UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Civility policy

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Remember

If you totally oppose the motion I fully encourage you to present your arguments on this talk page and vote against whenever the policy is brought to voting, but try to keep your arguments clean and constructive and don't spam the discussion page to give a chance for those that want a policy as this to state their own view of things and point to potential flaws that, being adressed, will improve the quality of this proposed policy.

If you want to make a more infomed comment or decission, you can always have a look here, a discussion started by Kevan, and here, a discussion made while the policy was being developed at my Sandbox. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:48, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Discussion

Support - I support a civility policy. Particularly on the suggestions pages. The amount of sarcasm and bile is a sure-fire way to drive away new users that are simply trying to make improvements to our experience. --8 Bucks 21:03, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Heh, thanks. Anyways, keep in mind that this policy is a first step, and would allow you not much more than filling Arbitration requests against harassing users or something like that with some hopes of survival. The community should vote on something like this and see how it works before taking other steps, such as adressing the problem you mentioned in a more effective manner. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:08, 9 September 2007 (BST)
Often it only takes a private word with a person to bring about a change in their behavior. For example, I recently posted an admonition on someone's talk page to point out that they were bullying a new user, and the response I got was very positive. I think one thing that would make a huge difference on the Suggestions page is if votes that were heavy on sarcasm would be stricken. The votes on the suggestions page should be required to have relevant content and be written in a NPOV fashion. This would eliminate a large amount of wiki-greifing that goes on here. --8 Bucks 22:36, 9 September 2007 (BST)
Anyone that takes Sonny seriously on the suggestions page must not be too bright from the start. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:44, 11 September 2007 (BST)
Example from the Suggestions Page - I'd like people to read what goes on when people make suggestions that they think would make the game more fun: Kick Corpse Pretty much all the spam votes would fit into what I call uncivilized behavior. People like their suggestions, people sit down and try to work out exactly how they're supposed to format them and add whatever information they think is relevant then they post it on the suggestions page. Plenty of suggestions have met with more negative response, but that goes to my point. None of those comments in the spam section were constructive, and that's an example of better behavior than average. I think Sonny was trying to be funny, but it doesn't translate well to text. We don't have to agree with suggestions to be decent to the members of this community. The spam votes were little more than the gloating of bullies. --8 Bucks 23:32, 11 September 2007 (BST)
No idea if I'm allowed to put in my two pennies, but I'm the author of that particular suggestion. I spent a week reading all the text before even signing onto an account, including some of the suggestions. I saw a lot of what would be considered "flaming" to others' suggestions, so I tried to toe the line with submissions the best I could. When I finally had something moved from the Talk page to the Voting page, I fully expected that level of bile (I even knew who would vote Spam before they did) - but I'm a big boy, I can take it. From what I've seen since being on here, I'd say this Wiki already has more rules, regulations and buracracy than it needs. I'm pretty much of the opinion that it's not the nastiness that's the problem, it's the definitions of the votes. Lose "Spam", and make spam a part of "Kill" - the word Spam itself induces a desire to flame. If there is a decision to adapt a Civility policy, make it strictly for the Admins and Site Editors (anyone that would be considered an "employee") - trying to enforce behavior on the general population is unwinnable and setting yourselves up for twice as much work as you already have. Trust me, I've been there!--Actingupagain 22:42, 14 September 2007 (BST)
Spam is there in a separate section because it is required to count the votes as to Spaminate a suggestion, as with Dupe votes. For someone who says that some of the rules could be eliminated, you really don't have enough of a grasp of them to say which ones, if any. --Karlsbad 10:04, 16 September 2007 (BST)
My point precisely. "Spam" should be obvious to moderators - give them the power to kill it. There, one rule made simpler already. That was a hell of a lot easier than trying to tell people how to behave. Under the terms of a civility policy, your comment to me could be considered rude and thus you'd be punished, when in reality you're trying to make a point. It's up to me to presume whether or not it's you trying to be helpful or trying to be an ass, not a moderator. My apologies to the author if my analogies took it too far off topic, BTW.--Actingupagain 15:39, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Support - As above. Let's hope this doesn't become a firestorm like MY policy proposal became. Nalikill 21:19, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Against - I disagree with this conceptual Policy on four separate grounds:

  • First, the "Do not nominate only your friends, and keep in mind who are the other party's friends as well." is very much open for abuse- any part-time wiki-lawyer user can reject anyone for Arbitrator not absolutely outwardly hostile to one of the aggrieved parties on grounds of being "friends"(!); this is one of the current problems of the Arbitration page, in which it is implicitly supported that the case is one between whomever has more support within the wiki as a whole, rather than it be a tool used for greater utility of the UDwiki. You need to include a section wherein the Arbitrator has it's purpose defined, instead of being a lazy, check-box system as to what a arbitrator does; an Arbitrator is there to create peace on the wiki between two aggrieved parties, not as a form of punishment for one or both persona. Format-wise, I would put it under the "The Arbitrator" section currently within.
  • Second, the "a Sysop may take the case or choose an Arbitrator for it" part is also open for abuse and/or misconduct- most egregiously in that you don't state that said Sysop must be uninvolved with the case(!!), and also that said Sysop has no stated requirement to choose the most able Arbitrator, or indeed an arbitrator at all(!!!); instead, they could select as biased or inactive an arbitrator as they wish. Also, you fail to state a time limit wherein this process is supposed to happen within- either you could have a (most likely biased) Sysop jump into the fray upon the first note of disagreement, or have Sysops refuse to act upon grounds of wanting to remain impartial and letting the case remain static, simply by agreeing to the "may" section of your policy concept. I would suggest putting more concrete language and requirements in this section; I would put, say, a two week limit that starts from the first edit made by either party after the case is begun- you can't arbitrate non-active users and ban them out of spite, for example- at the end of which any sysop that decides that the case is in the spirit and support of good faith edits will suggest the most suited arbitrator to the case, if said arbitrator is able and active, and said arbitrator will take the case within 24 hours if the parties can not come to an agreement before then.
  • Third, I am aware of your problems with other users, and fear that this policy is going to be used as a weapon. Because of this singular fear with also the knowledge of other people's issues, this policy requires a stated requirement for arbitrators to ignore any evidence or cases over uncivil actions that occurred previous to this policy being accepted, yet not to ignoring evidence that supports any charge of bad faith arbitration that occurred previous to this policy. For example, I have a long a overwrought uncivil reply to a previous user placed upon my personal user-page, and I would hate this being used as evidence when, it was needed in that "era". We require this change because we need to= create a new era of civility on this wiki, instead of encouraging new yet submerged uncivil behavior.
  • Forth, anyone who survived Jjamesgate or Wikigate or any Arbitration-gate you require something to prevent bad faith cases clogging the system. Opening twenty or thirty cases at a time simply as a source of frustration does and will happen. Without any measure of prevention, I will never support this policy or any change within arbitration. You need to require evidence of recent attempted reconciliation before opening a case, or else there will be newer and more lethal Troll Lawyers everywhere, armed with tools you gave them. Requiring an attempt at reconciliation promotes civility, because forcing an attempt at civil discussion before opening a case is at least either going to prevent cases or add to evidence for the arbitrator to view. --Karlsbad 22:28, 9 September 2007 (BST)
Well Karl, it would be cool if you leave your comments in cronological order next time: it's not as yours arbitrarily deserves to be on top. Now to adress your points, that look surprisingly serious and I thank you for that:
  • First: It seems like a cool idea. If you check, tough, you'll see that in the intended new A/A page present on my sandbox and linked at the policy it recommends those things, not as an obligation. Anyways, I will check the wording when I get the time and if you want to write a draft of that part of the policy please do and we'll discuss it as soon as I can.
  • Second: Yeah, the "may" has to get out. The proposed system also seems appropiate. I will elaborate on this when I get the time (I'm really sorry, but as you can see on my userpage I can barely be active).
  • Third: I agree yet again, altough I remain a little concerned about that you won't be even able to say "this user has been an asshole troughout the wiki since eons", encouraging these same accused users to say "you can't use that as evidence!". I suppose a clean slate won't hurt anyways, and may make some users change their way.
  • Fourth: I tought of this too. A system like the long forgotten "Vexatius litigations" policy discussion would be needed, or something else... Anyways, meanwhile no system like that still exists, I'll see what can I do from within this policy. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:01, 10 September 2007 (BST)
  • Nuanced Support - I don't think bandwagoning is incivility - it's problem behaviour, but it's its own type of problem behaviour. I would prefer it be handled in a separate proposal. Otherwise, this looks pretty reasonable. Having an expectation of civility on the Wiki would be nice. --Pgunn 22:37, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Against these items-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:40, 10 September 2007 (BST)

  • Profanity.
First and foremost, if I wanna say shit, fuck, cunt, bitch, bastard, damn, goddamn, ass, pussy, piss, cock tease, or any other vulgarity, I will. Censoring these words won't mean anything. Sure, "incivility" is a problem on the wiki, but what does censorship do? All that does is get little 15 year olds that believe themselves to be the cleverest little shits under the sun, turning bitch into b!tch to get by the filter. Now, the item in question says "Profanity directed at another user"...Does that mean calling someone a stupid pissant, or saying something like "your suggestion fucking sucks, because of a, b, and c", if it's the latter, thats where I have the problem. I will in no way stand for my vocabulary being limited by the off chance that a twelve year olds parents will see me calling an idea a load of horse shit. If they have that big of a problem with it, then they should be taking better care of their kids.
  • Defacing a user's page
Care to elaborate on this? It's kind of...unexplained. Isn't editing a user's page against the rules as it is?
  • Personal attacks
Does that mean like "You're a fukin homo" (misspelling intentional, most people that act like that aren't too bright in the first place) or something like 73's recent humorous Urban dead "christian" Style" suggestion? Again, if it's the latter, thats where I have the problem. Limiting free speech like that is not needed.
  • Accusations
I don't even see why thats on there, accusing just makes everyone think the accuser is the dumb ass, except in certain situations. Arby cases will spring up left and right over petty things like "Mommy, mommy, User A accuse me of being pro zombie! Waaaah!" Now, do you really want to be the one that caused that? :P.
Thats about it for now, I'm sure if I look again I'll find more things to complain about though. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:39, 10 September 2007 (BST)
Well SA, if you look closely at the policy you'll find that most of those subjective items are not to be handled through something like A/VB or censored at all. They constitute what the policy would define as "uncivil behaviour" and, if the user engaging on such practices in question harasses another user, constitute from now on good evidence in a possible but not mandatory A/A case. I'm sure ayone would dismiss any case that bases itself on a single or very dubious edit containing uncivil behaviour. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:01, 10 September 2007 (BST)
PS: Also, keep in mind that the "defacing a user's page" constitutes uncivil behaviour in adittion to constitute vandalism in most cases. The policy doesn't overrun that. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:13, 10 September 2007 (BST)

Support - I emphatically support this policy. I have been amazed that the suggestions page often seems more like a mutual appreciation society for a small club of individuals who compete for the title of who can be the rudest to new users. I agree that helpful admonitions to vet suggestions on the discussion pages are useful, but the vitriol that greets an eager new person with an idea is unnecessary. I think the tolerance for heated debate should remain, but there are plenty of nasty message boards out there for folks looking for a place to vent their spleens. This is an information resource first and foremost. That, and it's still possible to disagree with someone without resorting to ad hominem attacks or utter disrespect. It just requires a little more cleverness.--Squid Boy 16:23, 10 September 2007 (BST)

Support in principle - This isn't wikipedia, it's not an academic journal, an encyclopedia or the New York Times. Thus, mimicking the wikipedia's Civility Policy maybe not be the best solution. Then again, maybe it would be. I like the principle of this. I'm not sure I'd want to see it become a policy, per se, though. Part of the game, part of the wiki -- I think -- involves some taunting, some trash talking, etc.

That being said... there's an old saying, it's exact wording escapes me because I suck ass at remembering old sayings... anyway, it's something like "Your rights end at the point your first hits my face". The same applies to speech and expression. It's already agreed upon in this community that sexist, racist and homophobic slurs, for example, are not acceptable... Yet those are limitations on "free speech,".... hmnnnn.... Let's see... Libel is also illegal... ZOMG FACIST ATTAKS ON FREE SPEACH AND LIBRITY!!!!

Ultimately, I think it's time to grow up, for some people. Especially the adults who should know better.... NO ONE has ANY right to be an asshole, just because they don't like something they see or read. No one "deserves" the verbal diarrhea of abuse sometimes meted out to users on the suggestion page, for example. IMNHO opinion, mockery and sarcasm are okay, within reason... But even then... these are people's creations, and when you attack someone'es creations you attack them personally. There are shades of grey here, but most people who are reasonable and socially and emotionally mature can see the difference when someone's crossed the line... The same goes for the "unclear definitions". Any reasonable person knows what we're talking about. If you don't, well, uhmm, I don't know what to say to you....

Ultimately, I'd like a civility policy to exist, but to be essentially a "style manual with teeth". Meaning that it's expected behavior... if you violate it once in a while in the heat of the moment, ah no problem. I like having a lot of freedom on the wiki, and I don't want to see that lost, for me or for anyone. But if an individual repeatedly shows very disrespectful and abusive behavior, the civility policy could be brought to bear as a standard and basis of judgement, probably through an arbitration case... And it should have some teeth in that situation.

I don't think making such a policy would be easy. And it certaily wouldn't be perfect. I also don't think we can "legislate morality"... but we can have a guileine in place for what's expected, and if people repeatedly ignore those expectations and normal communications don't work to get them to stop... then there would be consequences... That's not too much to ask, IMO. --WanYao 01:29, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Actually racial jokes are pretty much acceptable unless used in a way that breaks wiki rules. We do have a few racial groups in the game and excluding them on that basis or excluding certain words phrases or actions can cut into the rp function of the game. The game is about people, you're allowed to say anything however you want in the game(although the radio does censor some things) the same, more or less, applies to the wiki as of current. You can't police peoples thoughts and emotions and that is exactly what this is trying to do, all this will cause is people finding another way of venting their frustrations with a user, usually through purposely misinterpreting the rules and trying to abuse the letter of the system. You think that adding this system will limit drama? What happens when someone tries to abuse the system and get people banned for insulting someone who wasn't insulted or saying something that they decide to views as offensive even if it wasn't meant that way. What happens when none of the sysops of arbitrators view a horribly offensive phrase as offensive or when they don't understand a racial slur? It's an unenforcible system that will only serve to kill the community by limiting expression. Yeah some people get in little arguments, but they also usually settle them without having to have either person banned or even needing an arbitration case. The wiki is part of the community, it's more of a forum then an actual wiki, and as such it is a way for the community to express themselves. Just because you don't like what someone is saying or how they are saying it isn't a good reason to stop them from being able too and only leads to more problems, more arguments, and more drama.--Karekmaps?! 03:35, 11 September 2007 (BST)
So are you basically saying that it would be okay for me to start up a group called (and please excuse my language, I am making a point) "Kill all the niggers, kykes, spicks, chinks and gooks! WHITE POWER!" ?? You're telling me that's okay???! No, seriously... where do you draw the line? This is not merely an "academic" issue... and mine is not an illegitimate example. Extreme, yes -- to make a point. But valid, by all means. Sadly. --WanYao 23:38, 11 September 2007 (BST)
And, yes, you can police how people express their thoughts and emotions. It's done all the time. In schools, universities, workplaces, all over the public sphere. There are certain things you can't put in a public space, like signs with vulgarities, racist language, pornogrsphy, etc. There are policies and guidelines for how people are to communicate all over the real world. Certain things are considered just NOT ACCEPTABLE. And if you read my posts, you ought to see that my argument is, I would like to think, a nuanced one. I am very much in favour of permitting open expression, and that includes "vulgarities" and various forms of satire and even trash talking -- and probably some degree of personal flaming. However, there are limits... there are boundaries... or, there ought to be. --WanYao 23:48, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Major problems

Just a list of major, and by major i mean seriously, seriously major problems:

  1. You failed to define any of the terms. Thus rules lawyers such as akule will basically be able to legitimately attemt to shoot down any user they damned well please through official channels.
  2. Defining many of the terms is near impossible, since many of the things defy quantification, and therefore it is impossible to come up with anything more than a subjective view, rather than an objective one, which is needed for anything to be consistent.
  3. "Accusations" would validly cover Vandal banning. This is a bad thing.
  4. It is impossible to differentiate a group of users beating on a posters point from an actual bandwagoning attack.
  5. Harrassment is extremely subjective. If two people are involved in a flame war, and the weaker participant insists on attacking the stronger user, who prefers to let it die, it is more than conceivable that the stronger user will be seen as the harrasser, simply because his reprisals for the attack are a lot more forceful. There needs to be something to protect those who dont want the thing to carry on, but refuse to let attackers get a free shot in.
  6. Profanity? Bah! If you cant handle profanity, you shouldnt be on the internet. Profanity is an equally valid part of expression, and its so widespread these days that it has lost much of its offensiveness, except to the previous older generation, who havent been as desensitised.
  7. Arbitrators can be anyone on the wiki. And there are no standards of conduct for them. As such, there is no consistency in the system. The result for one arb case could be wildly different to the arb ruling on another, very similiar case.

Either fix every single one of these, or make breaking an arb ruling not coverable by vandal banning (Which is in itself a bad thing to do). If you want to use the arb system, structure it first. --The Grimch U! 12:01, 10 September 2007 (BST)

I'm droping accusations off the list... anything else just seems an exageration of the possible abuses the policy can suffer, lack of faith in Arbitration or concerns about your own liability if the policy is enacted (i.e. the "harassment" section). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:01, 10 September 2007 (BST)
PS: Keep in mind that this discussion is bringing several changes to Arbitration and will probably bring even more, so the concerns you point out already were or will be adressed in the measure of their validity. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:09, 10 September 2007 (BST)
Wow. You dismiss my concerns instead of, y'know, trying to allay them. Is it because i have a point, and you cant bring yourself to admit it? Seems like it. This wiki has troll rules lawyers. It has always had troll rules lawyers, it will always have troll rules lawyers. Make it so they dont have such vast abilities to abuse the system. --The Grimch U! 16:47, 10 September 2007 (BST)
I'm replying on your talk page. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:42, 10 September 2007 (BST)
No, do it here. It is a discussion about THIS policy proposal, and thus all responses should be made here, dont try to hide it elsewhere. I wont even read it on my talk page before i delete it. --The Grimch U! 09:41, 11 September 2007 (BST)

And Grim is right, if you can't define what civil behavior is then there shouldn't be a policy requiring it's enforcement. You're giving way too much power to individual interpretation of what is and isn't offensive and that is just asking for trouble.--Karekmaps?! 03:35, 11 September 2007 (BST)

I think defining things too tightly tends to encourage rules lawyers more than the opposite. The only way to really deal with rules lawyering is to leave room for judgement. --Pgunn 07:47, 11 September 2007 (BST)
By leaving the amount of room for judgement that this policy, as written, allows, you give rules lawyers something else: Legitimacy in their claims. At least if i a term is defined, you can dismiss a rules lawyers complaints. If they are undefined, you have no such luxury. --The Grimch U! 13:26, 11 September 2007 (BST)

Arbitration Changes

Am I the only one that finds the suggested arbitration changes hidden in this policy to be absurd? Sysops being able to overrule arbitrators? Limited Arbitrator punishments? Banning of other people commenting on the case? Forced participation with no say in the arbitrator? The arbitration changes should be removed from this and proposed separately but even then they are too much. Many times in the past a third party who is neither the arbitrator or the aggrieved has intervened in the middle of the case with information that helped either the arbitrator's decision or the conflicted parties resolve their dispute, arbitration's purpose isn't banning vandals or enforcing wiki policies, as this policy will force it to be. Arbitration is there to settle disputes, not ban vandals and the proposed changes make it a punishment tool instead of a conflict resolution one.--Karekmaps?! 02:46, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Changes

I made quite a lot of changes, mostly addressing the problems Karlsbad pointed at on his comment. Check his comments and the policy itself so you can figure out what the changes are about. The policy itself starts to look more and more like one =).

Now, as I'm seeing people that may be a bit confused about this, first I must say that the policy doesn't cover what your expectations or suppositions seem to point. People seems to confound the "examples that contribute to a uncivil environment" as "examples that will get you warned/banned from now on" and this is NOT the case. The policy itself point to this, so I can only think of CNR or something like that. As I said before, think of the policy as a first step that can be modified to cover other examples of uncivil behaviour when time comes, but in no way I am covering the problem of the suggestion pages "mean votes" nor I'm censoring free speech nor I'm taking away people's freedom to make a "mean" group that pursues black people or something like that.

WanYao, when I read your "support by principle" comment, I really thought "well, this guy is backing up the policy and doesn't know it". Really. Please, take a look again and you know why I say this. In fact, I happen to think very much the same way as you. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:37, 11 September 2007 (BST)

I'm having trouble having any positive thoughts towards the policy because it is not clear at all what the changes are, just links to pages. I'll have a better understanding in the future, but until that point I ask you to not put it up to voting with my name associated with it. --Karlsbad 05:06, 14 September 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Civility_policy&oldid=1455189"