="11685" sha1="1w0fr1jkm7arpw7poqpqtldvd52hpez" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 


-A practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I wrote following with the intention to start an RfC, which I'll probably do at some point.:

When a sysop or admin blocks someone, they should cite both (a) specific policy and (b) substantive diff(s) or permalink(s), either with on the recipient's talk page or (ideally) in the block log entry. It takes only a moment to include this information. Without it, an observer or uninvolved party cannot straightforwardly assess the fairness of a block or whether a block complies with policy. Likewise, the recipient of a block cannot make a convincing argument in their own defense, as the blocking admin/sysop hasn't made a concrete, falsifiable statement in the first place (apart from some variation on "you are blocked", usually followed by a glib comment). Its absence also precludes (or at least complicates) the public investigation of potential biases or other patterns in the aggregate, since one cannot easily associate each block with the contribution(s) it resulted from. This is the minimum amount of information needed for public accountability and at the very least should be provided with blocks issued to autoconfirmed users. Wikimedia projects promote the impression that they are open public participation. The UCoC uses [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideographs]] like &lt;inclusive&gt;, &lt;diverse&gt; and &lt;accessible&gt;. The enforcement guidelines emphasize &lt;transparency&gt; and fairness. This seems quite at odds with how blocks are presently handled. What I am proposing here would make it plainly obvious if a block was issued unfairly or against policy.

Sometimes instead of (b) the blocking sysop/admin gives a nonspecific description of where the alleged violation occurred, even though it would take only an extra few seconds to paste a link. This is favorable to abuse for the reasons I've already explained. The only exception should be deleted versions or pages. Additionally, sysops/admins often cite essays instead of official policy. This convention likewise serves no purpose except to facilitate abuse: If a user has not plausibly broken any official rule or policy then they should not be blocked, and if official policy is inadequate then it should be changed. It is deceptive to call one set of rules "official policy" while enforcing another set of rules categorized and labeled as "essays": "''Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines].

Why would any project state that it "''has no firm rules''" yet actually have pages upon pages of rules? Rules can be broad and rules can be adjusted or changed, but when rules are 'soft', vague or needlessly overwrought, it is usually a sign that they were written by people who do not intend to respect those rules themselves. The entirety of UCoC section two (along with a number of 'essays' and a sizable chunk of official wikipedia policy) could just as well be replaced with the sentence "observe common decency and show respect to other users". The exposition in [[w:WP:NOTBURO]] and [[w:WP:5P5]] does not constitute a serious argument against having a fair, concise and consistently-enforced set of rules, the value of which is self-evident. Consider this specious portion of [[w:WP:NOTBURO]], "''Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.''" It seems to excuse any expedient departure from official policy (e.g. an abusive block), suggesting that such an event should be interpreted as failure of ''the community'' to ''document accepted practice'' rather than a failure on part of specific members to observe the current rules. This wouldn't per se be unfair if the official rules were actually changed to reflect how admins, sysops, and other "whitelisted users" behave. For example, if some essay represents de facto policy and is enforced as if it were official policy then let it be ''called'' official policy. "Whitelisted users" is a phrase I found in wiktionary's blocking policy [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Blocking_policy&amp;oldid=59702792]: "''It is rare, but occasionally there will be a seasoned contributor, even an administrator, who is causing trouble; such cases must be handled with diplomacy. It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions.''" A bit on-the-nose, no? How is any other user (aside from those on the "whitelist") supposed to know they'll be blocked for something that doesn't violate a reasonable interpretation of official policy? How should ''they'' divine which of the many contradictory essays or unwritten rules "reflects practice"? 

I go on. Wikipedia's appeal policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Direct_appeal] gives one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ''". The sysop/admin who issued the block obviously isn't going to agree, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the block. The rest of the sentence further qualifies this already-weak assurance, "''but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''". Why wouldn't it simply read "If you've been blocked unfairly, you'll be unblocked"? Is that not reasonable? Again one gets the sense that these rules are written without any intent to enforce them fairly and consistently. Rules for thee and not for me. I could talk about the profusion of thought-terminating essays, which in my experience are typically cited well before a dispute reaches its conclusion. (see my metawiki userpage) There's also AGF, which outright demands credulity from the user. Since it can only be enforced insofar that a user ''says'' what they ''assume'', it could be restated (more-or-less equivalently) as "do not question the motives of others". Yet despite these things, I believe that implementing this simple proposal would go a long way toward curtailing abuse, simply by way of making it plain to see. I intend this as policy proposal and a critique of current policy, not a critique of any particular admin or sysop.


[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>1w0fr1jkm7arpw7poqpqtldvd52hpez</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26829536</id>
      <parentid>26822964</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-05-24T21:49:22Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26829536</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="12475" sha1="6kbnhj0iof12leisj9juuyeib0p6nwm" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 


-A practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I wrote following with the intention to start an RfC, which I'll probably do at some point.:

When a sysop or admin blocks someone, they should cite both (a) specific policy and (b) substantive diff(s) or permalink(s), either with on the recipient's talk page or (ideally) in the block log entry. It takes only a moment to include this information. Without it, an observer or uninvolved party cannot straightforwardly assess the fairness of a block or whether a block complies with policy. Likewise, the recipient of a block cannot make a convincing argument in their own defense, as the blocking admin/sysop hasn't made a concrete, falsifiable statement in the first place (apart from some variation on "you are blocked", usually followed by a glib comment). Its absence also precludes (or at least complicates) the public investigation of potential biases or other patterns in the aggregate, since one cannot easily associate each block with the contribution(s) it resulted from. This is the minimum amount of information needed for public accountability and at the very least should be provided with blocks issued to autoconfirmed users. Wikimedia projects promote the impression that they are open public participation. The UCoC uses [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideographs]] like &lt;inclusive&gt;, &lt;diverse&gt; and &lt;accessible&gt;. The enforcement guidelines emphasize &lt;transparency&gt; and fairness. This seems quite at odds with how blocks are presently handled. What I am proposing here would make it plainly obvious if a block was issued unfairly or against policy.

Some extra remarks:

Obviously it would only take an extra moment to add this information, but for the sake of argument let's say a project is so short-handed that they cannot apply this rule for every user. From a cursory look at the wikipedia block log (as an example), it seems that roughly half of all blocks are issued to ip users. IPs do not seem to receive long blocks in the first place and so limiting this policy just to those blocks issued to registered users would be natural. Still too much work? Apply it only for confirmed/autoconfirmed, or in the worst case extendedconfirmed users, who naturally represent a small fraction of the block log (and probably deserve at least that much courtesy for the effort ''they've'' put in). So there's little reason not to implement at least one of these variations.

Sometimes instead of (b) the blocking sysop/admin gives a nonspecific description of where the alleged violation occurred, even though it would take only an extra few seconds to paste a link. This is favorable to abuse for the reasons I've already explained. Additionally, sysops/admins often cite essays instead of official policy. These ad hoc conventions have no practical advantage but seem quite favorable to abuse. If a user has not plausibly broken any official rule or policy then they should not be blocked. If official policy is inadequate then it should be changed. It is deceptive to call one set of rules "official policy" while enforcing another set of rules categorized and labeled as "essays": "''Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.''"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines].

Why would any project state that it "''has no firm rules''" yet actually have pages upon pages of rules? Rules can be broad and rules can be adjusted or changed, but when rules are 'soft', vague or needlessly overwrought, it is usually a sign that they were written by people who do not intend to respect those rules themselves. The entirety of UCoC section two (along with a number of 'essays' and a sizable chunk of official wikipedia policy) could just as well be replaced with the sentence "observe common decency and show respect to other users". The exposition in [[w:WP:NOTBURO]] and [[w:WP:5P5]] does not constitute a serious argument against having a fair, concise and consistently enforced set of rules, the value of which is self-evident. Consider this specious portion of [[w:WP:NOTBURO]], "''Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.''" It seems to excuse any expedient departure from official policy (e.g. an abusive block), suggesting that such an event should be interpreted as failure of ''the community'' to ''document accepted practice'' rather than a failure on part of specific members to observe the current rules. This wouldn't per se be unfair if the official rules were actually changed to reflect how admins, sysops, and other "whitelisted users" behave. For example, if some essay represents de facto policy and is enforced as if it were official policy then let it be ''called'' official policy. "Whitelisted users" is a phrase I found in wiktionary's blocking policy [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Blocking_policy&amp;oldid=59702792]: "''It is rare, but occasionally there will be a seasoned contributor, even an administrator, who is causing trouble; such cases must be handled with diplomacy. It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions.''" A bit on-the-nose, no? How is any other user (aside from those on the "whitelist") supposed to know they'll be blocked for something that doesn't violate a reasonable interpretation of official policy? How should ''they'' divine which of the many contradictory essays or unwritten rules "reflects practice"?

Incidental comments: Wikipedia's appeal policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Direct_appeal] gives one the superficial impression that when users are blocked unfairly, the mistake will be rectified immediately, "''If there is agreement that you may have been blocked unfairly, you may be directly unblocked ''". The sysop/admin who issued the block obviously isn't going to agree, otherwise they wouldn't have issued the block. The rest of the sentence further qualifies this already-weak assurance, "''but this is very rare unless there genuinely were no prospective grounds for the block. Usually the blocking admin's judgement is respected if there is any question of doubt''". Why wouldn't it simply read "If you've been blocked unfairly, you'll be unblocked"? Is that not reasonable? Again one gets the sense that these rules are written without any intent to enforce them fairly and consistently. Rules for thee and not for me. I could talk about the profusion of thought-terminating essays, which in my experience are typically cited well before a dispute reaches its conclusion. (see my metawiki userpage) There's also AGF, which outright demands credulity from the user. Since it can only be enforced insofar that a user ''says'' what they ''assume'', it could be restated (more-or-less equivalently) as "do not question the motives of others". Yet despite these things, I believe that implementing this simple proposal would go a long way toward curtailing abuse, simply by way of making it plain to see. I intend this as policy proposal and a critique of current policy, not a critique of any particular admin or sysop.

.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>6kbnhj0iof12leisj9juuyeib0p6nwm</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26830538</id>
      <parentid>26829536</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-05-24T23:31:28Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>Replacing with wiki link to RfC</comment>
      <origin>26830538</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="5214" sha1="953s8mdpywgzjeva90c15ht4p0it3zq" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>953s8mdpywgzjeva90c15ht4p0it3zq</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26867954</id>
      <parentid>26830538</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T04:48:22Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26867954</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6444" sha1="4xfzg6wut5gwdc564f95ohjevzb5cpt" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Can there be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. At any rate, he dispels the [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]] of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms; "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''"

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>4xfzg6wut5gwdc564f95ohjevzb5cpt</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26867956</id>
      <parentid>26867954</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T04:51:50Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26867956</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6483" sha1="b8krqb4me730zse9xgklsduv3jtzedk" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well. 

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. At any rate, he dispels the [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]] of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms; "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''"

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>b8krqb4me730zse9xgklsduv3jtzedk</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26867998</id>
      <parentid>26867956</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T05:46:01Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26867998</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6709" sha1="o428wdods1xdh3hk6g5xkh7tf0s61jp" xml:space="preserve">-Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian" - including one in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" treated abnormally as a matter of course. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. At any rate, he dispels the [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]] of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms; "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''"

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>o428wdods1xdh3hk6g5xkh7tf0s61jp</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868007</id>
      <parentid>26867998</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T05:57:45Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868007</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6863" sha1="fbdzmni4rjipavti92hfe1s0mqcbpk2" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" treated abnormally as a matter of course. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. At any rate, he dispels the [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]] of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms; "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''"

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

{{reflist | group=Note}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>fbdzmni4rjipavti92hfe1s0mqcbpk2</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868008</id>
      <parentid>26868007</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T05:59:20Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868008</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6882" sha1="fq9qy6gn802z3487p1fns677392ir8f" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" treated abnormally as a matter of course. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. At any rate, he dispels the [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]] of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms; "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''"

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

{{reflist | group=Note}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>fq9qy6gn802z3487p1fns677392ir8f</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868084</id>
      <parentid>26868008</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T06:42:49Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868084</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="6876" sha1="3pb91kshce8fo5jx0zw3ni084wtcxqq" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. At any rate, he dispels the [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]] of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms; "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''"

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

{{reflist | group=Note}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>3pb91kshce8fo5jx0zw3ni084wtcxqq</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868141</id>
      <parentid>26868084</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T07:30:05Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868141</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="7012" sha1="app0yp01h969cf1lyz55dswbrm8sl4f" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:SP4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

{{reflist | group=Note}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>app0yp01h969cf1lyz55dswbrm8sl4f</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868142</id>
      <parentid>26868141</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T07:30:32Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868142</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="7012" sha1="5xm72hfqsjiixws4rzm3my86x47bzw6" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:5P4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. 

{{reflist | group=Note}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>5xm72hfqsjiixws4rzm3my86x47bzw6</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868231</id>
      <parentid>26868142</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T08:09:46Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868231</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="7783" sha1="0551df179qhj24ge0lgoykzly7quadk" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:5P4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile.

{{reflist | group=Note}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I was quite tempted to include other policy changes, because so much policy and quasi-policy essays are utter rubbish. While the former have a veneer of officiality and seem at least superficially objective, the latter often drop these pretenses entirely. Considered as a whole, they make up the body (or fly-blown carcass) of de-facto policy on Wikipedia, which is frequently-cited on other projects as well. Overwrought and selectively enforced, one could rightfully complain about any number of parts. Yet before everything else, I believe it's necessary to build in a measure that would make it possible for the public to hold admins to account for their actions, so that these projects cannot claim one policy as "official" while enforcing something quite different.

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>0551df179qhj24ge0lgoykzly7quadk</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868232</id>
      <parentid>26868231</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T08:10:24Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868232</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="7783" sha1="h1vixitmublyixzr49kn4e2pnna40ox" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:5P4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile.

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I was quite tempted to include other policy changes, because so much policy and quasi-policy essays are utter rubbish. While the former have a veneer of officiality and seem at least superficially objective, the latter often drop these pretenses entirely. Considered as a whole, they make up the body (or fly-blown carcass) of de-facto policy on Wikipedia, which is frequently-cited on other projects as well. Overwrought and selectively enforced, one could rightfully complain about any number of parts. Yet before everything else, I believe it's necessary to build in a measure that would make it possible for the public to hold admins to account for their actions, so that these projects cannot claim one policy as "official" while enforcing something quite different.

{{reflist | group=Note}}

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>h1vixitmublyixzr49kn4e2pnna40ox</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868671</id>
      <parentid>26868232</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T12:19:32Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868671</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="8525" sha1="c5ofjrazhs62elpxrfbe75rl0r7m20l" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:5P4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. This is common sense, yet Wikipedia's contrived decorum (and by extension that of most other projects) undermines any serious critique or discussion. The ideograph &lt;consensus&gt; is flexible enough to obstruct outsiders from meaningful participation when it's convenient and allow the small cadre of "whitelisted" users typically associated with a given topic to make the changes they want - all while giving the public the vague impression that a project's content represents public consensus and withstands public scrutiny. This does not work if dissenting opinions must be seriously addressed instead of dismissed and forgotten about. Therefore, dissent is conflated with "incivility" and eliminated simply by blocking 'problematic' editors.

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I was quite tempted to include other policy changes, because so much policy and quasi-policy essays are utter rubbish. While the former have a veneer of officiality and seem at least superficially objective, the latter often drop these pretenses entirely. Considered as a whole, they make up the body (or fly-blown carcass) of de-facto policy on Wikipedia, which is frequently-cited on other projects as well. Overwrought and selectively enforced, one could rightfully complain about any number of parts. Yet before everything else, I believe it's necessary to build in a measure that would make it possible for the public to hold admins to account for their actions, so that these projects cannot claim one policy as "official" while enforcing something quite different.

{{reflist | group=Note}}

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>c5ofjrazhs62elpxrfbe75rl0r7m20l</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26868728</id>
      <parentid>26868671</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-03T12:41:59Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26868728</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="9379" sha1="jlz0zirngse9ncpe5j4fs06x8qmaxz1" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:5P4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. This is common sense, yet Wikipedia's contrived decorum (and by extension that of most other projects) undermines any serious critique or discussion. The ideograph &lt;consensus&gt; is flexible enough to obstruct outsiders from meaningful participation when it's convenient and allow the small cadre of "whitelisted" users typically associated with a given topic to make the changes they want - all while giving the public the vague impression that a project's content represents public consensus and withstands public scrutiny. This does not work if dissenting opinions must be seriously addressed instead of dismissed and forgotten about. Therefore, dissent is conflated with "incivility" and eliminated simply by blocking 'problematic' editors. Most dissenting editors I imagine lose patience or lose their temper when dealing with editors who purposefully obstruct them, and anything that can be construed as "impolite" is usually trumped up and used to support a long-term block. Their block and the circumstances surrounding it then fade into obscurity as another block log entry among many blocks issued to vandals and other ostensible rule breakers, most of which seem to be well-deserved. {{refn|group=Note| While I'm sure most blocks ''are'' deserved, I cannot help but imagine how easy it would be to automate a system of vandalism and 'real' incivility along with corresponding blocks to generate a consistent stream of block log entries. "Wash trading", as it were. They could probably eliminate about half of the apparent abuse by requiring users to make an account, so why don't they?}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I was quite tempted to include other policy changes, because so much policy and quasi-policy essays are utter rubbish. While the former have a veneer of officiality and seem at least superficially objective, the latter often drop these pretenses entirely. Considered as a whole, they make up the body (or fly-blown carcass) of de-facto policy on Wikipedia, which is frequently-cited on other projects as well. Overwrought and selectively enforced, one could rightfully complain about any number of parts. Yet before everything else, I believe it's necessary to build in a measure that would make it possible for the public to hold admins to account for their actions, so that these projects cannot claim one policy as "official" while enforcing something quite different.

{{reflist | group=Note}}

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>jlz0zirngse9ncpe5j4fs06x8qmaxz1</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26893894</id>
      <parentid>26868728</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-09T09:47:24Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>AP295</username>
        <id>27503413</id>
      </contributor>
      <origin>26893894</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="9482" sha1="4uqavjl6gznktfb7wi7rwbg7nvlowkn" xml:space="preserve">Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. There are also essays like [[w:WP:POVRAILROAD]] and [[w:WP:9STEPS]], of seemingly questionable intent. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:5P4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. This is common sense, yet Wikipedia's contrived decorum (and by extension that of most other projects) undermines any serious critique or discussion. The ideograph &lt;consensus&gt; is flexible enough to obstruct outsiders from meaningful participation when it's convenient and allow the small cadre of "whitelisted" users typically associated with a given topic to make the changes they want - all while giving the public the vague impression that a project's content represents public consensus and withstands public scrutiny. This does not work if dissenting opinions must be seriously addressed instead of dismissed and forgotten about. Therefore, dissent is conflated with "incivility" and eliminated simply by blocking 'problematic' editors. Most dissenting editors I imagine lose patience or lose their temper when dealing with editors who purposefully obstruct them, and anything that can be construed as "impolite" is usually trumped up and used to support a long-term block. Their block and the circumstances surrounding it then fade into obscurity as another block log entry among many blocks issued to vandals and other ostensible rule breakers, most of which seem to be well-deserved. {{refn|group=Note| While I'm sure most blocks ''are'' deserved, I cannot help but imagine how easy it would be to automate a system of vandalism and 'real' incivility along with corresponding blocks to generate a consistent stream of block log entries. "Wash trading", as it were. They could probably eliminate about half of the apparent abuse by requiring users to make an account, so why don't they?}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I was quite tempted to include other policy changes, because so much policy and quasi-policy essays are utter rubbish. While the former have a veneer of officiality and seem at least superficially objective, the latter often drop these pretenses entirely. Considered as a whole, they make up the body (or fly-blown carcass) of de-facto policy on Wikipedia, which is frequently-cited on other projects as well. Overwrought and selectively enforced, one could rightfully complain about any number of parts. Yet before everything else, I believe it's necessary to build in a measure that would make it possible for the public to hold admins to account for their actions, so that these projects cannot claim one policy as "official" while enforcing something quite different.

{{reflist | group=Note}}

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>4uqavjl6gznktfb7wi7rwbg7nvlowkn</sha1>
    </revision>
    <revision>
      <id>26948412</id>
      <parentid>26893894</parentid>
      <timestamp>2024-06-15T23:04:10Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>SHB2000</username>
        <id>30897809</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>locked account</comment>
      <origin>26948412</origin>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text bytes="9508" sha1="44w233ytm4bchdfmlxvnbsmy7fd2hlh" xml:space="preserve">{{locked global account}}
Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. Two basic principles that one might presumably observe (and which, by the way, should also hold true in any honest discourse) are 

1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
 
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back. 

A sequence of such events is called a discussion. ''No kidding'', you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of  [[w:semantic stop-sign|semantic stop-sign]]s are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So [[w:WP:DEADHORSE  | stop beating a dead horse]] and [[w:WP:BLUDGEONING | bludgeoning the process]]. [[w:w:WP:JUSTDROPIT| Just drop it]], [[w:WP:Desist | desist]] and [[w:WP:MYOB |mind your own business]].  [[w:WP:COAL |Catch once]], [[w:WP:LETITGO| let it go]] and [[w:WP:WALK | walk your dog]]. And remember, [[w:WP:SILENCEISGOLDEN | silence is golden.]] 

Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, [[w:WP:Desist]] begins "''WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it.''"  Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled [[w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions]], though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why ''the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'' has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations. There are also essays like [[w:WP:POVRAILROAD]] and [[w:WP:9STEPS]], of seemingly questionable intent. 

Christopher Hitchens published a collection of his letters - regrettably entitled "letters to a young contrarian"{{refn|group=Note|During an episode of "Conversations With History", he strongly implies that the publisher forced this rather patronizing title.}} - including a letter in which he remarked "''In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom.''" On Wikipedia, Meta and presumably other projects, "disagreement" is treated as a behavioral problem. Authority often speaks about disagreement as if it were something that should not rightfully exist.

Consider, for example, [[w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness]], which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "''Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.''", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "''Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ''", and later at the end "''  P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. ''" Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per [[w:WP:AGF]], which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boothy443/Archive_5&amp;oldid=1142901339#Removed_inappropriate_link,_blocked_for_17_seconds context], but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.

''Consensus?'' Policy like [[w:WP:5P4]] and [[w:WP:CON]] arguably uses the the word &lt;consensus&gt; as an [[w:Ideograph (rhetoric) | ideograph]]. Do projects like Wikipedia represent public consensus, or is this merely a belief they like to encourage? Must there always be consensus? Can there always be such a thing in the first place? Again, I must cite Hitchens. It must make me seem like a fanatic, though I'm not. His book naturally does not include the letters that prompted his corresponding replies. That he published his responses without this context perhaps implies he thought they'd be of value in a more general sense. Considering all this, it seems fair to interpret the following as a rebuke of &lt;consensus&gt; in no uncertain terms: "''You seem to have grasped the point that there is something idiotic about those who believe that consensus (to give the hydra-headed beast just one of its names) is the highest good. [...] As a species, we may by all means think ruefully about the waste and horror produced by war and other forms of rivalry and jealousy. However, this can’t alter the fact that in life we make progress by conflict and in mental life by argument and disputation. The concept of the dialectic may well have been partly discredited by its advocates, but that does not permit us to disown it. There must be confrontation and opposition, in order that sparks may be kindled.''" 

In ''The Prevention of Literature'', Orwell wrote "''The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. ''" In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, ''so what if it does''? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile. This is common sense, yet Wikipedia's contrived decorum (and by extension that of most other projects) undermines any serious critique or discussion. The ideograph &lt;consensus&gt; is flexible enough to obstruct outsiders from meaningful participation when it's convenient and allow the small cadre of "whitelisted" users typically associated with a given topic to make the changes they want - all while giving the public the vague impression that a project's content represents public consensus and withstands public scrutiny. This does not work if dissenting opinions must be seriously addressed instead of dismissed and forgotten about. Therefore, dissent is conflated with "incivility" and eliminated simply by blocking 'problematic' editors. Most dissenting editors I imagine lose patience or lose their temper when dealing with editors who purposefully obstruct them, and anything that can be construed as "impolite" is usually trumped up and used to support a long-term block. Their block and the circumstances surrounding it then fade into obscurity as another block log entry among many blocks issued to vandals and other ostensible rule breakers, most of which seem to be well-deserved. {{refn|group=Note| While I'm sure most blocks ''are'' deserved, I cannot help but imagine how easy it would be to automate a system of vandalism and 'real' incivility along with corresponding blocks to generate a consistent stream of block log entries. "Wash trading", as it were. They could probably eliminate about half of the apparent abuse by requiring users to make an account, so why don't they?}}

An RfC I've created: [[Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability]]. I propose a practical and simple policy to mitigate abusive blocks, along with a few relevant observations. I was quite tempted to include other policy changes, because so much policy and quasi-policy essays are utter rubbish. While the former have a veneer of officiality and seem at least superficially objective, the latter often drop these pretenses entirely. Considered as a whole, they make up the body (or fly-blown carcass) of de-facto policy on Wikipedia, which is frequently-cited on other projects as well. Overwrought and selectively enforced, one could rightfully complain about any number of parts. Yet before everything else, I believe it's necessary to build in a measure that would make it possible for the public to hold admins to account for their actions, so that these projects cannot claim one policy as "official" while enforcing something quite different.

{{reflist | group=Note}}

[[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]])</text>
      <sha1>44w233ytm4bchdfmlxvnbsmy7fd2hlh</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
</mediawiki>