Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Straw poll to make the policy historical

Seeing as the policy cannot be fairly applied to all editors, it has no business being a policy. If you wish for the policy to be retained, you must show a commitment to applying this to everyone.

Deprecate policy

  1. Sceptre (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Retain policy

  1. This is a bit of a WP:POINT disruption, isn't it? That said, I would support changing this to a guideline - it feels more like one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Sceptre, I understand you feel strongly about this whole Kmweber mess, but this is not the way to go around trying to fix it. Yes, I've had my unpleasant times with him, and I can honestly say that we both dislike each other (at least that is how it seems) - but if you carry on like this, your going to lose a hell a lot of respect from people, so I think you need to calm yourself down, maybe take a break. Proper sanctions will be taken against Kurt when the time is right and if it is necessary, so please, until that comes, please don't be so impulsive in your edits (i.e. tagging this page as historical yesterday). Qst (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. This policy needs work. The fact that someone can even talk about "applying" it to people is evidence that it is badly misunderstood and probably needs serious rewrites. We don't complain that gravity doesn't apply equally to all people, and that's the way this policy ought to be. It's not a rule; treating it as a rule will lead to grief. Over and over and over again. It's a fact of life, and it's an approach, and the trick is to know it and to use it, not to punish others for not using it. You don't issue a citation to fire for not being water; you apply water to fire. That's my 2¢, anyhow. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Just because we have failed to apply the policy to certain "special" editors, does not mean the policy should be disbanded. What we need to do is apply it fairly and equally. And yes policies need to be applied, they are our best practices, not our best approaches. I have plenty of respect for IAR and common sense but that does not mean we don't apply policy. Chillum 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, and one further note. The day Wikipedia gives up the requirement that we treat each other with respect, I am fucking out of here. Why should anyone volunteer in a place where they are not even protected against abusive behavior? Chillum 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Civility is the core of the project, when discussing interaction with other editors, specifically the part about "assume good faith." Winger84 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Developers! developers! developers!

  1. -- Ned Scott 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    To further comment, civility isn't our policy, it's one that is much more global/universal. Whether or not we have a page labeled civility doesn't really change that. -- Ned Scott 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Block the behavior, not the editor

I've been thinking about this problem lately -- the double standard toward uncivil newbies and established editors. To reluctantly borrow a Christian saying, "hate the sin, not the sinner". This is essentially what ArbCom does: it only targets behavior, not users, and limits its sanctions to behavior that is disruptive. We should be taking the same approach when we discuss and apply user blocks: if Editor X is a valued contributor but habitually engages in behavior that is considered disruptive by the community, the editor should be placed on probation, specific to that behavior, by the community. A block duration for the behavior should be decided on ahead of time, and applied if there is agreement that the editor engaged in the behavior.

This would help to remove the clique factor from blocks ("Don't block my buddy!" / "I hate this guy"). It's not a personal thing. If the community wants you to fucking stop doing that, the community should have the power to get you to fucking stop doing that, and it shouldn't matter who you are. Block the behavior, not the editor. If you're an established editor, you should damn well know how to not do the stuff we told you not to do.--Father Goose (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One would like to think so, but even in cases where ArbCom has been involved and prescribed terms for behavior and blocking length, there have still been massive community disruptions about applications of blocks related to particular behaviors. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
That there are cases that defy a clean outcome does not mean we should not adopt the best practices possible.--Father Goose (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
And if anything, that case is an example of what happens when the people involved fail to follow best practices.--Father Goose (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"the people involved fail to follow best practices" - Which people? Where have the failures of application of best practices been? How can we learn from this/what should we learn from this?-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The people in question would be Geogre and William M. Connolley, and the best practices would be soliciting community input instead of wheel-warring. I don't think what happened in this case is a sign that the Arbcom's methods or decisions are faulty.--Father Goose (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse policy and zscout's revert

Anyone who disagrees is free to also change the five pillars. Otherwise, being civil to people is a policy. --slakr\ talk / 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to have the "Sceptre disputes this" tag, though? That's just taunting the man, and if he's the only one that disputes it, no dispute tag whatsoever should be on the page. Someone's always disputing something.--Father Goose (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No, that part of the tag not needed. --NewbyG (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing I hate is the misconception that policies are on a different tier to guidelines. Wrong: guidelines are on the same tier of policies, and the heirachy is based on importance, not whether the tick is blue (e.g. WP:RS is a guideline, but it's very important; obversely, WP:M is a policy that's only used by one set of editors). Basically, policies should be instructory and guidelines should be advisory. You can't instruct someone to be civil, but you can advise them to be. Also, there are several parts of the five pillars that are guidelines, most notably WP:BOLD. I support CIVIL being a guideline, because as discussion has proved, CIVIL is really unenforceable as a policy. Sceptre (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
CIVIL is really unenforceable as a policy. Really? --NewbyG (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't force someone to be civil, as history shows you can't change a person's attitude simply by force (it simply breeds resentment); advice tends to work better as a tool to change minds. Sceptre (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I've compared this to NPOV below. Let's do that some more here. You can't force people to be neutral, and some people resent when you say they have to write neutrally whether they want to or not... but you can say that neutrality is a core policy and users can either accept that or find another site to edit. The same goes, I would say, for civility. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, I have removed your personal tag from this policy page. Please don't restore it without consensus, lest I go find an uninvolved administator to stop further WP:POINT. Enough said. Jehochman Talk 01:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, PeterSymonds added it, and Zscout and MBisanz re-instated it. I actually removed that tag by undoing zscout. Sceptre (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
And changed it back to a guideline in the same edit. MBisanz talk 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the point of undoing. It undos all the changes that an edit as made. Sceptre (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Sceptre if I misunderstood that sequence of edits. The process below should work it out. Jehochman Talk 02:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy or guideline

Wikipedia_talk:Civility/Archive_6#Formulation_problems 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Previous discussion/ Archive 6) /NewbyG (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging by these opposes, it appears that consensus opposes downgrading this policy to a guideline. If this is an inaccurate statement, please provide evidence. Otherwise, I motion to put the issue to rest and leave this as a policy. --slakr\ talk / 23:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's incorrect because you can't downgrade from a policy to a guideline. That's like saying the mediation policy is more important than being bold. I'd support if it says "consensus opposes changing the status of this policy to a guideline". Sceptre (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My bad. Correct that to: "it appears that consensus opposes changing this policy to a guideline" --slakr\ talk / 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Six of one, half a dozen of another, but seriously it is a "downgrade". From WP:PG, "Policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." If I'm expected to do something, it's more than just advisory. WP:M is actually more important than WP:BB. Users don't have to be bold, but they are expected to follow standards when participating in mediation. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Importance is not coterminous with strictness. Sceptre (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And lets hope that all of those who are so strongly committed to CIV being a policy that is strongly enforced also make their voices heard the next time(s) application of CIV starts to decide that "well incivility shouldnt count so much against this editor because s/he makes positive contributions to the project" -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that'll be the consensus, who knows? Policy is ignored from time to time. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as Policy
Red Pen most of Wikipedia supports this as a policy...Otherwise there would have been many more editors arguing this... and I'll assume the "she" you used was not pointed.(olive (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
They support it on paper - lets see if it is supported in action. And my comment was not directed at a specific editor - a typo has been corrected. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
A quick note: I'm simply trying to gauge consensus for the time being and not rehash the discussions above. If there's consensus on this talk page for changing CIVIL to a guideline, it should be easy to demonstrate; however, if there is not consensus to change it to a guideline (as I'm sensing), then, like other similar issues, we tend to keep it a policy until there's clear consensus otherwise. --slakr\ talk / 00:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


It would appear that consensus opposes changing the status of this page from a policy to a guideline at this time, and I am happy to say that I have no objection to the emerging consensus. /NewbyG (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Retain as policy. That this policy is unevenly enforced and sometimes ignored is no reason to change it to guideline status. Guidelines are guidelines instead of policies because there are reasonable exceptions, or reasonable people diagree to their applicability. For example, while notability is heavily enforced, many editors may reasonably believe that notability guidelines should not apply to articles which are split from a main article due to size issues. Or many editors may reasonably believe that a reliable source is unnecessary for information that is common knowledge among those with at least a high-school education. On the other hand, I hestitate to think why anyone would think it is reasonable for editors to ever be uncivil to one another. That they sometimes are is no reason why we should consider it acceptable behavior. WP:CIVIL is policy because there is nearly universal agreement that civility is fundamental to a collaborative project. There is a lot of vandalism too, and there are sometimes fuzzy cases where something might be reverted as vandalism when it is not; nevertheless WP:VANDAL remains policy because of the universal agreement among editors that vandalism needs to be reverted. WP:CIVIL is and ought to enjoy the same status. We can argue about specific borderline cases of whether certain behaviors are or are not civil, or whether breaches of civility are being ignored inappropriately, without making seem that we are endorsing the "occasional exception" to civility. Personally, I believe if people are saying "well incivility shouldnt count so much against this editor because s/he makes positive contributions to the project", that is wrong; a positive contributor who makes an occasional breach of civility needs to be reminded to be civil, and encouraged to continue to make positive contributions without engaging in such unacceptable behaviour. And if such an editor is repeatedly uncivil, that behavior needs to be dealt with regardless of the otherwise positive contributions, because at some point the hostile environment caused by repeated incivility that is tolerated does far more harm to the project, by driving away other productive editors, than any positive contributions that one editor might make. DHowell (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Will the way we respond to incivility (and the general importance of civility) be materially changed if the page is relabeled as a guideline (or retained as a policy)? If not, this is one of those all-heat-no-light issues.--Father Goose (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    I believe so, I believe admins admins will be more reluctant to block solely over incivility and individuals will feel less of an imperative to remain civil if this page is placed on the same standing as the MoS on Hyphens and Em-dashs. MBisanz talk 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    Hard to know if that's true, but... fair enough.--Father Goose (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Objection to new phrasing

The old, long-standing phrasing:


The new (if reverted) phrasing:


Problems:

  1. "Civil behavior creates an optimum collaborative editing environment" - Ignoring this being written in management-speak, I think that's... well, "optimum?" - seems overstating the case a bit - you need other things, like good research and so on. How about something like "Civility helps to encourage collaborative editing, and reduces the stress caused by any disagreement"?
  2. Bad grammar. First sentence is a run-on, second and third sentences no longer follow from first.
  3. No longer possible to put "Civility" in bold, as with other policies.

There are problems with the old version, but management-speak is not the solution. If we're going to rewrite it, let's do it properly, giving good, strong reasons as to how civility improves the editing environment.

I suggest:


Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note here: the civility policy should somewhere reflect the observation (introduced I believe, and recognizing the incredible irony here, by JzG) that "the internet is populated by eggshells armed with sledgehammers" or something to that effect. Incivility is often precipitated by provocative actions and then reacted to with an excessive amount of presonal offence. Of course, incivility is never an appropriate response, but it would often behoove those perceiving incivility to reflect first on the brief history - often they might resolve that "oh yeah, I see now (I/they) (was/were) being a bit of a dick, good one, (I'll/they should) try not to do that in future". Preventing the conditions for incivil responses is just as important as coming down hard on the instances where a response is perceived as having crossed the line to "incivility". I personally mostly laugh at attempts to provoke me - in fact I find it kind of flattering that someone would go out of their way to insult me. It means they care enough about me as a person to desire a response. Simply ignoring is the ultimate disrespectful act - yet it doesn't seem to figure into our policy on civility. Franamax (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we can insist people must pay attention to each other, as nice as it might be. We don't have the budget to engineer neo-humans to be Wikipedia editors =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the wording could definitely use some help, because it's not clear exactly what we want or expect. That being said, the policy should not shy away from the ideal of what we expect. If you require the bare minimum, you will get the bare minimum. SDY (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating shying away from the ideal, but a realistic description of what the ideal can accomplish makes people more likely to follow it - Overhyping leads to people tuning out. People will listen if you say that civility makes a pleasant editing environment and lessens the stress from any disputes. People will tune out if we say that civility alone can create the perfect editing environment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another Version based on multiple past versions

  • I think SH makes some good points.Hopefully these points take his points into account
  • I didn’t see optimum defined as perfect but rather defined as the best possible under the circumstances. I changed the wording to reflect SH’s concern, but still to have a sense of an environment that supports the best possible environment in which to edit.
  • Wikipedia was one of the very first four or so collaborative on-line communities so wording that reflects this seems to be less cliché driven, and more appropriate in this context. That management / businesses are also adopting this wording doesn’t mean that the community that influenced the creation of the phrase shouldn’t use it.
  • As well, Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is also and fundamentally a collaborative editing community. I believe that it is really critical for us to say that right away in the policy. So much that is not civil comes out of the mistaken desire that someone has to be right when in fact the fundamental premise of these massive, collaborative communities had more to do with points where people can “meet” in terms of language, content, and ideas.
  • Stress is more a reactive condition rather than a descriptive one. As well human physiology can be stressed by not only negative in put but also by positive input . Stress response indicates the system’s inability to handle the input rather than what the input is. For example a negative environment may stress some editors but not others. So we can’t assume stress or reaction, although we can assume a general environment doesn’t support the best editing processes possible for a majority of people.
  • The reverted phrase had the general agreement of four editors. In putting it into the article my point was to set up a document we could work on. In my experience versions that are placed in discussion pages stay there and no progress is made in rewriting the actual material. Reverting back to an old version doesn’t seem progressive to me. I am adding this version in hoping it addresses some concerns, and hoping editors with other concerns will edit rather than revert so we can continue on forward.(olive (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Can we work on it here a bit more first? There were a lot of basic syntax errors, and I'd like to hash it out on the talk page first. I agree it's getting there, and that Littlelolive's version is a good starting point, but I'd rather hash it out here.:



I think we're trying to say far too much in each sentence, and, by trying to keep the exact same phrases in as the old version, we're just perpetuating bad writing. Let's see if we can't rearrange things a little.


NOTE: Can we lose the word belligerent, if nothing else? While we might expect our editors to have a larger vocabulary than most, "belligerent" is not in everyday use, is it?

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is becoming quite well-written. How about a few minor style changes:

(sdsds - talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Civility, a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow, helps to encourage a favorable, collaborative, editing environment" encompasses three points: that this is a Wikipedia standard, implies that editors are expected to follow the standard despite any personal views in the matter, and describes the environment. Syntax is correct. I would support this first line as more complete than this version, "Civility encourages a favorable environment for collaborative editing...."

Please don't feel this is my version . I am putting together points gleaned from comments and versions by multiple editors.

I'd like to comment further on the other lines but will have to do it a bit later. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
Belligerent is a pretty common word, but there may be words synonymous with it we can use.(olive (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
"Incivility comes about when an editor is persistently rude, or directs hostility at his fellow editors". I don't feel that this is general enough or perish the thought, holistic enough . What we have here are a couple of examples of incivility rather than a statement about what incivility is. To "direct hostility at ..." may be a little awkward usage.

How about: Incivility can be described as personally-targeted, hostile behavior and or persistent rudeness that creates an unpleasant environment detrimental to the editing process and to the project. OR

Incivility can be described as personally-targeted, hostile behavior and or persistent rudeness. This can create an unpleasant environment detrimental to the editing process and to the project.

As I said above I would be reluctant to use the words "stress", "dissatisfaction" because we are describing and generalizing reactions. Really all we can say is that an environment is generally not a supportive work environment after that reaction is individual.(olive (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
Yes, we don't want to give the false impression incivility is defined by the reaction of the victim of incivility rather than the uncivil action of the perpetrator. If editor A insults editor B, the question of whether editor B is offended by the uncivil behavior is irrelevant, because it also poisons the environment for editors C through Z. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to avoid the complex clauses that keep getting brought up here. Some of our editors are quite young. Is a 12 year old going to understand something like "Incivility can be described as personally-targeted, hostile behavior and or persistent rudeness that creates an unpleasant environment detrimental to the editing process and to the project." - I really doubt it. I also think "Civility, a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow, helps to encourage a favorable, collaborative, editing environment" tries to pack too much in for young readers - better to divide it into individual sentences. Oh, and maybe we should replace "collaborative working environment" with something like "Civility helps everyone to work together smoothly, and helps to keep problems from getting worse. All Wikipedians are expected to be reasonably civil to each other." - a 12 year old could understand that. It doesn't have to be that exact phrasing, but I do think that such a basic policy needs clear language that all our editors can understand.

Secondly, I think it's a good idea to explain why incivility is disruptive. Explanations are better than assertions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a 12 year old going to understand something like "Incivility can be described as personally-targeted, hostile behavior and or persistent rudeness that creates an unpleasant environment detrimental to the editing process and to the project." - I really doubt it. Why? what is it about that statement, that to me seems perfectly clear and simple, that you find complex or hard to understand? BTW, there is no reason to bring age into it, I'm sure there are a lot of 12 year olds who are smarter than either of us. Dlabtot (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I see I phrased my question poorly... what I really mean is - you understand it, right? So what makes you think it's hard to understand? Dlabtot (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I had a university class that dealt with this when discussing Hemmingway's style - Hemmingway went to great lengths to make his writing as simple as possible, including using simple sentence structures, and choosing easier words. It's not hard to apply those sorts of principles to see whether a text is difficult. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's bound to be trouble with language like, "Civility, a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow." First, it is in the passive, and thus begs the question: "Who expects it?" Second, the phrase, 'a standard', is itself not standard usage. Within the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:CIVIL is not one of the "Content standards." (sdsds - talk) 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll to apply civility fairly and equally

Seeing as this policy is not always fairly applied to all editors, the community needs to make a decision. If you wish for this policy to be applied to all editors regardless of reputation or standing the please endorse the "Equal treatment" section. If you think that editors who have a good reputation or standing should be allowed more leeway when this policy is enforced them please endorse the "Depends on who it is" section. If you endorse the "Depends on who it is" section, please tell use who it is.

If you think neither of those sections represents your point of view, please feel free to add sections that address the ongoing issues with unequal enforcement. Chillum 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Equal treatment

  1. I don't think that being a good contributor should earn anyone an exemption to our civility policy. Uncivil behavior results in the poisoning of a productive environment, resulting if left unchecked in good contributors being driven off by uncivil ones. I think this damages the neutrality of our point of view and biases our work in favor of those who can drive others off through disrespectful behavior. We are nearly entirely supported by volunteers who deserve a minimum standard of respect from everybody. It does not matter who is uncivil, the damages is done regardless. Chillum 18:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Yes. But if we can't apply it to everyone, then it becomes unenforceable and should not be a policy. Sceptre (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    I would not give up the significant benefit this policy brings just because it does not work in every situation. Would you throw away your otherwise fine car just because it will not work in Lawrence, Kansas? Chillum 18:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    If your car doesn't work in Lawrence, you get a rental. If civility doesn't work on an editor, you can't get a rental. Sceptre (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    My metaphor just broke down, I need to rent one till it is working again. Chillum 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that civility applies to everyone, because all that's saying is that everyone needs to be civil to have an optimal editing environment. However, equal treatment seems to say "equal enforcement" (as in, post-incivility punishment). One size won't fit all, and things like blocks are not the only tools we have to help these situations. -- Ned Scott 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on who it is

Depends on the situation

It's all about context.

  1. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Good idea, any context to go with it? Chillum 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Since one of the main reasons we value civility is to have a healthy editing environment, we should prioritize that above enforcement and punishment. Like Jimbo says, love and understanding is very important. If someone has a short outburst, one or two comments, that would be less of an issue than someone who has a constant civility problem. It doesn't mean it's "allowed".. but.. it happens. Then there's the situation itself, was it a heated debate or was it just a run of the mill discussion?
    These kinds of things are next to impossible to define in a guideline or policy, because they're basically saying "use common sense", but with people who have different views on what that might be. -- Ned Scott 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but all else being equal, should we give special consideration to users that have contributed a lot or have a high standing or reputation? Every civlity issue has context, I am asking if the community wants the reputation of the editor to be a mitigating factor when considering civility. Chillum 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    If the user is normally rainbows and sunshine, then we should consider that they've been understandably annoyed at something. But we shouldn't relax the policy to uncivil but productive users. Sceptre (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    (EC) I don't think contributions should lead to special considerations, at least not in any situation I can currently think of. That's not to say that those kinds of editors might not have other issues, but the fact that they've edited more to the article space, or have more FAs or GAs, shouldn't be a free pass. -- Ned Scott 18:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Ditto. Let's not lose sight of WHY we have the civility policy: To smooth over making an encyclopedia. It's entirely possible to enforce CIVIL in a manner where it causes more disruption than the incivility, for instance, by claiming that heated debate was incivil, or letting someone goad the other into incivility - then only punishing the person goaded. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I think we all agree there are many ways to deal with incivility. I am asking if we should give established users more leeway than new users. I am talking about all else being equal here. Your response does not seem to address the issue I am trying to obtain a consensus on. Chillum 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Well, the trouble is that all cannot be equal. Almost by default, an established user will have a history of productive edits and working with other people effectively, and a reasonable amount of civility. This dilutes the impact of a single incivil incident.
    At the same time, a new editor does not have the experience with Wikipedia rules and culture, and so might be forgiven for larger amounts of low-grade incivility if he seems willing to learn and improve. So it really could go both ways. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong question

  1. Civility should not be thought of as a rule that "applies" to people. It is a method for getting things done in a collaborative setting. It is physically impossible for it to not apply to anyone. Trying to enforce it as a "rule" will lead to grief. Using civility to navigate difficult situations is what it's about. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    And when someone is uncivil to the point of disruption and we block them, then what is that if not applying a rule? It is simply a requirement that we treat each other with respect, and we do enforce it. I don't think it is a "method", it is a set of standards that the community has come to expect. We can write essays on how to work well with each other, this is about us requiring a certain level of respectfulness. Perhaps this is merely a semantic difference but this policy does represent our best practices as we apply them. Chillum 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, this policy represents best practices. The best practice is not to identify uncivil editors and block them; the best practice is to use civility to deal with potentially difficult editors. When we have to issue a block, it is to prevent ongoing damage.

    It is possible to think of this policy as a rule, or to think of it as a set of excellent suggestions. I am suggesting that the latter way is better, in the sense that it will lead to a better collaborative working environment, and thus to a better encyclopedia.

    Gravity doesn't "require" you to fall; you just fall. If you're uncivil, then you'll fail to work well with others, and you may be blocked to prevent disruption. Rather than pushing it as a rule, let's push it as simple cause-and-effect. Does that make any sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

    Agree 100%. I've been saying this should be a guideline for ages now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not aware that what I said added up to this page being made a guideline? How do you make that connection? Why does it matter whether the page is a policy or a guideline? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    Policies are rules, guidelines are best practices. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    Or, possibly looking at it in quite another way: "Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project." is policy, and any further information, such as how to respond to challenges, specific details, reporting, disagreements, noticeboards, blocking, and so on are matters which are best explained at the guideline level. --NewbyG (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    This may be a very good reflection of actual current practice within Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    I can't see that it matters one bit which paragraphs are "at the policy level" and which are "at the guideline level". The only reason I can see for caring about that is if you intend to lawyer about it. If some good piece of advice about how to communicaate with each other is "at the guideline level", does that make it somehow not "apply to everyone"? Nonsense. If we're not going to claim that the guideline is somehow "optional" then what's the point in separating parts off as "guideline"? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    This is why I never can get a straight answer on this issue. I ask if established editors should be given special consideration and people start talking about ways we can avoid blocking. Yes, of course we should avoid blocking, but at a certain point when other methods fail it is our best practice to block. I am asking if that certain point should allow for more incivility for people with special standing. Yes, we only block to prevent ongoing damage. Should we allow more damage from established users than we allow from new users? Chillum 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    If you can never get a straight answer, maybe you're turning an issue into a dichotomy that is not treated d as one? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not trying to give you an un-straight answer, Chillum, but I do believe that you're asking the wrong question. If the question doesn't even make sense to me, because we're on different pages, then how can I give you a straight answer?

    It is a fact of life that this policy cannot be "enforced" the way you're requesting. It will never be a law, that can be "applied" equally to different editors. It is a general approach to the wiki, and those who do not take it will eventually find grief. Those who are defiant against gravity end up bruised. Same with those who are defiant against the basic facts of human interaction.

    We do not have a civility "rule" (though many think we do), we have a largely unstructured collaborative work environment. It is a simple fact that incivility will eventually get someone booted from such an environment. Naturally, people who have contributed a lot will get more leeway, because that's the way we work in a reputation-based system, which Wikipedia is. Established editors who are chronically uncivil do eventually get blocked. I've seen it happen repeatedly. Meanwhile, our job is to use civility to resolve disputes. While you're doing that, uncivil people will dig their own graves; just be patient.

    Here, Chillum, this might be closer to the "straight answer" you seek. You ask: "should we allow more damage from established users than we allow from new users?" However, are we talking about total damage, or net damage? Suppose this sort of thing were measurable, and someone were to rack up 100 units of good edits, and 10 units of incivility. Another editor, a new one, makes 2 units of good edits, and 4 units of incivility. Who should be blocked in this situation? The answer is, of course, neither. They should both be handled with civility, and if that leads to blocking, then there we go. If it leads elsewhere, good work. It is very likely that, if the established editor is to be blocked, it will take more time than it would for the new one. It's not just an open-and-shut thing, and that's just life. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

    If it is a "general approach" then it should not be a "policy". A policy is applicable to everyone at every time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    I can't see how it makes any difference what is a policy and what is a guideline. Personally, I ignore that distinction. If something is a good idea, do it, whether it's a policy, a guideline, or a whim that just sprang into your head. I think that fussing over the technical differences between "policies" and guidelines is a Bad Idea, which tends to reinforce the incorrect notion that Wikipedia is a rules-game of some kind. It is not. Policies are not like laws, and thinking of them as such harms the project.

    Common sense - not our guideline about common sense, but the real stuff - is always applicable to everyone, and nothing we say here can possibly change that. Treating each other well falls under common sense. Whether or not it's a policy, it's a Law of Nature, just like gravity. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

    When I drop an apple it will always fall to the floor. ALWAYS. When you drop an apple it will always fall to the ground. ALWAYS. That is a law of nature. Civility doesn't always happen. When it doesnt happen what do we do? Claim that it is a "law of nature" and the and the insults and personal attacks didn't happen? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    Not at all. What I am claiming is a Law of Nature is this: being uncivil will ALWAYS be unhelpful in a collaborative working environment. Being civil will ALWAYS be a smarter approach, in the long run, on a project such as Wikipedia. Nobody can escape the fact that incivility alienates others, damages one's reputation, and makes collaborative work more difficult. That is an inescapable fact. Civility is ALWAYS the best response to incivility in others. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    Whoah - I really misinterpreted your position - sorry. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    To more directly address your question, when incivility happens, what we can do is respond with civility. If that doesn't work, then we can bring other people to the situation. If it seems that someone is being disruptive and isn't going to stop, then an admin can block them. If it's a chronic problem, then the block eventually turns into a community ban. The pace of this process varies, depending on various factors, including the past history of the uncivil party. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civility/Archive_9&oldid=1086391583"