UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Civility
Civility, or, No Personal Attacks
Civility, or, no personal attacks. The name should relatively speak for itself; but here is the policy as I envision it:
- People are allowed to control whether they want their talk pages to be strictly civil, or whether personal attacks are allowed, under the principle of page ownership.
- Ditto group talk pages, under the same principle.
- Communal pages, however, such as suggestions and suburb maps, and malls- personal attacks would not be allowed.
Defining a personal attack: A person could say, "you're biased", or some similar accusation, and that's not a personal attack, as long as it's an accusation made in a reasonable tone that the person can defend against.. If you start saying things like "eat shit and die", that would be a personal attack.
HOWEVER, the tone restriction only applies when talking about the person themselves. If talking about a report someone made, you could still say, "That is the shittiest, most vaguest damn report I have ever seen.", or a suggestion, "That suggestion fucking sucks! Did you try to take it to the talk page? Sheesh, this thing rips apart every rule known to the wiki." That middle statement is not made in a reasonable tone, but it does constitute reasonable advice, so would be valid.
Voting Section
Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop. |
The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote. |
For
- For - Always outnumbered, never outgunned. --Toejam 16:13, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Against
- The policy is hardly worded as one, defines terms in a very weak and ambiguos manner and hardly seems to be what people were talking about when discussing the need of a civility policy... Maybe the spirit was right, but everything else seems warped. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:39, 16 September 2007 (BST)
- Yeah, I was doing this mainly to clear the policy box. It'll get rejected. I know. Nalikill 23:40, 16 September 2007 (BST)
- Err... you can withdraw it you know? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:46, 16 September 2007 (BST)
- Yeah, I was doing this mainly to clear the policy box. It'll get rejected. I know. Nalikill 23:40, 16 September 2007 (BST)
- As Matthew. --WanYao 23:52, 16 September 2007 (BST)
- If a person wishes to be rude, let them. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 00:24, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Same as Matthew and what's this "clearing the policy box" stuff? Am I right to infer that someone's proposing civility out of shallow motivations? How ... uncivil.--The Envoy 03:03, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Shallow and civil aren't exclusive. Civil simply means polite. I can challenge you to a duel to the death, we can bow, take ten paces, and duel and have one of us die- but that's civil. Me saying "YOU SONOFABITCH!" while not fatal, is still civil. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 03:13, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- That doesn't answer the question about "clearing the policy box". It sounds like you're wasting everyone's time putting up a policy you know is going to fail. It's polite to occupy your peer's time going over policy that's actually in good form.--The Envoy 13:18, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Shallow and civil aren't exclusive. Civil simply means polite. I can challenge you to a duel to the death, we can bow, take ten paces, and duel and have one of us die- but that's civil. Me saying "YOU SONOFABITCH!" while not fatal, is still civil. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 03:13, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Hard to take someone serious about writing a civility clause when they are toting a project unwelcome flag in their siggy--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS
LOE ZHU | Яezzens 03:16, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Hard not to take someone serious about writing a civility clause when they are toting a project welcome flag in their siggy as well. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 03:30, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Dude's its one thing to tote something in your sig, its another thing to actually follow its policies. What happened to the guy who wanted to clear up swearing on the wiki, and yet, the other day you were swearing up a storm. Not calling you out on anything, I just think you are changing to fit the system that is ruling rather than trying to change the system for the better. Maybe a lil touch of Stockholm syndome affected you?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS
LOE ZHU | Яezzens 03:37, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Dude's its one thing to tote something in your sig, its another thing to actually follow its policies. What happened to the guy who wanted to clear up swearing on the wiki, and yet, the other day you were swearing up a storm. Not calling you out on anything, I just think you are changing to fit the system that is ruling rather than trying to change the system for the better. Maybe a lil touch of Stockholm syndome affected you?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS
- Hard not to take someone serious about writing a civility clause when they are toting a project welcome flag in their siggy as well. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 03:30, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 03:27, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Vow 04:07, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Nope --The Grimch U! E! 05:12, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- I could support a civility policy like the WP one Kevan pointed to. But this one is pretty ambiguous, unnecessarily constrained to cover only the ill-defined "personal attacks", and lacking a remedy for dealing with violations. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 05:58, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 06:00, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- May it never be.--Insomniac By Choice 06:36, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- I would be delighted to see an effective policy to deal with incivility, but I don't think this is it. There recently have been two other attempts at something like this, one of them quite nice - draw inspiration from them. I don't see the point of "allowing" personal attacks on userpages - since when do people "own" the userpages associated to their account anyhow? As is, I don't think this policy proposal is ready to pass. --Pgunn 06:56, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- As Matthew --~~~~ [talk] 07:36, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- --Jorm 07:39, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- --Karlsbad 09:50, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Just another tool for the ameteur dramatics society I'm afraid--Seventythree 12:49, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- --Goofy McCoy mfd HK-47 talk 13:12, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- --
T 14:06, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- --The-Not-So-Late Stuartbman The Third
MBE OBE 17:03, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Because sometimes no other words will get the point across as well as "asshat." --Goolina Gore Corps 18:06, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- As written, it's too unenforceable, and would probably just create MORE drama on the wiki. Having read all the discussions on this recently, I'm starting to believe that on wikis as in society, one cannot legislate morality. I am sad to vote against this, but I guess the only real way to do this is to informally adopt a culture of intolerance for incivility in public forums - like suggestions. I'm all for incivility on group pages and so forth. In the end, if the majority public will is for nastiness, then nastiness it shall be. Oh, and the way you've written in above Goolina, 'asshat' is one word - albeit compound, but still one. :) --Squid Boy 18:35, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- See talk page.--Karekmaps?! 12:00, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Screw you. Just kidding. There should be clarification of the definition of rudeness. --Roger Thirnell 15:46, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Like suing, this kind of practice is more likely to be abused than used by those who need it, we're afraid--Crabappleslegalteam 01:00, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- --Ryiis 17:26, 20 September 2007 (BST)
- Abuse' --User:Axe27/Sig 01:58, 23 September 2007 (BST)
- Abuse! Much like suing. It's to easy to abuse.--Wooty 00:02, 26 September 2007 (BST)
- I like the idea of a civility policy. I'm not a major fan of this implementation. --Darth Sensitive
W! 06:12, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- I much prefer my alternative. 'arm. 16:53, 27 September 2007 (BST)
- As those above. --Axe Hack Talk 00:11, 28 September 2007 (BST)
Voting Closed - Motion failed, 1 For, 30 Against. --The Grimch U! E! 16:16, 1 October 2007 (BST)