m →definition of civility: (grammar fix) |
m fmt |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<!-- |
<!-- |
||
PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING FORMAT: |
PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING FORMAT: |
||
=== |
===Summary of statement=== |
||
*Full statement |
*Full statement |
||
#signed endorsements and brief comments |
#signed endorsements and brief comments |
||
==== |
====Discussion==== |
||
--> |
--> |
||
=== |
===Definition of civility=== |
||
One of the major problems is that civility is not at all easy to define. Context is important. Using a "bad word" is not ''always'' uncivil. Conversely, one can be very rude without using strong language. Self appointed civility police tend to cause more problems than they solve, but at the same time some users seem to be able to get away with repeated serious incivility to the point that they are basically [[User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables|unblockable]] for it. Large portions of the community seem to want more enforcement, but where we draw the line and what we do to those that cross it is not going to be at all easy to determine a consensus on. Right now these incidents are handled on a case-by-case basis. Most of them probably should continue to be handled in that manner, despite its obvious shortcomings, because of the simple fact that no better way of handling it has yet been presented. |
One of the major problems is that civility is not at all easy to define. Context is important. Using a "bad word" is not ''always'' uncivil. Conversely, one can be very rude without using strong language. Self appointed civility police tend to cause more problems than they solve, but at the same time some users seem to be able to get away with repeated serious incivility to the point that they are basically [[User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables|unblockable]] for it. Large portions of the community seem to want more enforcement, but where we draw the line and what we do to those that cross it is not going to be at all easy to determine a consensus on. Right now these incidents are handled on a case-by-case basis. Most of them probably should continue to be handled in that manner, despite its obvious shortcomings, because of the simple fact that no better way of handling it has yet been presented. |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
# Same principle as [[WP:DENY]]. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 12:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
# Same principle as [[WP:DENY]]. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 12:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
==== |
====Discussion==== |
||
For occasional outbursts, hatting can work well (Effective & low drama). -- But for "{{tq|... users [who] seem to be able to get away with repeated serious incivility ...}}" we need another (or a few more) methods of dealing with it. -- Eg, if Alice (a consistently blunt/rude (but otherwise productive) hypothetical editor) starts welcoming people in her area of expertise, and getting into regular miscommunications that escalate into incivility, then what? We can't just hatnote and eyeroll every time a ''regularly dickish'' editor pushes the fine-line. Currently, we start off with talkpage pleas, and we hatnote isolated occurrences, then escalate to ANI (formerly WQA/ANI) when the user is intractable. (And the result at ANI depends on who is reading/responding, and how the issue is initially presented). That might be the best we can do, but if there are additional solutions to add to the repertoire, hopefully someone will suggest them in a new statement. —[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
For occasional outbursts, hatting can work well (Effective & low drama). -- But for "{{tq|... users [who] seem to be able to get away with repeated serious incivility ...}}" we need another (or a few more) methods of dealing with it. -- Eg, if Alice (a consistently blunt/rude (but otherwise productive) hypothetical editor) starts welcoming people in her area of expertise, and getting into regular miscommunications that escalate into incivility, then what? We can't just hatnote and eyeroll every time a ''regularly dickish'' editor pushes the fine-line. Currently, we start off with talkpage pleas, and we hatnote isolated occurrences, then escalate to ANI (formerly WQA/ANI) when the user is intractable. (And the result at ANI depends on who is reading/responding, and how the issue is initially presented). That might be the best we can do, but if there are additional solutions to add to the repertoire, hopefully someone will suggest them in a new statement. —[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] ([[User talk:Quiddity|talk]]) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
# [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 13:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
# [[user:FT2|FT2]] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span></sup> 13:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
==== |
====Discussion==== |
||
I can't agree with several points of this approach. In fact this just happened to me, in an incident marginally involved with the issues that torched off the recent hysteria over civility. A user made a poorly thought out proposal that was obviously done on the spur of the moment as a knee-jerk reaction to what was going on right that moment. I said it was a stupid, poorly thought out proposal and saw my remarks removed from the discussion by the person who had made the stupid poorly thought out proposal, who insisted that I had no right to say such a thing even if it was my honest opinion of the proposal. They insisted that if I could not make a suggestion for improving their stupid poorly thought out proposal I should say nothing at all. Since I thought the underlying premise of the entire discussion was stupid and poorly thought out this was not possible. Having my remarks removed entirely is, to my mind, far more rude than saying a crap proposal is a crap proposal. (in this case literally nobody agreed to participate in the discussion under the terms of the poorly thought out stupid proposal so I am pretty sure my comments just reflected what everybody was thinking. ) If you are going to make proposals to radically alter the way Wikipedia works, you actually shouldn't go screaming and shouting when somebody says your idea is stupid. You should consider the possibility that you had a stupid idea and didn't think it through before posting it. If, after carefully considering whether this is the case, you agree, then admit it was a stupid idea and withdraw it. If you don't find you agree just say so. Pitching an epic bitch fit because somebody bluntly said your proposal was stupid is certainly not helpful and itself hinders forward progress. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
I can't agree with several points of this approach. In fact this just happened to me, in an incident marginally involved with the issues that torched off the recent hysteria over civility. A user made a poorly thought out proposal that was obviously done on the spur of the moment as a knee-jerk reaction to what was going on right that moment. I said it was a stupid, poorly thought out proposal and saw my remarks removed from the discussion by the person who had made the stupid poorly thought out proposal, who insisted that I had no right to say such a thing even if it was my honest opinion of the proposal. They insisted that if I could not make a suggestion for improving their stupid poorly thought out proposal I should say nothing at all. Since I thought the underlying premise of the entire discussion was stupid and poorly thought out this was not possible. Having my remarks removed entirely is, to my mind, far more rude than saying a crap proposal is a crap proposal. (in this case literally nobody agreed to participate in the discussion under the terms of the poorly thought out stupid proposal so I am pretty sure my comments just reflected what everybody was thinking. ) If you are going to make proposals to radically alter the way Wikipedia works, you actually shouldn't go screaming and shouting when somebody says your idea is stupid. You should consider the possibility that you had a stupid idea and didn't think it through before posting it. If, after carefully considering whether this is the case, you agree, then admit it was a stupid idea and withdraw it. If you don't find you agree just say so. Pitching an epic bitch fit because somebody bluntly said your proposal was stupid is certainly not helpful and itself hinders forward progress. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
# Speaking sense.... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
# Speaking sense.... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span></small> 20:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
==== |
====Discussion==== |
||
No. "''Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.''" We are building an encyclopedia, so no we don't '''need''' everyone, or anyone in particular, we only need those who are willing to work within the Pillars. Building an encyclopedia is not a matter of life and death, and it is almost never a matter of preventing imminent harm. The only thing that is understandable is sometimes people will get frustrated, so just turn away from the key - board when that happens, or learn to deal through one's frustration civilly. The Pedia will not be finished before one calms down. Come back to it then, but don't take out your frustration on others; that's not building the Pedia. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
No. "''Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.''" We are building an encyclopedia, so no we don't '''need''' everyone, or anyone in particular, we only need those who are willing to work within the Pillars. Building an encyclopedia is not a matter of life and death, and it is almost never a matter of preventing imminent harm. The only thing that is understandable is sometimes people will get frustrated, so just turn away from the key - board when that happens, or learn to deal through one's frustration civilly. The Pedia will not be finished before one calms down. Come back to it then, but don't take out your frustration on others; that's not building the Pedia. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
#Them's me thoughts right now. YMMV; the value of opinions may go up as well as down; if in doubt consult your doctor; etc. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 19:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
#Them's me thoughts right now. YMMV; the value of opinions may go up as well as down; if in doubt consult your doctor; etc. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 19:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
==== |
====Discussion==== |
||
*I wish to be treated as High Overlord God King and have all of my whims and wishes immediately and unquestionably followed. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
*I wish to be treated as High Overlord God King and have all of my whims and wishes immediately and unquestionably followed. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
**Hm, well I did caveat the "wish to be treated as" with '''''(within reason, eg they can't demand a higher communication standard of you than they normally employ themselves).''''' Do you normally treat everyone else as High Overlord God King etc?? To give a concrete example, I don't normally tell people to "stay off my talk page and don't ever come back" or words to that effect, so I could define that as part of my standard that I don't want people to say that to me (though that doesn't preclude people saying "I've had enough of this discussion, please don't continue it here," which I sometimes do.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
**Hm, well I did caveat the "wish to be treated as" with '''''(within reason, eg they can't demand a higher communication standard of you than they normally employ themselves).''''' Do you normally treat everyone else as High Overlord God King etc?? To give a concrete example, I don't normally tell people to "stay off my talk page and don't ever come back" or words to that effect, so I could define that as part of my standard that I don't want people to say that to me (though that doesn't preclude people saying "I've had enough of this discussion, please don't continue it here," which I sometimes do.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
PLEASE USE (copy & paste to start a new statement) THE FOLLOWING FORMAT: |
PLEASE USE (copy & paste to start a new statement) THE FOLLOWING FORMAT: |
||
=== |
===Summary of statement=== |
||
*Full statement |
*Full statement |
||
Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
#... |
#... |
||
==== |
====Discussion==== |
||
PASTE IT ABOVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS (so that these remain at the bottom) --> |
PASTE IT ABOVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS (so that these remain at the bottom) --> |
Revision as of 04:58, 6 October 2012
03:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
How should we define civility and incivility? Should civility be "enforced" and if so, how?
Premise of this discussion
One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." This is a simple premise which most everyone believes should be followed. Yet there are constant issues regarding it. This RFC will attempt to determine what the core issues are with civility on Wikipedia, and what the appropriate response is to behavior that does not conform to community standards of civil behavior.
The format will be position statements which may be endorsed and discussed, and an general open discussion as well. Any user is free to endorse as many positions as they wish and to add any new position they wish, but users are asked to please review all existing positions first to avoid duplication. One need not endorse any positions to participate in any of the discussions. Please preface all endorsements with a hash sign (#) and remember to sign all endorsements and other comments.
See also
- Wikipedia:Civility, current policy on this subject
- Wikipedia talk:Civility#Civility Enforcement RFC (a parallel discussion begun a few days before this one)
- Wikipedia:Civility/Poll a poll on the subject from 2009
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement previous ArbCom case involving these issues
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism_and_civility pending request for an ArbCom case
Positions
Definition of civility
One of the major problems is that civility is not at all easy to define. Context is important. Using a "bad word" is not always uncivil. Conversely, one can be very rude without using strong language. Self appointed civility police tend to cause more problems than they solve, but at the same time some users seem to be able to get away with repeated serious incivility to the point that they are basically unblockable for it. Large portions of the community seem to want more enforcement, but where we draw the line and what we do to those that cross it is not going to be at all easy to determine a consensus on. Right now these incidents are handled on a case-by-case basis. Most of them probably should continue to be handled in that manner, despite its obvious shortcomings, because of the simple fact that no better way of handling it has yet been presented.
- Beeblebrox (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good basis. Endorsed. [geek tangent: incivility(noun) is correct; uncivil and incivil (adjective) are both correct but un- is more common] —Quiddity (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Accurately summarizes the situation and identifies the unblockability issue which I think it is the primary point of frustration for those seeking to enforce civility. The one thing I'm not sure on is the portion of the community that wants more enforcement, may be a vocal minority. Monty845 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also noting my comments below on Fluffernutter's first statement. Rschen7754 05:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good summary. We muddle along. It works. Carrite (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. See my comments below. --Pete (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good description of the problem. Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, context is very important. CT Cooper · talk 12:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
I know Southern ladies who can demolish an opponent in the politest of terms, and I know soldiers whose every fucken second fucken word is fucken "fucken" but they don't mean anything by it. I agree that we should look at incivility in context rather than impose rules which might be gamed. The criteria in my eyes is not so much being offended as being offensive, and I suggest the "reasonable person" test: "Would a reasonable person be offended by this behaviour?". --Pete (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that is all that great of a metric either. I have been screamed at by the civility police because, on one or two occasions, I have told someone persistently posting to my talk page to fuck off. In each case I had already tried telling them nicely to stop posting on my talk page. When that didn't work, it was time to tell them to fuck off. Of course they got offended. In fact they were supposed to get offended, even needed to be offended to realize how far over the line their own behavior had gone. I wrote an essay about this actually. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- User:Mindspillage/disputes is a guide here. Like the little boys rattling the bars of the lion's cage, eventually the lion gets up from its daytime doze, rushes over, roaring and jumping in a most satisfactory and entertaining manner. "Oooh, sir!", they say to the keeper, "The lion's gone crazy and tried to eat us! Shoot it now before it gets out and kills us all!" There are other ways of dealing with trolls, I suggest, rather than feeding them. --Pete (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that I don't think we can establish a "bright line rule" as we can with less subjective matters like 3RR, that will tell us when someone is ignoring standards of civility to the point where they need to be sanctioned, or even reprimanded. Even in the case of edit warring, we provide an exemption if the other user is trolling or vandalizing. Why? because the context in which the event occurred can be a mitigating factor. The essay you mention is generally good advice but i don't see how any policy could come out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- User:Mindspillage/disputes is a guide here. Like the little boys rattling the bars of the lion's cage, eventually the lion gets up from its daytime doze, rushes over, roaring and jumping in a most satisfactory and entertaining manner. "Oooh, sir!", they say to the keeper, "The lion's gone crazy and tried to eat us! Shoot it now before it gets out and kills us all!" There are other ways of dealing with trolls, I suggest, rather than feeding them. --Pete (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Mindspillage/disputes should replace the civility policy
- User:Mindspillage/disputes is stronger and more concrete than the existing civility policy. It establishes a bright line which is less subjective than the "no personal attack" standard which people often skirt and dodge in rule-evading ways. Replacing the existing civility policy with it and enforcing it only with one-day blocks (i.e., no escalation to longer blocks or compounding punishments) would improve the tenor of discussions here. If editors are unhappy with the results, a future RFC could return to the current status quo.
- —Cupco 05:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- The sentiment in that essay is fine, but it really doesn't help us define what is and is not civil. There are remarkably obtuse ways of insulting others that mask the insult in civility. By way of example someone could say my position is retarded, is stupid, or is tragically misguided. Really all of them are saying my idea is bad and infer that I was wrong to even suggest it, but they do so with varying levels of sophistication, starting at very offensive, blunt and insulting in the middle, and politely insulting on the other end. Would all get someone a block? Where do you draw the line? Also, 1 day blocks without escalation or compounding strike me as retributive justice, as they are not tailored to deter future misconduct. And the community has in most cases been opposed to using blocks for retributive justice. Monty845 05:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is a parent giving a child a firm, regular duration "time out" retributive? I think most people can tell the difference between the use of terms like "retarded" and "stupid" on one hand, as obvious incivility, while "tragically misguided" avoids incivility. Are you disagreeing that the Mindspillage/disputes essay is less subjective than the existing civility policy? The one we have now basically punts on a firm stance. If you tell people that some exceptions are okay in some unspecified contexts, then it's impossible to draw a line in the sand. —Cupco 06:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that line is clear at all. "Tragically misguided" is pretty insulting to anyone who puts any decent thought into the intended meaning. I get pretty cross about quite insulting and dishonest posts made here which are deemed OK by many because they use nice language. Couching an insult, or bigotry, or self-chosen ignorance, in otherwise "civil" words should be almost a more serious offence because of its deliberately manipulative nature. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. The clear cases of incivility are easier to deal with (though these are often not dealt with, either). However, it's the subtle sarcasm and erudite putdowns that are more complicated, (and more common because we're a community of writers/editors...). I'd be equally insulted by all 3 examples. (Possibly even more so by the 3rd! Because the first 2 I can ignore/dismiss as coming from unthoughtful/rude people, whereas the 3rd is implying "a sad pat on the head as I explain that you're never going to be smart enough to understand"...).
- How to define, with unanimous-consensus, where the fine-line of "incivility that requires repurcussions" lies, is amazingly difficult. —Quiddity (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that line is clear at all. "Tragically misguided" is pretty insulting to anyone who puts any decent thought into the intended meaning. I get pretty cross about quite insulting and dishonest posts made here which are deemed OK by many because they use nice language. Couching an insult, or bigotry, or self-chosen ignorance, in otherwise "civil" words should be almost a more serious offence because of its deliberately manipulative nature. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is a parent giving a child a firm, regular duration "time out" retributive? I think most people can tell the difference between the use of terms like "retarded" and "stupid" on one hand, as obvious incivility, while "tragically misguided" avoids incivility. Are you disagreeing that the Mindspillage/disputes essay is less subjective than the existing civility policy? The one we have now basically punts on a firm stance. If you tell people that some exceptions are okay in some unspecified contexts, then it's impossible to draw a line in the sand. —Cupco 06:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's an interesting essay. But its central theme—disputes are not resolved by escalating them—fails to point out that disputes are not resolved by ignoring them, either. pablo 08:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much what Pablo said. It is a good behavioural guide but doesn't give advice on what to do once folks have lost their temper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is an excellent example of how to behave. However, the general editor is not usually sainted enough to love their enemy. And when they meet someone who is, they probably expect that their offensive behaviour is "mirrored"; that is, they are sure there is a counterattack somewhere in the response, but they cannot identify it. They become perplexed and frustrated. --Pete (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- What everybody else said. Good advice, but not suitable as a policy. To expand on the examples above, I have on occasion described certain proposals as dumb or stupid. I don't think that constitutes incivility any more or less than using other descriptors such as fatally flawed, poorly thought out, utterly incompatible with Wikipedia, and so forth. "Retarded" on the other hand seems over the line to me. To say an idea is stupid is to say that the idea is so bad that it has no reasonable chance of being accepted. To say it is retarded implies that the person proposing it is... well, retarded. Retarded ideas would have to come from retarded people. Stupid ideas can and often do come from people who on the whole are of above average intelligence. But that's just me, some users would have us ban calling an idea stupid as too incivil and not constructive. They think that is a perfectly reasonable position. So where is the line? I don't thinbk we can say with any degree of certainty. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is an excellent example of how to behave. However, the general editor is not usually sainted enough to love their enemy. And when they meet someone who is, they probably expect that their offensive behaviour is "mirrored"; that is, they are sure there is a counterattack somewhere in the response, but they cannot identify it. They become perplexed and frustrated. --Pete (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Civility should be enforced
- Yes, civility should be enforced in some fashion. Incivility has the potential to discourage editors from editing this site, and hinders a collaborative effort such as building an encyclopedia.
- Intentionally vague, but using this as a starting point to find some common ground. --Rschen7754 05:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- —Quiddity (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Kinda. But only if we can agree on an adult, well-though-out way of defining it first. There's a huge gap between deliberate, wilful hurtfulness, with nary as swearword involved, for example, and the odd cussword tossed out in an offhand manner (and maybe because it's actually part of the user's national / regional / cultural background to use cusswords in an offhand manner as normal usage in some situations), with no intent to cause hurt or harm or disruption. In my own view (maybe because of the national / regional / cultural background), wilful hurtfulness without swearing is by far the greater offence. Non-swearing POV-pushingf; making false accusations, bringing the petty into a light where it appears to have the same weight as the really significant – those are worse. Terry Pratchett (The Truth) puts it well. There are big crimes, and little crimes, and sometimes the big crimes are so big you can't even see them. Also, "it's not a crime to own a street full of slums, but it's (almost) a crime to live in one". We need to have a good, hard look at the motives and meanings of what might at first appear to be incivility (to some people) before even beginning to think about enforcement. I used to know a princess who, in that offhand, not ill-meant manner, used to say "Stop being such a cunt!" to members of her set, with exactly the same intended impact as saying "Stop being such an idiot!" in other cultures. A princess, mark you well. And I've also (unfortunately) known (or known of) well-spoken and well-educated people who think nothing of getting an innocent person convicted. Crimes? Compare. Pesky (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- This should be entirely uncontroversial; we're not a collection of savages, and the vast majority of us aren't 14 year old boys. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes but this will get a diverse array of interpretations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support in principle. Also need to hammer out specific rules as well. --Jayron32 19:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Civility should be enforced. And if you don't agree with that, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not that there's a lot of use to the actual issue by going "Yes, we should enforce civility. Somehow. However you define 'civility'," but as a top-level principle, I agree with this. Civility to one's fellow editors is important, and those who have trouble with engaging civilly should be given the choice between adhering to our pillars or not editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- No point having it as policy if it isn't going to be enforced. What is civility and how should deviations from it be dealt with are the real questions, but there is a large enough minority that thinks they can talk to editors however they like to still make this worth saying. CT Cooper · talk 12:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- --Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- Civility is clearly a good thing, but enforcing civility is a double edged sword. Because sanctioning editors is inherently adversarial, if not handled with skill and discretion, civility enforcement has the potential to make the editing environment more toxic then it already is. As such we should be careful about supporting a general idea of enforcement without first creating a clear picture of what that enforcement would look like. Monty845 05:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Monty. If it is 'intentionally vague' and 'enforced' it stands a good chance of being worse than useless. Too much opportunity to 'enforce' it on those we disagree with, and ignore for our friends, resulting in all the usual drama. Then again, if it is 'precisely defined' it is liable to be worse then useless too. A list of 'forbidden words' (probably compiled from my contribution history - I know I'm one of the worst offenders in this respect, and don't need reminding) would at best stifle a few of the least creative, and offer encouragement to the Wikilawyers etc amongst us to say the same things in other ways. I just can't see how 'vague enforcement' could usefully work, and I'd rather not even think about 'precise enforcement' either - we could spend years just trying to define what particular phrases established the limits of 'civility', and at the end of it achieve nothing more than coming up with a list of approved insults. A complete non-runner, as I see it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, this statement is not intended to stand by itself. Reading through some of the statements at the arbitration case, there are some who do not think civility is important at all, and that we should be able to talk to editors however we want. --Rschen7754 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Does it work better as "Incivility will be sanctioned" ? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, "sanctioned" is a contronym. So, that might be even more confusing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Does it work better as "Incivility will be sanctioned" ? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Again, this statement is not intended to stand by itself. Reading through some of the statements at the arbitration case, there are some who do not think civility is important at all, and that we should be able to talk to editors however we want. --Rschen7754 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Monty. If it is 'intentionally vague' and 'enforced' it stands a good chance of being worse than useless. Too much opportunity to 'enforce' it on those we disagree with, and ignore for our friends, resulting in all the usual drama. Then again, if it is 'precisely defined' it is liable to be worse then useless too. A list of 'forbidden words' (probably compiled from my contribution history - I know I'm one of the worst offenders in this respect, and don't need reminding) would at best stifle a few of the least creative, and offer encouragement to the Wikilawyers etc amongst us to say the same things in other ways. I just can't see how 'vague enforcement' could usefully work, and I'd rather not even think about 'precise enforcement' either - we could spend years just trying to define what particular phrases established the limits of 'civility', and at the end of it achieve nothing more than coming up with a list of approved insults. A complete non-runner, as I see it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Civility should not be enforced, but off-topic incivility can be hatted
- The existing practice in many places (like Jimbo's talk page) is that when someone launches into some malodorous tirade against another editor, they get away with it, but another editor can go ahead and put a hat on the thread and give it a title summary like "this isn't productive". I contend this is the best practice, whereas resorting to AN/I increases conflict rather than decreasing it. Hatting the thread is preferable to deletion because if you delete it it ends up triggering a sort of mini Streisand effect. (The human body doesn't delete heterochromatin because it could foul up and cause a crisis; the same applies to us). Editors should only get called out to AN/I if they resort to honest-to-god disruptive editing, not mere inCivility, and so this policy should become irrelevant, though it remains a useful recommendation.
- Wnt (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes (sort of), I was (and may still) post something along these lines below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I definitely find this approach more effective than the torches-and-pitchforks route. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hatting incivility seems like a much better use of everyone's time than escalating (e.g. AN/I threads, blocks/unblocks, ArbCom cases, etc.) 28bytes (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- For routine incivility this seems like the approach to go with. Monty845 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Same principle as WP:DENY. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
For occasional outbursts, hatting can work well (Effective & low drama). -- But for "... users [who] seem to be able to get away with repeated serious incivility ...
" we need another (or a few more) methods of dealing with it. -- Eg, if Alice (a consistently blunt/rude (but otherwise productive) hypothetical editor) starts welcoming people in her area of expertise, and getting into regular miscommunications that escalate into incivility, then what? We can't just hatnote and eyeroll every time a regularly dickish editor pushes the fine-line. Currently, we start off with talkpage pleas, and we hatnote isolated occurrences, then escalate to ANI (formerly WQA/ANI) when the user is intractable. (And the result at ANI depends on who is reading/responding, and how the issue is initially presented). That might be the best we can do, but if there are additional solutions to add to the repertoire, hopefully someone will suggest them in a new statement. —Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Approach by FT2
The core point is that Users are expected to act in ways that help to create a positive volunteer editing environment, or at least don't undermine it.
History shows 5 things:
- Community desire: The community wants a civility policy. In 10 years nobody has ever succeeded (or even seriously tried) to get consensus to remove or negate the policy. That is telling.
- Self-justification: There is a strong view by some that "I'm just being forthcoming and direct" or "it's just robust debate" justifies any conduct, justifies intolerance of others' thin skins, or justifies dismissal of the idea that others may not be visiting wikipedia for the fun of "robustly" debating or being insulted in that style.
- Project impact: The effect of incivility is often not on the target (thought it often is). It is on bystanders and possible editors who may encounter a welcoming Wikipedia, or a Wikipedia where aggression is sometimes turned a blind eye. Incivility damages the global editing context for volunteers and silently deters existing and new editors.
- Arbitrariness: It is vague, hence arbitrary. While some scope for vagueness is acceptable, vagueness that allows cliques and "powerful individuals" to not be called to account for repeated breach of a policy encourages others to disregard or despair, and encourages drama. So there needs to be a definition and policy that will work.
- Viability (given the desire): Even the most egregious behavior can be discussed in civil terms.
Approach at a definition: Incivility covers styles of self-expression, accusation, innuendo, rhetorical speech, pointedness, snarkiness, and criticism that are:
- directed at specific user/s;
- do not add positive benefit to the actual Wikipedia content or project issue under discussion;
- could be removed or refactored without impeding the Wikipedia issue under discussion; and
- are EITHER
- distressing or very likely to distress (or known to distress) the user/s targeted, OR
- likely to result in the Wikipedia editing environment being perceived by a newcomer as less welcoming, hostile, aggressive or degraded, and hence may have a deterrent effect if established or not itself deterred.
Common justifications should be explicitly excluded.
- It is not valid to claim that a user "is okay with it" or "no harm resulted" - they may not be, onlookers may not be, observers may be deterred silently, and others may gain the impression it is acceptable.
- It is not valid to claim that a user "ought" to be ok with it or "shouldn't" be thin skinned - expectations of other users having above average emotional handling are out of place (notionally 50% will be below average)
- It is not valid to claim that one was merely engaging in "robust discussion". (A good test of legitimate robust discussion is, could the comment have been kept to project related matters and worded in a way that didn't have that effect on the user and tone of Wikipedia, without affecting the legitimate project purpose of the discussion?)
- It is not valid to claim that "people do that" or "it's funny/witty" as justification; in any social setting people will need to adopt some level of self-regulation and boundaries to participate.
- If a user asks someone to cease, then that is a red flag and should be actionable if ignored. Wilful blindness ("I chose not to understand they were upset") is also completely unacceptable.
- Gaming the borderline is actionable, just like gaming 3RR or any other gaming
I drafted User:FT2/Civility draft some time ago in line with these ideas. Perhaps it will help.
Discussion
I can't agree with several points of this approach. In fact this just happened to me, in an incident marginally involved with the issues that torched off the recent hysteria over civility. A user made a poorly thought out proposal that was obviously done on the spur of the moment as a knee-jerk reaction to what was going on right that moment. I said it was a stupid, poorly thought out proposal and saw my remarks removed from the discussion by the person who had made the stupid poorly thought out proposal, who insisted that I had no right to say such a thing even if it was my honest opinion of the proposal. They insisted that if I could not make a suggestion for improving their stupid poorly thought out proposal I should say nothing at all. Since I thought the underlying premise of the entire discussion was stupid and poorly thought out this was not possible. Having my remarks removed entirely is, to my mind, far more rude than saying a crap proposal is a crap proposal. (in this case literally nobody agreed to participate in the discussion under the terms of the poorly thought out stupid proposal so I am pretty sure my comments just reflected what everybody was thinking. ) If you are going to make proposals to radically alter the way Wikipedia works, you actually shouldn't go screaming and shouting when somebody says your idea is stupid. You should consider the possibility that you had a stupid idea and didn't think it through before posting it. If, after carefully considering whether this is the case, you agree, then admit it was a stupid idea and withdraw it. If you don't find you agree just say so. Pitching an epic bitch fit because somebody bluntly said your proposal was stupid is certainly not helpful and itself hinders forward progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Proportion of content-work vs argument
- Most human beings (unless they are police, work in hospitals, are politicians or parents of teenagers) spend precious little time having to negotiate and at times argue with those with differing opinions. Hence they are unused to confrontation. As wikipedia is evolving and becoming more polished, vetting and reviewing to stricter standards creates more situations where folks might be at odds with one another and get frustrated to varying degrees. Hence it is understandable when frustrations spill over and folks lose their temper. Furthermore, the value of established editors increases as editing here becomes more specialised. If editors blow up and launch some heated exchange, no matter how profanity-laden - if it gets sorted so that the original antagonists promptly resolve their differences on some level then that should be that. Even if it happens frequently to a productive editor who 90% or more of total time is spent peacefully adding or reviewing content, then this is a lesser evil than blanket bans. We are building an encyclopedia here and we need all hands on deck. Really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would go even further, and say that as long as the editor's content contributions are good enough (Quality and/or Quantity) occasional incivility can be outweighed, even if original antagonists can't resolve it, just so long as it doesn't spill into article space edits. Monty845 15:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- The balance of WP:RETENTION with WP:VESTED is one of the most complicated aspects of this issue. I agree with most of this statement, and agree that blanket bans are net-harmful, but we still need some best-practices if someone is being consistently uncivil (however we define that, eg reasonable person) especially if they're doing it anywhere close to 10% of the time! ;) —Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking sense.... Volunteer Marek 20:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
No. "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner." We are building an encyclopedia, so no we don't need everyone, or anyone in particular, we only need those who are willing to work within the Pillars. Building an encyclopedia is not a matter of life and death, and it is almost never a matter of preventing imminent harm. The only thing that is understandable is sometimes people will get frustrated, so just turn away from the key - board when that happens, or learn to deal through one's frustration civilly. The Pedia will not be finished before one calms down. Come back to it then, but don't take out your frustration on others; that's not building the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- [Note: The below is a refactored discussion, copied from a side-thread at Casliber's talkpage, and edited by Quiddity]
"[...] especially if they're doing it anywhere close to 10% of the time! ;) —Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)"
- So what's your percentage then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- To (perhaps) clarify: My only certainty is that "it's complicated", and "anyone who claims to have a simple solution is probably overlooking oodles of edge cases", type thing...
- But i would be seriously worried if someone who had made 900 productive edits had also made 100 inflammatory comments... (I realize/assume you were using "90%" as a placeholder number, but numbers are tricky beasts, 'specially in rfcs..) —Quiddity (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I meant more time than edits. If there was a total of two days' acrimony in 6 months of productive and more or less incident-free editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but, I was mainly making a semi-pedantic quibble over using any specific number.
- eg. 6 months = 180 days. 10% = 18 days. 1% = ~2 days.
- Again, I totally get (and agree with) where you're coming from: context is critically important, and the layers of the onion go down further than many participants realize (there are dozens of factors that need to be considered and balanced, from editor-retention to conflicting cultural demographics that just need better translation/mediation (I've spent many hours trying to help a few older-ESL-grumpyseeming editors communicate with other editors who had been misinterpreting/misunderstanding some of their intended nuances)). Summarizable only as "It's Complicated!" and "Making it work well, requires constant effort from us all, not new strict rules"
- eg. If someone were slightly uncivil for 18 days out of 6 months, that would have its own complications; as would the case of someone who was incredibly uncivil for 2 days out of 6 months. —Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC) [End of thread copy]
- I meant more time than edits. If there was a total of two days' acrimony in 6 months of productive and more or less incident-free editing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Abandon "civility" to stand a chance of having more civility
- The term "civility" has never been very helpful; it's too vague and contextual to enforce consistently even with sufficiently detailed guidelines and appropriate manpower, even before we get to the problem that some contributors are objectively more valuable than others (or at least were at one time, or made people think they were...), and as a result get different standards applied. We're never going to get anywhere with "civility".
- So let's get rid of it, and come up with something better. What we need is a "treat others as they wish to be treated" communication guideline (maybe a phrase is less liable to overloading of meaning than a single word...). You don't mind having a discussion peppered with language that would make a sailor blush - it's all part of the cut and thrust of substantive argument? Well bully for you, but when it's clear that someone else doesn't like that, you should treat them as they wish to be treated (within reason, eg they can't demand a higher communication standard of you than they normally employ themselves).
- With this approach, good communication can become a bit more self-policing by emphasising meta-communication (communication about communication), encouraging it, and making it easier. Probably some guidelines or templates or userboxes can be knocked up to help clarify communication style preferences. Enforcement then has a clearer territory, too: not enforcing what someone thinks should have happened or not happened, but users clearly ignoring other users' clearly expressed and communicated preferences (as long as those preferences are reasonable).
- Add to that a WP equivalent of a civility jar (swear jar, but more broadly defined): a user subpage a user sets up that anyone can add to (perhaps once per day), and when the jar hits a certain total, the user has to tackle a boring bit of the backlog they normally wouldn't (a mild penitence, self-enforced, so there's no point in gaming it). The point of this is again, not punishment but to encourage communication about communication.
- OK, yes, this is a bit vague, but I hope there's just enough here to suggest the quite different direction we could try.
- Them's me thoughts right now. YMMV; the value of opinions may go up as well as down; if in doubt consult your doctor; etc. Rd232 talk 19:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- I wish to be treated as High Overlord God King and have all of my whims and wishes immediately and unquestionably followed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, well I did caveat the "wish to be treated as" with (within reason, eg they can't demand a higher communication standard of you than they normally employ themselves). Do you normally treat everyone else as High Overlord God King etc?? To give a concrete example, I don't normally tell people to "stay off my talk page and don't ever come back" or words to that effect, so I could define that as part of my standard that I don't want people to say that to me (though that doesn't preclude people saying "I've had enough of this discussion, please don't continue it here," which I sometimes do.) Rd232 talk 16:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thoughts from Fluffernutter
Civility exists in the real world
Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project. For the purposes of collaboration, users must be able to interact with each other in a non-destructive manner. This means that at least to a minimum extent, users must be able to work with, or at least alongside, people who they may dislike, not respect, find annoying, or want to throw off a tall building; if you cannot function in an environment containing more people than just yourself, you are not well-suited to Wikipedia. Of course, the issue of how to define "function" here is the crux of this matter.
Some people view "civility" as "speaking like you're speaking to your boss, with great care and formality", while others think that if you and the person you're speaking to haven't come to blows, you're doing just fine. The reality is that the vast majority of us do have a sense of what's societally acceptable; though what societies we function in varies, most of us have quite a good sense of where the line is between "I can say this in public" and "This will get me punched in the nose". This is evidenced by that is the fact that most of us aren't walking around with broken noses! So to say that it's impossible to "define" civility is a bit misleading; it's difficult to agree on a definite set of civility boundaries, but nearly everyone instinctively understands that there are boundaries that surround them in the real world. The boundary of "civility" is the point beyond which you damage your conversational relationship with another person, the point where the conversation ceases to be about what you were talking about and begins to be derailed by how you're talking about it. If you want to get things done in the real world, you will mostly stay inside these boundaries, because stepping outside them makes it exponentially harder to do what you were originally trying to do. The same is true on Wikipedia.
Discussion
- The fact that everyone's internal boundary differs doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that humans with any degree of social intelligence are able to distinguish between "this furthers the conversation" and "this derails the conversation" and limit themselves to within that line. It's not excessive to expect editors to pay attention to such things here as well as irl. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- This and Beeblebrox's statement do have to be taken as a unit. A similar debate is regarding what is pornography. People's definitions may vary, but some stuff clearly is and clearly is not. Just because some stuff is borderline doesn't mean that we can't discriminate between civil and uncivil. --Rschen7754 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- What both of you say is true, and in fact the same analogy to porn went through my head. What i was trying to express is that making clear, specific rules on civility is probably not going to be possible, in the same way that making such rules for what does and does not constitute pornography has so bedeviled lawmakers. (That is, before the internet made free unlimited porn a reality for everyone, making local blue laws irrelevant.) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. People in communities discriminate between civil and uncivil all the time; "civil" is another word for community. Civility is the expected mode of discourse in serious, even volunteer organizations. It is expected of volunteers within organizations that they will treat each other civilly -- in other words, that they will act professionally -- it's how volunteer organizations get things done, by people volunteering to take on the profession of the organization. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Habitual incivility is a different issue than one-off
If I walk into a bar in the real world, I went in there because I wanted a beer. If a guy sitting at the bar makes a snarky comment about my taste in suds, I have a couple of options. I could punch him in the face, because hey, he's a jerk! But then I might get thrown out of the bar, and even if I don't, I've delayed getting myself what I came for if I have to stop and punch the jerk before I can get my beer. But really, if all I want is my beer, why would I bother with a random guy who prefers beer I don't like? Why would I not just ignore him and order my beer, the quicker to have what I want with a minimum of fuss? Most people intuitively understand that there is a value equation involved in a choice between crossing a boundary and not crossing it, and they'll usually make a decision based on what's most valuable to them. If they value their beer, they get their beer. If they opt for confronting a jerk, then it was never really the beer that was most important to them, anyway, and if you spend too much time in a bar opting for jerk-punching rather than beer-drinking, you're not of any use to the bar's bottom line. In fact, if you spend that much time punching other people at the local bar, not only are you not providing them much profit from the beer you drink, but it's probably even the case that other people aren't providing them profit from drinking beer, because people don't spend a lot of time in a bar inhabited by a guy who likes to punch others rather than drink beer. People who drive away other people like that are eventually asked to leave the bar because, well, this is a bar and it's intended to be used for drinking, not punching. If your main purpose is pugilistic, go down the street to the gym with the boxing ring and leave the bar patrons to their beer.
Almost everyone who goes to bars occasionally has their buttons pushed and throws a punch or shoves someone, but most of the time that can be dealt with by sending the person home to sleep it off. This sort of punch-throwing isn't something society encourages, but it's something that happens, because humans aren't robots. But when it gets to the point where people see you coming and know to duck and cover, because "hey, here comes that guy who punches people all the time", it's no longer a failing, it's a habit.
The same concept applies to Wikipedia. When you work here, you're continually asked to make judgments of what's valuable for you to spend your time on, and the community is asked to make judgments of what value you provide to it. A single instance of lashing out is a piece of evidence about your values, but it shouldn't be the piece of evidence; humans are human. However, if you often appear to value "fight this other person who is WRONG ON THE INTERNET" most highly, then your values don't match those of the community, and the community should ask you to go elsewhere so the rest of us can focus on the encyclopedia without the distraction of boxing matches.
Discussion
- The issue of incivility is worst when we're faced with people who repeatedly do the math and decide "fight > functioning encyclopedia". If your mental math continually turns up that result, the community is within its rights to ask you to find another place that shares your values more than Wikipedia does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- So how frequent is habitual? I'd not disagree if it was a significant proportion of someone's time here. Shall we nominate percentages? I'd say ~33% maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it's really a quantifiable thing, unfortunately. To me, it's a sort of "If some or all people know you by 'Oh, that's the guy who's always calling people names', or 'Oh, that's the guy who comes after anyone who edits Article X', then you've probably got to change your behavior." If your practice of being unable to play well with others is something that defines you, or that people know you by, or that people know they have to walk a particular tightrope to avoid, then you've passed the point of being able to claim "Oops, I lost my temper, I'm sorry" and you need to face the fact that you can't "lose" your temper if it's almost-perpetually lost. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC) ETA: I think my point is something along the lines of claiming that identifying uncivil people is as rooted in community as what constitutes incivility in the first place - to some extent, a person is uncivil if the community reliably identifies that person as someone who transgresses against community civility norms. So you can't say "oh, you can only be uncivil 10% of the time", because what the community recognizes as a "problem" percentage will vary across time and based on the severity of the person's issues. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- So how frequent is habitual? I'd not disagree if it was a significant proportion of someone's time here. Shall we nominate percentages? I'd say ~33% maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. No to the habitually uncivil and no to the 10% uncivil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
One thing I've noticed is valuable - but often time-consuming to construct - is a list of occurrences of incivility. When presented with a record of day to day incivility to other editors, an editor is helped to confront the problem. Other editors may see this as an aid to enforcing policy, but really if the problematic editor does not recognise the need for change and act on it hisownself, the problem is merely going to recur when the block expires or whatever. If each editor had a sub-page - an incivility journal - with a distinct format such that it was a list rather than a battleground, then perhaps all editors involved would benefit. Something like this:
- Instance: Stop being such a cunt! Directed towards User:PrincessFluffypants here during discussion on civility.
- Response: Terribly sorry. Bloody Autocorrect. It should have read, "Stop being such an idiot".
Just two lines for each item. Quote. Diff. Context. Response. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Logging does help make people more conscious of their own behaviour when maybe they're not seeing it as others are. See also, a not entirely dissimilar idea, under "Abandon 'civility'...": a WP equivalent of a civility jar (swear jar, but more broadly defined)... Rd232 talk 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Until people start fighting over the logging, whether what they said was uncivil enough to get logged, or things like log entry 2: A reported me in the civility log without cause because he was mad about x, that was incivil - A. Log entry 3: B made a bad faith report of my report... Monty845 00:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hence my design of it in my proposal above (which nobody's commented on :( ), as per-user and carrying only self-enforced mild penalties of tackling boring backlog. If somebody logs something, it needs to be with evidence; if they do it in demonstrably bad faith, that might be addable to the initial logger's own log, but if there are no real penalties attached and it's not going on on article talk pages, such silliness will be self-limiting, I think. Rd232 talk 10:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can just imagine log wars developing with eye for eye, tit for tat retaliation. Not to mention self-appointed civility police going out of their way to happily log infractions. --Pete (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Depends, as I've said several times, on what the consequences of logging are. My proposal above is that the log is primarily a feedback tool to the user, so they understand how people feel about their behaviour/communication style, in a way that focusses on that issue separate from any content disputes. Rd232 talk 10:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- While intended purely for feedback and personal assessment and growth, I cannot see that such logs wouldnt be regularly dredged into other discussions and used forever as a sledge hammer like years old block logs are now. Is there a way to make the subpage contents not visible to anyone but the user unless the user makes them public? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Currently, no. I suppose it would be possible to use email instead. But making the feedback entirely non-public and non-logged may not have the same effect, and not having any kind of public log, however imperfect, is part of the problem with getting a handle on dealing with the more incorrigible contributors. On the other hand, private conversations can help people work things out "away from the spotlight", when both genuinely want to and know the discussion can't be held against them. So I'd lean to suggesting email as a complement, not a substitute. Keeping logs private to individual users would need a software change, so we can forget about that... Rd232 talk 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- While intended purely for feedback and personal assessment and growth, I cannot see that such logs wouldnt be regularly dredged into other discussions and used forever as a sledge hammer like years old block logs are now. Is there a way to make the subpage contents not visible to anyone but the user unless the user makes them public? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Depends, as I've said several times, on what the consequences of logging are. My proposal above is that the log is primarily a feedback tool to the user, so they understand how people feel about their behaviour/communication style, in a way that focusses on that issue separate from any content disputes. Rd232 talk 10:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Until people start fighting over the logging, whether what they said was uncivil enough to get logged, or things like log entry 2: A reported me in the civility log without cause because he was mad about x, that was incivil - A. Log entry 3: B made a bad faith report of my report... Monty845 00:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Logging does help make people more conscious of their own behaviour when maybe they're not seeing it as others are. See also, a not entirely dissimilar idea, under "Abandon 'civility'...": a WP equivalent of a civility jar (swear jar, but more broadly defined)... Rd232 talk 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Civility and POV
- Complicating the issue of "civility enforcement" is its relationship to maintaining a neutral, balanced point of view in our articles. Civil POV-pushing in particular is a problematic result of a "civility"-obsessed editing culture. An editor able to cloak a fringe POV in a collegial sugarcoat stands a fair chance at pulling the wool over the eyes of other editors editing within a topic area, while a more aggressive, "uncivil" POV-pusher is more likely to be swiftly dealt with. These users stick around for a long time, often creating severe issues of balance within their pet topic area. Their outward attitude may sway outside opinion in their favour, regardless of how obvious and harmful the agenda-pushing is. Where a rude contributor might be summarily blocked for ongoing disruption, a civil POV-pusher might be only be taken to RfC/U in an extreme case—and even that may not be successful in halting them. All the while, their underhanded, tendentious methods may drive more clueful contributors who interact with them to frustration—a leading cause of "incivility". Thus, contributors who grow fed up with the actions of a civil POV-pusher may find themselves under threat of "civility" sanction for trying to protect encyclopaedic reliability, while the POV-pusher continues as they were, creating problems that compromise the quality of the project itself. If the community is to decide on a method of civility enforcement, safeguards must be enacted to ensure that merely being civil is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
- As nom. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would make it even stronger. "Civilly" baiting one's content opponents into "uncivil" statements is a standard battleground game on Wikipedia. There's a difference between (civil) "griefing" (or even harassment) and "incivility", and the first one is much worse. The two main problems with "civility enforcement" are that 1) it is very unevenly enforced creating total confusion as to what is and what is uncivil and 2) it is the most gamed of Wikipedia's policies. Volunteer Marek 23:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek puts it well. 28bytes (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
Criticism and disagreement are NOT incivility
- This should seem obvious but anyone who's doing work "in the trenches" (i.e. working on content) on Wikipedia knows very well that accusations of "incivility" are often motivated by a desire to win an argument or even remove (engineer a sanction) a content opponent from a topic area. A good portion of complaints about incivility boil down to a "User XYZ won't let me push my POV in peace!" or "User XYZ dares to disagree with me and that's uncivil!" or "User XYZ criticized me and my works and thatz a personal attackz!". While we spend a lot of time at RfA vetting admin candidates on their knowledge of speedy deletion criteria and the like, we never ask them to be able to distinguish between real incivility and frank criticism. This results in a lot of inappropriate blocks, confusion, arbitrary enforcement, and perverse incentives for gaming the system. As the man said, if you don't want your work edited and criticized, don't contribute here.
- Volunteer Marek 23:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Corollary to my thoughts on civil POV-pushing above. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- LegoKontribsTalkM 00:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Rschen7754 00:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
General discussion
It is my feeling that for me to believe in contributing to Wikipedia incivility must be prevented, one way by being "enforced against" within Wikipedia. Enforcing civility on the other hand, brings to mind a dystopian world of smiling robot-people. It seems that in looking at Wikipedia:Civility work place policies regarding safety and harassment would be [a] first place of comparison. Similarly, real world terms and concepts such as "safety" should be as easily adapted to online work as they are used in the 'real' world (to the extent that one already know what safety, for example, means, one should be able to define it for use on Wikipedia). Hyacinth (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my current workplace and several I've been in previously swearing and insults are par for the course. To suggest that there is one simple and clear, global standard is just silly. Oh, it might help to know that I'm not in the USA. Anyone feeling that the standards they are familiar with are universal is mistaken. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with HiLo48; one can be monumentally uncivil whilst using perfectly civil language, and what constitutes incivility is highly subjective. Not only in general, but also depending on the relationship between the two people involved. "Enforcing civility" is one of those things like "fighting for peace" (or "fucking for virginity" as the hippies used to put it) - difficult, messy and ultimately counterproductive. pablo 08:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I like that "perfectly civil language" link. That's a gem. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It may have been silly, had I actually suggested that there is one simple and clear, global standard. As with coworkers, just because one job or workplace is horrible doesn't mean that all workplaces are horrible (one might say that to suggest so would be silly). What I actually wrote was "it seems that...work place policies...would be [a] first place of comparison". This more than implies that I meant many standards. Hyacinth (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room". Please keep the discussion "general", not editor-specific. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Given the demise of the Wikiquette page, I'm concerned about the message being sent to editors who feel that they must be intemperate and abusive to push a position, generally one where there is already disagreement. A few moments ago I found this message from HiLo48 on my talk page. Given his comments here immediately after delivering this unsavoury package, I'd like to oppose his position in the strongest terms. Civil discourse is especially valuable when disagreements arise. How on earth can we work together if editors are encourage to swear at and abuse each other? --Pete (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
|
- Shut down the personal attacks please, both of you. This is a general discussion of the topic of civility, not a place to discuss specific problems or incidents. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course. Nevertheless, the point is a valid one. If an editor expects to be offended, then they are likely going to get offended, even if the response to their inflammatory remarks is pure User:Mindspillage/disputes. They might not see rude words and passion, but they look for it anyway. One would see this on WP:WQA, sometimes sparked by a misunderstanding over a word or phrase. --Pete (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, i get what you are saying. Actually I had a very recent experience with this. A user was up in arms about my declining of an unblock request. I was trying to explain my reasoning in a way that would not upset them but they took every single thing I said and put the most sinister spin on it they could. The more i teried to explain to them that we just flat out do not allow edit warring regardless of who is "right" as far as the article content goes the more hostile they became. Then another admin came by and pointed out that while we were discussing it the block had actually expired. I said "nice catch" in reference to this and the user got upset all over again by that directing a stream of angry remarks at the admin who pointed it out and inferring that if i hadn't noticed that the block expired I didn't know anything about it in the first place. Nothing i could have said from "you are a fucking moron if you don't understand what that means" all the way up to "I'm terribly sorry if you misunderstood the meaning of that remark, please allow me to attempt to clarify the matter" would have satisfied them. I took the only remaining solution: walk away. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course. Nevertheless, the point is a valid one. If an editor expects to be offended, then they are likely going to get offended, even if the response to their inflammatory remarks is pure User:Mindspillage/disputes. They might not see rude words and passion, but they look for it anyway. One would see this on WP:WQA, sometimes sparked by a misunderstanding over a word or phrase. --Pete (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- When most of us walk down the street we don't act as if every person we meet will be dangerous, antisocial, or a psychopath, though we may occasionally encounter someone like that. It seems we could proceed with a civility/incivility policy the same way. Make assumptions concerning collaboration and make conditions for exceptions. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't we already? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, when we walk down the street most people we meet are NOT dangerous, antisocial or psychopaths. While I would like to believe that the same thing is true while walking down a Wikipedia street, after seven years here, I'm not so sure. (Maybe not "most" but certainly a much larger fraction than one encounters in RL). You're flipping your conclusion and premise. Volunteer Marek 00:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- When most of us walk down the street we don't act as if every person we meet will be dangerous, antisocial, or a psychopath, though we may occasionally encounter someone like that. It seems we could proceed with a civility/incivility policy the same way. Make assumptions concerning collaboration and make conditions for exceptions. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
How would we be unable to define and enforce against incivility, but able to define and enforce against vandalism? Hyacinth (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think this remark actually identifies a core component of why we have recurring problems with this. It's the anonymity of this text-only interaction that is the direct cause of any number of misunderstandings and conflicts that seem to have civility as a defining component. You may employ a different attitude and language in a quilting supply shop full of old ladies than you would in a bar full of sailors at three in the morning. The problem is, we don't know which if those places we are in half the time. What may fly in one area or around one group of users will cause hysterical outrage in a different situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, let's take that idea - that you never know what sort of people you're among here - and run with it a little. Let's say that you're blind. In the course of your work (whatever that is), you're sent to a new place, let's say to deliver a package. You walk into the building, and you hear the voices of eighty or a hundred people, all milling around talking to each other. Someone taps you on the shoulder and asks you expectantly, "Yeah?" Now, you have no idea what sort of people you're among. You don't know if you walked into a knitting circle, a biker convention, a mafia den, or a boring old office staffed by boring old people. What do you reply to the person who spoke to you? a) "Hi, yeah, I'm delivering this package for so-and-so, can you point me to them?" b) "How dare you fucking touch me, you cunt?" c) "Oh, HONESTLY, is it not obvious to you that I'm here to deliver a package? DUH."
I would venture to say that in that real-world situation, most people will go for option A or something close to it, because if you don't know who you're speaking to, you tend to default to a neutral method of expression. You don't know those people or how they speak, and you need to transact some business with them in the least troublesome manner possible. Going for the neutral presentation in that situation is extremely unlikely to cause you any problems, so you opt for it. If you're approached by Joe Random on Wikipedia, why would you default to anything other than a similarly neutral presentation? Why would you believe that "What, you fucking cunt?" will be a successful method of communication to anyone other than a small segment of the population that the odds are against you having blundered into randomly? Even if you've walked into that metaphorical biker bar where people are throwing out "fucks" every other word, why would you think that for you, a person the bikers don't know, to do it would be understood in the same way? I guess I don't understand what thought process goes on for people where they meet someone whose mindset they can't know, and default to obscenity, insults, aggression, etc, instead of neutrality. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, let's take that idea - that you never know what sort of people you're among here - and run with it a little. Let's say that you're blind. In the course of your work (whatever that is), you're sent to a new place, let's say to deliver a package. You walk into the building, and you hear the voices of eighty or a hundred people, all milling around talking to each other. Someone taps you on the shoulder and asks you expectantly, "Yeah?" Now, you have no idea what sort of people you're among. You don't know if you walked into a knitting circle, a biker convention, a mafia den, or a boring old office staffed by boring old people. What do you reply to the person who spoke to you? a) "Hi, yeah, I'm delivering this package for so-and-so, can you point me to them?" b) "How dare you fucking touch me, you cunt?" c) "Oh, HONESTLY, is it not obvious to you that I'm here to deliver a package? DUH."
- I think this remark actually identifies a core component of why we have recurring problems with this. It's the anonymity of this text-only interaction that is the direct cause of any number of misunderstandings and conflicts that seem to have civility as a defining component. You may employ a different attitude and language in a quilting supply shop full of old ladies than you would in a bar full of sailors at three in the morning. The problem is, we don't know which if those places we are in half the time. What may fly in one area or around one group of users will cause hysterical outrage in a different situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Possibly create a new template
I generally believe that its a good idea to use template messages to get your point accross and like the Wikify template we should design a buoqet of messages for different kinds of uncivility. After going through the length of articles presented above I suggest the creation of template that might read like something like this
Wikishagnik recommends this format: —
- This discussion has gone beyond the scope of civility - If you feel that you have to use abusive language because
- Frustration - Others are simply not getting your POV / You are forced to repeat yourself then please refer Wikipedia:How to be civil or A nice cup of tea and a sit down
- Culture - If this is how you are then please read WP:CIVIL
- Process - if you cannot agree whether the content you added should / should not be included then please refer WP:Note and WP:Verify. if you don't agree with these policies then please discuss in the talk pages. If you feel that a reference you added is valid and others dispute this then please discuss this in WP:RS
- Pleas note that WP:CIVIL is an essential part of Wikipedia Policy and has to be adhered to at all costs.
Since I have never designed a template message I have no idea how this is done. If someone could develop a better template, it would help a lot. -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think well-designed templates are extremely useful, we have many (plus some that need work, but that's a different topic). However, there is a downside to a template only response. It sends the message that I can't be bothered to talk abut the specific issue, I'm simply going to regurgitate the boilerplate which might be sort of on-topic. I try to avoid getting angry, but if I were, and a saw a template only message, it would not calm me down, it would enflame.
- That doesn't mean templates should be totally avoided. I'd like to see a hybrid response. For example, in some of our OTRS work, we have canned responses. I try to add a personal sentence such as, "I see that you are asking about an issue in xxxx article and you have concerns about yyyy. This issue comes up commonly, and I'll copy our standard feedback, but please write back if it doesn't answer your question." I can then follow it with a template, the receiver knows that I didn't simply hit a response button hoping I got it right, I did read and understand the problem.
- I think that could be used here as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the feedback but I suggest a template message more as a STOP! Sign. Its more to let users know, when in th heights of emotion or passion that you are displaying may not be in the spirit of civility. I do appreciate personal messages but trust me, emotionaly charged people need to be brought in a state of mind in which they are willing to accept criticism or suggestions. A template message, just like the common STOP! sign might make people pause, and hopefully calm down before proceeding. -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, these kinds of standardized templates or messages (along with all the standard STOP! warning templates which IMO are quite obnoxious) are, whether intended to or not, sort of uncivil themselves. At least that's how they are often perceived - as a passive aggressive form of incivility by recipients. One obvious problem is that they implicitly assume that someone has been incivil and make that point beyond the scope of debate. If you got something to say to somebody, have the courtesy to put in your own words please (even so called "uncivil" ones!). Otherwise it's a sort of a "you are not worth the trouble of actually speaking to" kind of message. Don't like it. Volunteer Marek 00:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with VM. This comes off as just just passive-aggressive incivility, and will only breed a toxic environment. And as an aside, I've always found suggestions to drink virtual WP:TEA to be extraordinarily flippant. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that STOP! YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG, AND IF YOU DONT STOP YOU MIGHT GET IN TROUBLE templates are really not going to help with communication problems. On the other hand, templates might help users express themselves carefully when problems arise, with statements like "in the discussion at X you said Y. I've replied to the substantive points at X, but just wanted to say here that I personally thought you could have phrased this better, eg like this: Z. Just my impression, and I hope we can reach agreement at X on the issues.". That sort of gentle feedback about style as distinct from substance idea. Rd232 talk 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
Communication styles
Maybe we should think a bit more about communication styles. I had a thought for a template which would implement a table something like this (based on this source:
Communication style | My attitude to this style | What I will do when I can't accept | What I expect others to do when they can't accept | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Emotive Style high sociability and high dominance; spontaneous, uninhibited; extrovert, naturally persuasive |
||||
Director Style high dominance and low sociability; frank, assertive, and very determined; serious attitude, strong opinions; "May project indifference. It is not easy for the director to communicate a warm, caring attitude" |
||||
Reflective Style low dominance and low sociability; "Expresses opinions in a disciplined, deliberate manner"; "may seem aloof and difficult to get to know"; "Prefers orderliness" |
||||
Supportive Style low dominance and high sociability; "Listens attentively"; "more likely to rely on friendly persuasion than power when dealing with people. They like to display warmth..."; "Makes and expresses decisions in a thoughtful, deliberate manner" |
Interesting too is that source's Table 5.1, on when the styles are in the "excess zone". Supportive Style
- Attempts to win approval by agreeing with everyone
- Constantly seeks reassurance
- Refuses to take a strong stand
- Tends to apologize a great deal
Director Style
- Is determined to come out on top
- Will not admit to being wrong
- Appears cold and unfeeling when dealing with others
- Tends to use dogmatic phrases such as “always,” “never,” or “you can’t”
Emotive Style
- Tends to express highly emotional opinions
- Is outspoken to the point of being offensive
- Seems unwilling to listen to the views of others
- Uses exaggerated gestures and facial expressions
Reflective Style
- Tends to avoid making a decision
- Seems overly interested in detail
- Is very stiff and formal when dealing with others
- Seeks to achieve perfection
Well, this just an example, there are plenty of ways to analyse styles. Anyone see what I'm getting at? Rd232 talk 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)