People like BHG should really just leave Wikipedia, since it is never going to change, they are never going to admit that the community is perfectly happy with the phenomena she is describing here. The discussion she posted this in, was quickly archived so that it didn't remain in a highly visible noticeboard, embarrassing all those it calls out. As far as her Administrative colleagues are concerned, that fact she was forced to reverse her attempt to uphold civility in the specific instance that promoted these comments (Mjolnirpants), means the whole thing can just be forgotten and everyone should just get back to the grindstone.This is a persistent problem on en.wp: some favoured editors are actively encouraged to behave as aggressive wild beasts, and those who seek to challenge them are problematised instead.
The aggressive culture which this breeds is well-documented as driving editors away from en.wp, esp women, who find the culture "sexualized, misogynistic, and aggressive"
......
Little wonder that en.wp's gender gap remains so huge
......
It is deplorable that when en.wp is getting on for two decades old, we have a situation like this where an enabler and encourager of a serially uncivil and aggressive editor comes to complain that his favourite aggressor was treated too harshly.
......
I doubt that I will participate any further in this discussion. I have seen this phenomenon several times before over the years, where the misconduct of a serially aggressive editor is normalised even as it escalates, and eventually reaches a point where even the defensive capacity of a team of enablers is insufficient ... and then the enablers turn on those who dared have the shocking and appalling impudence to try to restrain the ogre's misconduct.
It's all great fodder for sociological researchers, but no way to run a collaborative project where civility is a core policy.......I continue to hope that some day en.w will treat WP:CIVIL as if it was actual policy rather than a piece of pious poetry which should not be allowed to impede the aggressive posturing of a big beasts with a battleground mentality and a fan club; but I am not holding my breath. I expect that those sociologists will be busy for a good while yet.
Codladh sámh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia approved way forward here. She can start an RfC to clarify whether or not there is any point continuing to issue time limited blocks for incivility to established editors who know fine well what the policy is and why it exists, and doing nothing when the user only responds with venting and then sitting out the block. But we know how that would go, so she really needn't bother.
BHG has of course put a ton of work into several aspects of Wikipedia, and that perhaps explains why she continues to edit despite this despairing view of civility enforcement. But she really should realise that she is just throwing good money after bad. Everything she contributes to Wikipedia, is simply a tacit endorsement that the place is not a toxic cesspool. She of all people knows from personal experience how little value her Administrative colleagues place on her other edits, having been variously ignored and insulted when she dared defend it against unjustified criticisms. Two sides of the same coin - lack of respect is lack of respect.
