User talk:Matthewfarenheit/Sandbox/Civility
| Main | Talk | Archive | Contributions | Suggestions | Sandbox | Signature | Other | Navigation (other) |
READ FIRST
Remember that this is a work in progress, so there's A LOT OF ROOM for improvement. In fact, I wrote it here the same as anywhere as I'm leaving my home again for a while and needed the text to be available for me anywhere I can access this wiki. I still have no idea whether if normal users being uncivil should be warned or Sysops being uncivil should be brought to Misconduct. Around half of the policy including a part adressing Arbitration is still missing, together with a new version of the A/A page that is also on the works but not still touched. This page was heavily based on WP:CIVIL, but branched after the first two paragraphs so I do not know how much of this is well written, needs a rewording, a spell check or both. As it is now, though, the policy doesn't present any mayor obligations for users but point to several responsibilities without any kind of punishment in case of being ignored.
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 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.
Discussion
Discuss here
It looks good overall but there few bits that I can see causing problems when this moves to policy discussion. Mainly the vagueness of the serious examples, Taunting and Personal attacks personal attacks are but listed as serious but Attacking a user's work is considered less severe which makes it harder to see where the line is in terms of what is bad and what is worse. I would strongly suggest tightening up this section. Also I would mention something about how all edits should be in good faith and that criticism should be constructive criticism. Thats just my first impressions but it's 3 in the morning here so my read comprehension may not be were it should be. I think it would be a good if this was more of a set of expectations than a set of rules so I don't think there needs to be a set of punishments spelled out in this policy, maybe come clause somewhere like "failure to be civil with fellow editors is a negative contribution to the wiki community" or something but nothing stronger than that. - Vantar 08:40, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- I kind of appreciate the ability to tell another person to fuck off once in a while. Bitching about a text based MMORPG is silly, but then so is creating a metagame of this size around it. What happens on common articles should be NPOV, vandalism and arguments on articles should be moved to talk pages, but if people want to get into hissy fits about suggestions, danger levels, and alt policies, why not? Remove them from places that don't belong (Kevan doesn't give a shit about the feuds of groups and individuals), but when we get into the business of moderating expression itself for the sake of "civility", the result is often worse than the uncivility ever was. Besides, this is the internet; assholes breed like lemmings here.--Insomniac By Choice 08:57, 3 September 2007 (BST)
I still don't really support an idea like this, but I suppose if you made it a "buff" to Arbitration it might be more palatable. Certainly bringing Misconduct or Vandal Banning into it would be going too far. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 08:53, 3 September 2007 (BST)
It sounds reasonable. Vantar brings up a good point about the example being a bit weak. Of course I can't think of one myself so at least you are a step ahead of me. I can see quite a few people will be up in arms about this, but tough bikkies. I'll have a few more reads over this later and give you more indepth thoughs about the policy, but it looks good at the moment. - If Jedaz = 09:54, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- "Tough bikkies"? You're being a little overconfident... --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:01, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Not really, I don't think it will pass easily or soon, but it will pass eventually once enough users get frustrated. So for those who would be most affected by this (being the users who are the least civil), tough bikkies. - If Jedaz = 10:38, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- I think you're vastly overestimating the effect being uncivil has on people, but meh. 'Sides, the page this sort of thing will be attached to (VB/Misconduct or Arbitration) hasn't been decided upon yet. IMO it should be Arbitration, if anything. It would solve a lot of the issues people have had with similar policies in the past. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:55, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Maybe, but it does effect people over time in some way. So if this was attached to arbitration how would it work exactly? I'm guessing that it would require both parties to be civil about it. In that case is it really needed? I think that it would be better to revise how arbitration works (if there is a problem that needs/can be addressed) seeing that in most cases people are fairly civil about it anyways. - If Jedaz = 11:15, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- The thing with Arbitration is that it should be making a policy like this redundant. At the moment it isn't, and IMO the best way to fix it would be to make the rules more explicit in terms of what could be considered grounds for a case (making sure to include flaming etc. in the list). In this way, the people who don't want to put up with it are able to very quickly make their stance known (and people who inadvertently attack them aren't really punished unless they have a real go), while people who don't really mind are free to pursue their own agendas in peace. Setting arbitrary punishments (what would occur if this was tied to Misconduct and VB) in such subjective territory is arguably as draconian as you're likely to ever see. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:37, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- That would probably work quite well. However what happens in a case where by a participant doesn't take it seriously, or more importantly prevents the precedings from beginning by rejecting all of the arbitrators? IMO the arbitrators would need some kind of enforceable ability to begin resolving the conflict. In a few of the cases I've seen where this has happened, the arbitrators have no power at all and the case goes nowhere thus leaving the issue unresolved. The best solution that I can think of is where by three arbitrators agree that the defendant isn't trying to resolve the issue and removes them from proceedings. I do however think that removing the defendant is not the best solution. - If Jedaz = 12:04, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- We already have something like that in place. Currently, if one participant simply refuses to take part (or rejects everyone), the other person is free to choose for them. I'm not actually certain whether it's in writing, however. If it isn't, it should be. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:16, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Hmm... yeah it is kind of, but it isn't very clear. I think that because there is no written process in dealing with this many arbitrators are uncomfortable in taking control. It's very hard to know what you are allowed and not allowed to do (it can feel like very little when someone wants to be difficult). If a policy is writen up to clarify these points that we discussed then it would definitely make arbitration more effective and give more confidence to arbitrators. - If Jedaz = 12:41, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- We already have something like that in place. Currently, if one participant simply refuses to take part (or rejects everyone), the other person is free to choose for them. I'm not actually certain whether it's in writing, however. If it isn't, it should be. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:16, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- That would probably work quite well. However what happens in a case where by a participant doesn't take it seriously, or more importantly prevents the precedings from beginning by rejecting all of the arbitrators? IMO the arbitrators would need some kind of enforceable ability to begin resolving the conflict. In a few of the cases I've seen where this has happened, the arbitrators have no power at all and the case goes nowhere thus leaving the issue unresolved. The best solution that I can think of is where by three arbitrators agree that the defendant isn't trying to resolve the issue and removes them from proceedings. I do however think that removing the defendant is not the best solution. - If Jedaz = 12:04, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- The thing with Arbitration is that it should be making a policy like this redundant. At the moment it isn't, and IMO the best way to fix it would be to make the rules more explicit in terms of what could be considered grounds for a case (making sure to include flaming etc. in the list). In this way, the people who don't want to put up with it are able to very quickly make their stance known (and people who inadvertently attack them aren't really punished unless they have a real go), while people who don't really mind are free to pursue their own agendas in peace. Setting arbitrary punishments (what would occur if this was tied to Misconduct and VB) in such subjective territory is arguably as draconian as you're likely to ever see. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:37, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Maybe, but it does effect people over time in some way. So if this was attached to arbitration how would it work exactly? I'm guessing that it would require both parties to be civil about it. In that case is it really needed? I think that it would be better to revise how arbitration works (if there is a problem that needs/can be addressed) seeing that in most cases people are fairly civil about it anyways. - If Jedaz = 11:15, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
- I think you're vastly overestimating the effect being uncivil has on people, but meh. 'Sides, the page this sort of thing will be attached to (VB/Misconduct or Arbitration) hasn't been decided upon yet. IMO it should be Arbitration, if anything. It would solve a lot of the issues people have had with similar policies in the past. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:55, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Not really, I don't think it will pass easily or soon, but it will pass eventually once enough users get frustrated. So for those who would be most affected by this (being the users who are the least civil), tough bikkies. - If Jedaz = 10:38, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
A few things
I'd like the grammafy it too... but wont. Anyway...
- Include language barrier in the "Problem" section.
- Under the "examples that contribute to an uncivil enviroment", pretty much anything worth debating could qualify as a contributor to incivility. It only leaves "meh" stuff to discuss. What? I'm not allowed to call a liar on his lies?
- You're getting somewhere with the "serious examples" list, concentrate on them.
- It is essential that being critical of things that people not be automatically labeled as uncivil. Although it can be a tactic used in harassment, it is also essential for free debate.
- The "How do we respond to uncivility" section is bad (I assume it is waiting for a major rework). You're attributing motivations to people who use uncivil methods that are very much from your POV. I know I sometimes call people idiots and worse, and usually it's out of frustration with their levels of idiocy, and my lack of patience at the time. Claiming that it's because they "lack confidence" or that it's used to tick people off to get them to vandalise the wiki is just demonisation, IMO
Anyway. I don't want a codified civility policy that is handled through A/VB. I've seen where it's taken other places on the web, into a constantly escalating whingefest of "he's being mean to me", "she's stalking me" crap. It's one sure fire way of demoralisingly the admin if you ask me The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:13 3 September 2007 (BST)
- See the discussion above between Jedaz & I for an alternative solution. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:15, 3 September 2007 (BST)
Ok, this is a clear example that you don't know how the wiki works matt. This is not a policy, this should never go for voting. This can't be enforced by the SysOp team, neither should be used as base to file someone as vandal in Vandal Report. A nice place for this text of yours would be Category:WikiRantings, and ask people to try to follow these guidelines. Aside from your lack of knowledge on how things work in here, this is a nice set of guidelines, and if might help halting some drama around the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:15, 3 September 2007 (BST)
Oy, vey.
- I don't know exactly what this is supposed to do. If someone is uncivil we . . . what? That's very, very unclear (I would actually say "undefined"). I honestly don't see a carrot or a stick here, so I'm not sure it's a policy.
- Who polices this? Who is going to go about making sure that everyone is nice to each other? The sysops? Some sort of special "Smile Gestapo?" Because this is going to take a lot of extra effort and time.
- Why is this being discussed in your user sandbox and not in Policy Discussion?
yev, yO.--Jorm 17:29, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- The policy is unfinished. That's also why it's still in his sandbox. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 22:33, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- By and large, I think this would be a positive policy for the wiki. I am concerned that the "gathering of friends to help in argument" stuff belongs as part of what incivility is about (it may be a problem, but it's kind of off-topic here), but otherwise it looks good. --Pgunn 19:33, 4 September 2007 (BST)
Author reply as of now
Well, adressing everyone's concerns:
- While the Arbitration thing is on the works (ignore the Arbitration in my sandbox, is not even a half completed version), I don't think it should be passed alone. Simply stating a harder set of rules to follow in arbitration without a set of guidelines pointing what would be considered poor form when adressing interpersonal relations is leaving a BIG HOLE on it, just dehumanizing the thing as a whole.
- About vandalizing or misconduct..izin...g...(whatever) the policy, it seems a no-no so I'm not doing it (actually, makes the things easier and was what I first intended). Things would be handled, in ultimate instance, trough Arbitration. Bolded: THE POLICY IS NOT GOING TO HANDLE UNCIVILITY TROUGH A/M OR A/VB.
- About the examples section, it was just intended to emulate the same section on WP:CIVIL and actually has pretty much the same inclusions. The "examples that contribute to an uncivil enviroment" can be deleted or changed, and about the "insulting work vs insulting person" thing, I do believe that there's a difference between:
- Your suggestion is inanely stupid and deserves to die in a fire and...
- You are inanely stupid and deserve to die in a fire.
- That said, I do not have any mayor qualms in deleting the whole first examples section and just managing to get the idea trough with the second one. Also, while as I pointed out personal insults seem more serious than insulting someone's work, both are quite serious so could be both be included on the last section as well.
- Me demonizing: True. Sorry. Changing.
- About me not knowing how wikis work and all: I have been in this wiki and some more for quite a good span of time. There's an obvious misconception on "how wiki works" and "how individual members of a wiki think it should", but I won't discuss this issue any further as it is a contenious one. Let's not focus on myself and just on the policy.
- About this being a policy or something else: I don't think this policy should be regarded just as a "wiki ranting" as that way it doesn't have any power at all. You have to note that wikipedia uses this policy without any set of preset punishments as well, or at least none I can find. This should be taken the same as an Ignore all rules policy, with a bit of salt and much understanding. That said, we have and will have more sections pointing to A/A, but more as a mediation process to resolve the ultimate uncivility issues than "as a place to report it a la A/VB".
- Who policies this: As far as I can think of, Arbitrators. Maybe Sysops in EXTREME cases. No one would be censoring everyone's comments to fit the policy standards if you're asking this.
- Why is this being discussed here: This is pretty much answered on the READ FIRST section. Anyways, my main reason was because I want input from a limited number of persons before bringing this to A/PD. I called a limited number of persons knowing that more would notice it and come, but not as many as in A/PD, and as a work in progress the lack of drama is something I need in order to finish it. Also, I usually present quite finished drafts on A/PD, and this one isn't on its final versions at all.
That said, I'm holding a bit before making most changes, including the ones I pointed that I was going to do above. Just tell me what you think of it, and if you want (As Max volunteered) spellcheck the policy and reword weasel words and phrases: I won't mind and I have an history if I don't agree with your changes. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:54, 3 September 2007 (BST)
- Sounds alright to me so far. I've done some spellchecking, too (I didn't really touch the phrasing much, though). --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:46, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- Mmmm... the whole "uncivility vs incivility" issue puzzles me. In fact, at my house my google translator told me that "uncivility" was the right choice, so I choosed to use it. Well, lets stick with "incivility" for a while, until someone points out that it's neither of the two, but "invincivility" or "invisibility" or something like that XD. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 17:55, 4 September 2007 (BST)
Changes
I made some changes, mostly adressing your concerns and a final, quite substantial one that includes the Arbitration section (and actually gives a hint to how would be the new Arbitration page and rules in the future). Tell me what you think up to now. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:01, 4 September 2007 (BST)
EDIT: I think it's probably incomplete, I most likely forgot something but I have to leave, so please point to me whatever concerns you have. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:05, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- are you trying to create guidelines for civility or trying to improve arbys ? the first creates no change on the rules at all, while the second needs to be discussed by the whole community, not just those who keep track on your user sub-pages. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:08, 4 September 2007 (BST)
- This was already explained. Check your talk page Hagnat. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 14:30, 5 September 2007 (BST)
