UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Civility

Discussion

Didn't know if I needed to sign creation of it Nalikill 14:37, 8 September 2007 (BST)

No. Especially in Suggestions and the suggestions talk pages, personal attacks and calling people stupid is practically part of the culture. Im all for free speech. If there are any persistent problems with abuse between individual users, so much so that its a problem, the aggreived parties can take it to arbitration, where the matter will be sorted out rather swiftly, and a ruling will be made where if the abuse continues, the sysops can do something about it. Sometimes flaming a user is the only way to drive home a point. --The Grimch ^U! 15:02, 8 September 2007 (BST)

I'm sorry but flaming isn't ever the only way to drive home a point.--Kristi of the Dead 15:04, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Sorry Grim, but...No. Flaming is merely a crutch for being inarticulate. If you flame, you just get people's defenses up. You don't change anything, you just create problems. In blunter fashion: Flaming may be excusable if you're 12 and don't know how else to communicate. But after that, it just marks you as an ass. In addition...You're saying flaming should be perfectly acceptable. Uh, no, no thanks. --Penta 15:53, 8 September 2007 (BST)

There are two types of flaming. The informative, and the retarded. The retarded kind is the stuff you find on forums dedicated to it, and a very very cleaned up version of it is the stuff Sonny and his ilk partake in. The informative always justifies the flame and integrates it into a more general point being made. Eg: "Your idea is completely retarded, because X, Y, and Z will completely fuck up A. I honestly cant believe you posted something so completely stupid that even a five year old would say "What the fuck?"". The example i gacve you would be a perfectly valid complaintm made in that way so as to be more striking, and to add a depth of expression to the comment that makes it stand out and hit home in a more profound way. It draws the line between a person going "This guy thinks the idea is stupid", to "This guy thinks and has explained how utterly stupid the idea is, and how stupid i must look because of it". Believe it or not, many people need this distinction. We need it because, unlike in face to face communication, we cant use body language to convey such concepts. We have to adapt the language and use our language like we use our body language. We need to imply in our words the forcefulness we would usually convey with tone of voice and expression, and flaming is one such mode of such expression. Removing our ability to be rude and mean would simply cripple our ability to express negative feelings about both ideas and other users conduct. Its like cutting off a guys lips and legs and then telling him he can go free if he can run through the streets of London playing a trumpet. Conversation will be completely, utterly, and irretreivably crippled. There are places where discussions can and do take place with such civility rules, but such conversations lack all feeling and quickly grow stale. Also, rules lawyers like akule will be able to force the sysops to warn and ban dozens, if not hundreds of users they dislike, just by playing on codes of conduct that awill be, by their very nature, next to impossible to define cleanly. Also, FYI articulate flames are possible, and happen quite frequently. Its just that there is a lot of shit out there too. --The Grimch ^U! 17:11, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Grim, in real life, because of various disabilities, I can't interpret body language or similar cues. So maybe I've learned to operate without it, but...No. The lack of non-verbal cues is not an excuse. Beyond that, the problem is that flaming (as I've seen you and others do it here) rarely attacks the idea or goes to how one appears for proposing an idea, but attacks the person. That is where I have a problem. You want to call my idea a flaming bag of dogshit? You want to say it makes me appear braindead? Okay. You use the idea to attack me? Not okay. It does nothing except make you feel good by making others feel like shit, and that is the definition of a bully. --Penta 18:07, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Grimch, flaming to drive the point home isn't necessary. Vista completely blew the first version of my Necrotic Bite suggestion out of the water (check the 2nd Spam vote) by concentrating entirely on the suggestion itself - and he had a lot to say. I had a positive discussion about changes, and Necrotic Bite 2.0 went through to Peer Reviewed with over 80% Keep and 0 Spam.
I agree with Penta that making others feel like shit by using personal attacks is the trademark of a bully. I don't want people to be bullies on this wiki - having some rules in place to discourage or punish bullying behaviour seems like a good thing to me. Do you think the status quo cannot be improved in any way? 'arm. 03:11, 9 September 2007 (BST)

• Flaming doesn't need to be part of the culture, and I think it's time it stopped. This is only a very rough draft of a policy though - it needs more work. (I'll try to provide more concrete advice in a bit - in the meantime, check out Wikipedia's civility policy and those on a few other prominent wikis) --Pgunn 16:28, 8 September 2007 (BST)

You wrote "If you start saying things like "eat shit and die", that would not be a personal attack". Is this a typo, or would this be considered civil? 'arm. 16:20, 8 September 2007 (BST)

That is about the biggest freaking typo I've ever had, thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing that out. Nalikill 16:25, 8 September 2007 (BST)

No problem.
I don't know if you realised, but MatthewFahrenheit posted a link to a proto-civility policy on Kevan's User Page. 'arm. 16:42, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Um, this would about have as much teeth as a policy banning "sanctimonious gits" or "busybodies". If someone puts something on your page that goes against your or your group's sense of decorum, you can delete it. If someone continues to assault your page, that's harassment, and I believe it's covered under the rules for vandals. Further, at least within the wiki, no one really "knows" the other contributors since very few, if any, contributors use their real world identities. On this board, a "personal attack" if not just childish troll noise, is nothing but a statement regarding the work on this wiki done under that signature. How can it be anything else? Now if someone, somehow stalked a particular contributor and started maligning the person's personal life on the board, that's a different animal, and I think the basic misconduct policies can be interpreted to handle such a situation.

If you want a "cleaned up" wiki in this regard, I don't think you can legislate it through policies. Rather just edit by example and hope the larger community will follow your best practices. Frankly, when people "go nuclear" with the "personal" flaming, from what I've observed most participants in said discussions pretty much abandon any credibility invested in the flamer. If the person keeps it up, they eventually become a persona non grata in the regular conduct of the wiki, in other words an impotent troll.

In short I think banning personal attacks as conceived in this and Matthew's discussion would be about as effective as banning personality.--The Envoy 18:01, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Does it, Envoy? Does it actually discredit people? I'm not so sure, given that Sysops here flame as enthusiastically as anyone else. In fact, it could be argued that, at present, flaming is encouraged, or, indeed, seen as the default way to communicate. --Penta 23:05, 8 September 2007 (BST)

I haven't seen a flamewar decide anything on this wiki. I've seen policy discussion devolve into flamewars, but that tends to be after there's already a critical mass of consensus, and yeah eventually someone chides one part or the other to be a "better man." Civil behavior just can't really be enforced effectively. Flaming just seems to me to be flogging a dead horse in the discussions that matter here. All it will do is create a "busybody" task that will build contempt for those who try to enforce the policy. The trashtalk will migrate elsewhere, and in doing so I'd argue would actually amplify the problem by creating "unspoken" issues between parties on the wiki.

Look, social norms aren't learned well from rule books. They are learned through socialization. Finally, if you're saying the sysops are encouraging a culture of incivility, how do you expect the policy to work as policy?--The Envoy 23:28, 8 September 2007 (BST)

These grounds seem reasonable enough. However, (There's always a "However...") I think that the higher level swear words should be reserved for private forums and not be seen at all on the wiki. --Secruss 00:30, 9 September 2007 (BST)

There is no stated consequence or system of consequences for disobeying this policy: therefore, as a policy, it should not pass. However, I believe you imply the use of the Vandal-Banning page or a Vandal-Banning-like page to enforce this policy; I dislike this, as it gives SysOps- or should we say "Moderators"- even more judgment call situations where the "correct" or "good-faith" answer is either not at all clear or even completely up to the personal beliefs of said SysOp / Moderator.
I'd also like to mention that Page-Owners are already given free hand to remove or delete a person's comments, and repeated bad-faith edits are used as examples of vandalism. So 2/3rds of this policy is cruft anyway. --Karlsbad 04:18, 9 September 2007 (BST)

sounds like a good idea in principle but i don't think it will work. Yes, there is all together far too much personal abuse used in suggestions but; as Grim says; to a certain degree it is deserved. Sadly this is almost always exceeded by certain users who may well be 12 but could just as easily be 37 year olds that still live with their moms! A basic rule of thumb should be "would i say this direct to the persons face and be pretty sure they would not kick the crap out of me?" If you are typing things you know damn well you would not say to someones face you are just being a cowardly worm, if on the other hand you feel so strongly that you feel the urge to vent and would do so even at the risk of a fist fight then I for one applaud you! See, if someone makes a stupid suggestion its pretty unlikely to offend me that badly. Other things (like Akules obsession with copyright) attack my beliefs and i would happily deliver the insults in person because he is attacking my beliefs in a repeated and unfounded way that i find incredibly annoying! --Honestmistake 12:05, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Examples of Why Civility is Needed

Rogue's comment on the copyright discussion is a prime example of why some sort of civility policy should be in place, for atleast public discussions. For one, it added nothing to the discussion other than a hateful, threatening remark. Obviously the standard practice of "if you can't contribute anything nice or relevant, then don't post anything at all" is lost. Free speach is one thing, suggesting violence against Akule and the rest of the copyright supporters shows real lack of maturity. Being against a policy and expressing it in a civil manner is one thing, but what Rogue did was uncalled for.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:24, 12 September 2007 (BST)

It was uncalled for, and I'm glad a couple of people chided him for it but without being rude to him. I think that's a good example to follow. --Toejam ^{A Stats Graph} 19:55, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Seems like a few kids have never had lessons on social graces and common manners. --Jellofun 02:46, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Really, if this is as bad as it gets. The policy is overkill. Toejam pointed out how the comment was schooled by more mature users. That should be what occurs instead of legislation.--The Envoy 17:11, 14 September 2007 (BST)

that is exactly the point. The wiki should not be about "schooling" one another. the wiki is supposed to be a neutral place that contains info on the game. It should be a reletively drama-free zone. Take the drama to a message board. Why is it so hard for people to actually be civil to one another? You are correct, there shouldn't have to be a policy, but obviously people can't do it on their own.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:25, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Another version

I'm working since some weeks ago in very much the same policy, while asking for feedback from a limited ammount of users. The policy is at User_talk:Matthewfarenheit/Sandbox/Civility. When I originally posted it at my Sandbox it was half of what it's posted now, so if you feel like I should be posting it on A/PD, gimme a call. Also, I would like to ask you guys to review it coz any feedback would be great. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 17:16, 8 September 2007 (BST)

your's not completely a policy Matthew, just a bunch of guidelines on how people should react to harassment, and a few changes to the arby system that should be discussed by the community, not in your user sub-page. The policy this page is trying to pass, in the other hand, is absurd. I dont want to see this wiki turning into the new British Gentlemans Tea of Five, with people politely harassing others. I'd rather see open harassment than a masked one. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:54, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Hagnat, I repeat that I have nothing against my policy being reviewed by the community: I just posted it on my sandbox as it was still on its early stages and I wanted to get some input before reaching a no-return point in the wording. Now it's pretty much completed, with just some A/A changes to be made... that I personally don't want to write. So, yes, I'm about to post it on its own policy discussion unless someone presents a mayor qualm about it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 21:10, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Discussion on my suggestion at change

What about a policy that groups and individuals can control the language on their talk pages, as well as whether or not personal attacks are allowed? Deleting the "communal pages" part of this policy? Nalikill 01:15, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I think that's a good modification, but I'd still worry about the policy being abused via wikilawyering. I'd suggest that one be able to place on their talk page that, for whatever reason, User X can't post on the talk page, and work it out that way. This is a wiki for a game, it's really an extension of the game, and I don't think piling on new policies does anything but create animosity and gridlock in the long term. - Mstcrow5429 04:11, 9 September 2007 (BST)

You posted:

I'd suggest that one be able to place on their talk page that, for whatever reason, User X can't post on the talk page, and work it out that way

PROTIP: They already can. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:16, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Well, they can, but it's not really enforced by Sysops unless an Arbitration ruling supports it. Just my 2 cents. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:20, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Not true - as long as your warning to the user in question is clear, you can take them to A/VB if they post on your page again. You don't need an Arby's ruling for that. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:25, 9 September 2007 (BST)

To be clear, it is only enforced by Sysops if said repeated edits are in bad-faith. --Karlsbad 04:27, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Which, if it has been made very clear that they're not welcome on the page any more, they would be. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:29, 9 September 2007 (BST)

If I'm following Cyberbob's point right, it seems once again we have a proposed policy here that's already de facto applicable to user pages. I presume that the policy discussed above regarding vandalism extends to group pages. So, the only place this policy would be "needed" is on the more free for all policy and admin discussion pages. I dunno, I think the lack of civility in those forums have deeper pathologies than a clean up of colorful language would remedy.

I still think this can be better policed socially. Telling someone "hey, man, that's just not cool" and instructing peers in what "the bigger man" would do when confronted with what's really just an online d!$*waving contest seems more effective and less likely to backfire on the wiki than yet another enforcement system.--The Envoy 05:03, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I think having both methods together is probably the best strategy. A social solution makes for a good first line of defence, and an official policy catches the cases were the socially-policed solution fails. --Toejam ^{A Stats Graph} 20:37, 12 September 2007 (BST)

No, don't do that- a change like that would render this policy pointless. Users and groups already have enough control over their talk pages that they can keep things clean if they'd like- if you want to have a policy that reduces personal attacks on the wiki, it needs to apply to communal pages. I support the original idea- personal attacks are pointless in any meaningful discussion.--Father Thompson 17:16, 9 September 2007 (BST)

This policy is already pointless. You can do it for group pages too because they are owned pages. Any page that you can own you can refuse other people the right to edit with the same punishments Cyberbob already covered with user pages. The only change this policy makes is the communal pages one which is too vague to enforce anyway, who determines what is offensive, slander, or flaming and what gives them the right? --Karek^maps?! 21:54, 10 September 2007 (BST)