View source for UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Civil Conduct Policy

==No==
Is this where I vote "no"? Capital. I'll do that then. '''Vote: No.'''  This is a badly-thought-out, unworkable policy that is far too vague and potentially abusable -- even unintentionally -- and far too authoritarian when compared to the scope of the problem, if indeed there is a problem at all. Sticks and stones. Good day. -- {{User:VI/S}} 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:The policy isn't even written yet. Prejudice is prejudging... unless you're being funny or sarcastic? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::The policy on the project page was just an example, VI. There are other drafts if you scroll down, but this is just a discussion and anyway it looks like the civility policy has been shelved for the moment. To reform or not to reform Arbitration is the new topic. --{{User:Paddy Dignam/sig}} 18:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

==Retroactivity==
The first thing I want to say is that this isn't an attempt to get Iscariot banned for his previous actions, even though he ''is'' the reason I brought this up. I don't think this should be retroactive. --{{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:Do we really need this? UDbullies aren't so bad. And not only that, but this case you referred to looks like it's going to get Vandalism anyway. See, the system is gold. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 04:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::The reason I brought this up is the fact that the TOS isn't exactly clear on what's "offensive", and as of right now, there's no easy way to deal with people who exist on this wiki simply to harass people. Unless they're going about it in a way that does constitute vandalism, they're not going to go through A/VB, and the fact that there are so many Not Vandalism votes in the Iscariot case makes me wonder if lesser cases would even be punished by A/VB at all. Which is why we need something like this in place to cover these types of cases tht aren't clear-cut. --{{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 04:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::There's also no easy way to deal with people who exist in this ''world'' simply to harass other people. Consider the wiki a training ground. When you get a job and have to deal with douchebags for 8+ hours a day for the rest of your life there won't be an option to institute a civility policy. Who would decide what's civil and what's not, anyway? Why not just eliminate the stupid fucking suggestions page? You should be able to use crucifixes as weapons? Really? You know what else would be sweet? Sniper rifles! Let me get a couple of those over here. How about a skateboard? Or an X-wing fighter? Nunchuks? --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::The suggestions page is not the only reason we need something like this. We've had potentially offensive content flame wars break out all over the place in the past.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::You'd probably be fired. Unless you mean customers, in which case: 'tuff. :)--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::Then what needs to be done, Blue Command Vic, is to define what is considered so offensive as to violate the TOS.  As much as I feel for you and want people to be civil, I cannot support creating such a policy.  As Paddy Dignam says above, there is no such policy in real life.  You need to learn how to deal with it or ignore it. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
<p style="color: navy">I think, as in REAL life, that tons of cursing and other applicable things should be frowned upon...</p>
<p style="color: olive">And no, I don't feel like signing.</p>  
<p style="color: transparent"> INVISIBLE TEXT. HELLO FELLOW INVISIBLE TALKERS. WE SHOULD HAVE AN ENTIRELY</p> 
<P style="color: transparent">SEPARATE DISCUSSION IN INVISIBLE TEXT!!! {{unsigned|The shoemaker}}</p>
I would be very, very cautious about "hard and fast rules" for civility, because then you will have people doing specific actions that are hostile and offensive but not against the rules as written. In fact, many conduct cases against people like this end with them saying "you cannot point to the rule I broke, so this is baseless," while at the exact same time they will patiently look for any infraction of the written rules (even mistakes made in good faith) to bring cases against others. So be careful with rules, because the people you want to punish will just find the loopholes, then use the rules to force the admins to punish others. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 06:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:Exploiting loopholes in bad faith has been [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01#Sexylegsread|ruled vandalism in the past]], so chances are a case exploiting a loophole would be thrown out - like on Wikipedia, [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system|gaming the system]] and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|Wikilawyering]] should be (and, most of the time are,) discouraged. It wouldn't surprise me if someone constantly gaming the system to get someone they don't like banned would find themselves warned or banned themselves. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::Not if the person the case is being brought against is less popular than the person bringing it. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

==Be careful about this==

While I do believe that we should have something like this for many reasons, one being I know of a few people who have actually been driven away from the wiki due to the amount of offensive stuff on here, I don't know how exactly to define it. Some, and I am definitely not one of them, people may be offended by the amount of swearing that occurs here but I know no one would be happy if that got taken away. I think if this is to be wrote it should just cover basic things such as severe and blatant racism or sexism and other personal prejudices. I also think that we would need some different type of escalation for this thing to work out right, as someone who is about to be escalated from a week ban to a month ban '''may''' not necessarily deserve that from a breach of this policy.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 07:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


We need a harassment policy, not a civility policy. Harassment would include attack images, attack pages, and petty A/VB cases. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:[[UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Civil Conduct Policy#Yes|Read below]]. This is exactly what a civility policy is. Civility is a desired user conduct, ''Participate in a respectful and considerate way'' that if turns into harassment, may result in blocking. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

== No ==

A civility policy would simply create armies of rules lawyers, getting people VB-ed for small things - such as saying something that ''might'' be uncivil. Likewise, since breaches of this policy would be open to interpretation, the bias of the sysops would come into account (creating heaps of drama, if recent events are to go by,) and their personal opinions (I, personally, didn't find Iscariot's comments offensive at all - but my lack of religious views could come into account.) Finally, it's hard to get other groups to "respect" each other - especially if they are at war in game - look at all the snide comments against the Mall Tour now, and the Umbies thing last month.

If we ''have'' to pass this, I would much rather Argo's one above - leave it to blatantly offensive comments (although I wouldn't really like that too,) and not overly open to interpretation. The thing here is that it limit's people's views - I, ''personally'' think that one should be civil while expressing them, but I'm not going to force that view on others (except in extreme cases.) Likewise, in a ''computer game with three well-defined sides''', many (read:trenchies) won't respect their enemies. This would just lead to useless drama. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

== My little peice ==

Maybe just a big NO to the racism thing, but then again how could you tell? Good point to bring it up thou. Vandalism will happen, I've done it and probably a lot of users have at some point, good disscusion aswell.--[[User:Athur birling|Athur birling]] 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

==No==
Because if I want to call Darkmagik a cock-mongler every time I associate with the prick then I want to be able to.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
: fuck yeah!----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

== Yes ==

[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Civility|Wikipedia:Civility]]. Many wikis have civility policies and they seem to work well. Why not here? I think this is something good to point out in Wikipedia's policy:
<div style="margin-right:20px;margin-left:20px;border-top:solid 1px lightgrey;border-bottom:solid 1px lightgrey">
''A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern.''

''This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.''
</div>
You can't really wikilawyer if it requires evidence and patterns of abuse (talking links here). And frankly, wikilawyering to get someone banned could result in earning one yourself. Anyways, what I'm trying to say here is that we should use Wikipedia's Civility policy adjusted to our specific needs like so many other wikis do. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:Yes. This is kinda what I was getting at with my post above. Most wikis do have a policy like this that works quite well for them all, but I don't know why we never created one.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::Can we still call each other fucktards and douchebags if a civility policy is implemented? If not, it's going to get real boring around here... Seriously, though, I don't see a problem with this: ''A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. Threatening another person can result in blocks without consideration of a pattern.'' --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Just as long as it isn't offensively directed at someone, ex "fuck I screwed up" or "you're a poop head". --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::If we actually move forward with this, we must be on guard that we do not confuse good grammar and spelling for civility. Just because they start a comment by saying "With all due respect" or something doesn't mean they are being civil. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea, and Paddy has a point, too. I'm not above calling a fucktard a fucktard, as long as he actually is a fucktard. Or if it's jokingly said, of course. Borrowing Wikipedia's policy and adapting it for our use is a great idea. {{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:First, IMO, you should be able to curse in general. Cursing is fun and the wiki doesn't need to be Brainstock. "I'm so fucking tired today" and "my computer is so fucking slow" should be allowable, always. Second, "Paddy, you're a fucktard and a douchebag" should be allowable as long as it doesn't demonstrate "a pattern of incivility". So if you routinely call me (or others) a fucktard, etc., then that's a pattern. If you say it once or twice in the heat of battle and over the course of a few months, whatever. "I'm going to kill you, motherfucker" and "maybe I'll come over there and fuck you up" should ''never'' be allowed, and it's got nothing to do with the curses. Vic, I think it's kind of funny that you're pushing a civility policy with an "Iscariot should just shut the fuck up" template on your user page. --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::I just don't like the fucker. I think he's here solely to cause drama and stir shit up, and it's a policy like this that would aim to curb his tendencies. Again, I like where your head is at on this. Swearing is fine, I've got no problem with it either, but when it becomes harassment, and a pattern of general asshole behavior, then something needs to be done. {{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, as I have said before '''swearing should be allowed'''! I even think things like "You stupid fuckhead" "hey you dick-cock-fuck-shit" or any other combination of swear words used to insult someone should be allowed, as long as it's not occurring in a clear pattern against someone or is used in a threatening manner.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Pretty much already implied in our A/VB guidelines, see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]]. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::The problem with the A/VB guidelines is there aren't any provisions for patterns of harassment and overall douchebaggery. If they're not actively vandalizing the wiki, there's nothing A/VB can really do. And that's the problem. Vandal Banning doesn't cover people that make good edits, but act like assholes everywhere else. {{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::I mean AGF in terms of the usage of usage of swears, or mess ups "everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (like personal attacks)..." So you're not going to get banned for a single outburst. So if someone was consistently using personal attacks or harassment, then they could be warned/blocked regardless of their contributions. As long as it's bad faith, which harassment and personal attacks certainly are. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Either way, whether it's a seperate policy or an addition to A/VB, it needs to be spelled out. {{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Yes. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:This looks pretty good, especially designating incivility as extremely harsh statements and/or multiple instances of harassment, personal attacks, etc.  --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

==This is really fucking daft==
. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with people herting ur fellings then the system you should be looking to reform is Arbitration. Everyone's been moaning about it for ages but nobody's actually gone and done anything about it; you'd all be much happier if you simply perverted A/VB instead. I guess it's easier. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
:Easier, yes, but still incorrect. And this will probably end up passing by a bunch of people who really should just go back to Neopets.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
::I don't see how you can pass judgement on a policy that isn't even written yet. You don't seem to understand that the policy is only supposed to put stop (through warnings, bans) in severe cases. We're are a gaming wiki after all, so it can more loose than Wikipedia. The policy won't bar you from swearing ever, or the odd attack (labeled out in Wikipedia's policy, which I hope will be integrated). You could call Darkmagik "a cock-mongler" just don't make a habit of it. The policy should be designed to stop the petty harassment (which won't be solved via arbitration, you should know Bob) and incessant personal attacks, not turning the wiki into Hello Kitty online. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
:::"just don't make a habit out of it"
:::That right there is why I would be against this. Darkmagic is someone who has harassed and annoyed an entire forum worth of people and was subsequently banned from the place, especially after he threatened it's users multiple times. He caused a lot of people grief and I still am upset with him. If I want to make fun of people that deserve it on a constant basis, then I will. This policy is a bad idea no matter what form it's in, because of the chaos it will end up causing in the end.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 18:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Alright, if you want to be selfish, then so be it. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Darkmagic is a fucktard, no doubt about it. But if a policy along these lines--''A pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. Threatening another person can result in blocks or bans without consideration of a pattern''--had been implemented in the first place, then wouldn't said fucktard would have been booted immediately for little gems like this: "Innsulting me is a reason People DIE"? Is there anything in current wiki policy to the effect of: ''A pattern of incompetence and/or deliberate spamming is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks or bans if it is considered egregious by the wiki community''? --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
:People have gotten banned for spamming users here. This would just be another example of disallowed harassment really, you can still insult people but troll voting and the like may lead to bans in the futures, which is all this really does.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
::It may also encourage a behaviour change, knowing a civility policy exists now. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, I don't see anything on the Vandalism page regarding "willful incompetence and/or deliberate spamming". Maybe adding that bit would cut down on Darkmagics?? --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
::::[[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_02#WOOT|Spamming]] was ruled vandalism last month. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't even have to reform Arbies, it's perfectly legitimate to use it now to get someone to stop harassing you. It's just that no one can be bothered doing it these days, they'd rather bitch and moan about it on A/VB <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 06:07 8 March 2009 (BST)</small>
:I think the issue is that Arbies moft often resolves individual issues with "party X and party Y agreed to stay away from one another." There is no system in place right now to tell an abusive user to stay away from ''everyone''. Using Arbies, how many cases would it take against the same user for a problem to be seen as endemic? I think people are looking at A/VB because it's the only place right now where sysops can look at a situation and punish someone for what they do (or at least, that is how it is perceived). Arbies doesn't do that, because Arbies takes the position of "let's work this out," which is not what people are looking for when it comes to a repeatedly problematic, combative, or abusive user. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 06:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::<sub>Edit conflicted</sub>The solution to that is closer to Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration]] - that system has been used to solve long-term disruptive users (as well as serious edit disputes - less serious ones go to [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Mediation|mediation]].) The arbitration committee can issue bans, and more "serious" punishment to solve disputes. It's something [[User:Linkthewindow/Arbitration_and_Mediation|I've thought about before]] (and, yes, that has serious problems with it,) and I've seen a different version been [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/UDWiki:Mediation|suggested as a policy and voted on]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

== No ==

Some rules need to remain unwritten because a whole lot of BS comes out when they are mad official rules --[[User:Imthatguy|Imthatguy]] 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

==Yes==

I am all for this idea!--[[User:Super Nweb|Super Nweb]] 05:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
:Actually read the talk page please. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

== Second drafts ==

Since it looks like the discussion is going well, here's an idea I had. If you'd like to write your ideas for this down into a draft, put it in a third-level heading under this heading. Under that, a fourth-level heading for discussion on your draft. Put them under the examples, I'll just delete those later.

===Draft by Paddy Dignam===
I basically ripped this from Wikipedia and tried to make it less sensitive and precious: 

''The civility policy is a code of conduct stating that users on the Urban Dead wiki should always treat each other with consideration and respect, and, even during heated debates, they should behave reasonably and courteously in order to keep the focus on improving the wiki and maintaining a fun work environment. This policy applies to all editing on the wiki, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow users.'' 

''Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviors that disrupt the wiki and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project, however, and personal definitions of incivility differ from user to user; therefore isolated incidents, including incidents involving the use of profanity, are not in themselves a concern, nor are they punishable. A demonstrated pattern of incivility, however, is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. Threatening a user on this wiki will not be tolerated and may result in blocks without consideration of a pattern.'' 

''This policy is not to be used as a weapon against other contributors. To insist that a user be sanctioned for a perceived slight or an isolated offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.'' --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

====Discussion====
On second thoughts, this isn't so bad, as long as we limit it to extreme cases of personal attacks (ie: extremely racist, sexist, or homophobic,) and not just someone saying "You are an idiot" a few times during a heated debate. 

That said, I'm still afraid that an "extreme personal attack" may become defined as less and less extreme over time (ie: the "slippery slope.") One thing to remember is that Wikipedia isn't really the best comparison - our community is a lot smaller (all the regular contributors know each other,) and it's a wiki for a ''game with three sides'' - there's always going to be a small amount of hostility between the sides. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:I've got no problem with using a toned-down (read: less strict) version of Wikipedia's policy, as long as we can somehow maintain that same level of strictness, and make sure that we're able to distinguish between "severe" and "everyday" hostilities. you're always going to have some level of incivility in a game, like you said, but we need to set an upper threshold, even if it is racism, threats, etc. {{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 02:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::The trouble is that defining an "extreme" personal attack can depend on the subjectivity of the sysops. For example, Iscariot's comment (which started this,) wasn't too offensive to me, but I'm an atheist myself. Likewise, although some threats are obvious (such as "OMG IMA GONNA FUCKING KILL YOU!!!!,") what about "I wish your mother aborted you"?
::I'm starting to think that we may need a very conservative "civility" policy - only banning attacks based on discrimination (racism, sexism, etc,) and threats. However, this will be based on the subjective interpretation of ''someone'' (be it the sysops, the "public" or a new class of people,) and their views can come into account of what's "offensive." {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Which is precisely why this sort of thing should ''never'' come under the purview of A/VB. Subjectivity is solely the domain of Arbitration; it enables the victim to choose whether the insults being thrown around are worthy of being taken to the next level. There's no problem with A/VB, so just fucking fix Arbitration. Make the process more regimented; no dodging a case by gaming the system, for example. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::<sub>Edit conflicted</sub> You are right. The only option is to make a new A/VB style system ''especially for this task'' (which is really, just moving the burden,) or spell out, '''very clearly''' what is civil, and what is not - which is really just inviting hordes of wikilawyers. In short, I support this ''for the extreme cases outlined above'', but I have ''no idea about how we could go about enforcing it''. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I've thought about turning splitting Arbitration up into Mediation and Arbitration - one to deal with edit conflicts, one to deal with personal conflicts. Perhaps fixing Arbitration is better then trying to expand VB's role? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::You guys are blowing this a little out of proportion. It's not nearly that subjective, no worse then any odd bloke arbying a case, which leads to inconstancies and unfair rulings. I'd rather have people who signed up who are able to warn and block users than having some random person deciding. It only makes sense for a sysops to do it. -{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 03:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::There would be plenty of clear cases, but plenty where a person's opinions would come into effect. It's those gray cases that will prevent me voting for on this one. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::No it doesn't. This is extremely subjective and will always be so; which is fine, but it isn't what sysops are meant to be ruling on (at least not as sysops - they can of course be arbitrators as well). --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Pretty much. [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysops_are_not_Moderators|Sysops are not Moderators]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::But putting these subjective cases into the hands of a single person is just stupid. It's simply much better to get more than one people deciding what is incivil and what is not than a single person where bias may be its strongest.  A/VB is much better in that it gets more than one opinion, perhaps not the best I'll admit but certainly better than the one view of an arbitrator.   --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Are you stupid or something? A/VB is not for subjective cases in any way shape or form. Reform Arbitration, or go with Link's suggestion and split it into Arbitration and Mediation. You can shape it into whatever you want and have the whole system work very nicely ''without'' having to fuck with A/VB. As it stands this policy conflicts in just about every way possible with the one Linkthewindow linked to above. You don't get to override already-established policy just because you can't be bothered to muster the effort to do it properly, sorry.--[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Arbitration is more suited for content disputes. A Mediation system would have to be compulsory, otherwise a user could just say "No" and continue harassing others. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::That is a very obvious measure, and one I've been trying to push for in Arbitration for years. You can still have your cake Gnome; you don't have to shit on A/VB. As I've said, a system like Mediation or whatever would allow people to choose when they want the insults to stop rather than making everything mandatory (I refer to the initation of the process) as would be the case if it were to come under the purview of A/VB. This is quite aside from the fact that sysops should never be in charge of making calls on personal disputes, by the way. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, I don't know much about wiki bureaucracy (Arbies, A/VB, etc.), but surely there's a way to cut down on assholes and fuckwits by implementing some form of basic/conservative civility policy that would be administrated by some group (not just one person, for sure) of responsible wiki users, be it sysops or a combo of sysops and other peeps. Figuring out how to arbitrate douchebaggery seems less important at the moment than ''defining'' douchebaggery for the purposes of this policy. For instance, do you all agree that threats should not be allowed on the wiki? Despite what Linkedthewindow says above, I don’t think there’s much grey area there. “OMG IMA GONNA FUCKING KILL YOU!!!” is a threat; “I wish your mother aborted you” and “eat shit and die” are not threats. Other than stopping threats, we’re talking about limiting persistent abusive and/or obstructive behavior, not punishing users who don’t talk like Wally and Beaver. It took me about ten minutes to write the draft above. I’ll write another one and work with all of you if it’s not going to be a complete waste of time... --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:I agree that "eat shit and die" is not a threat, but it could be ''interpreted'' as one - a bit loose, admittedly, but ones like "I wish you where dead" and "I would abort you if I was your mother" are pretty "gray area" ones. Death threats (at least the clear ones,) are already ''forbidden'' under the [[UDWiki:Hosting Terms of Service|TOS]]. Likewise, with general, long-term abusive asshattery, there are too many gray areas with whats "abusive." If we want this solved, I would suggest fixing arbies. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::None of those are grey areas. I wouldn't call "eat shit and die" a threat but it is certainly uncivil, as are your other examples. Abusive is simply doing it too often. If someone can provide a whole swath of uncivil from a user, than it's abusive behaviour or harassment. I'm sure there are some grey areas in terms of what's uncivil and what's civil, but when there's lots of examples of incivility, it becomes obvious. Who here doesn't think that users such as Iscariot are uncivil?--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Iscariot is more than capable of being civil as long as you aren't being retarded. He goes overboard occasionally but on the whole I don't think he's anywhere near as bad as people make him out to be (take the exaggeration due to butthurt away and there isn't much left) and he ''certainly'' isn't so bad that he deserves to be banned for it. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, me [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2008#December.2C_16| striking his VB warning 7 edits early]] is clearly retarded and deserved not only the misconduct case but a wall of text tirade. FAIL. Try some other retarded argument for how [[User:Nubis/001 |"civil"]] he is, St. Bob, wiki martyr. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Also, define "too much". Oh wait, you can't. Not without setting a hard limit that can easily be skirted around by people that know how to work the system. I really don't know why you have such a hardon for putting this in A/VB when something like Mediation would so obviously work better ''and'' be less full of drama. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Explain why Arbitration would work better and be less full of drama? When I look at what Arbies does, I don't see how to use it as a solution, unless we can envision a "class action" Arbitration like "UDWiki vs. Offensiveuser." {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::I put another draft below. Something like this won't work unless you have a mediation team. Period. Putting decisions in the hands of one person is assinine, as I believe Gnome said above. And because sysops seem to be so fond of attacking one another at the expense of improving the wiki, at least some members of that team would have to be independent wiki users. --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, actually I forgot to consider if the civility problem was with or against sysops, so by getting a mixed view it would be better, rather than one or one user group. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

===Draft by Paddy Dignam (Revised)===
I added a line about free expression and a bit about profanity. I think this one is stronger. I thought about adding this at the end of paragraph #2: "Blatantly discriminatory remarks will not be tolerated and may result in blocks without consideration of a pattern."--but I held off for now.  

''The civility policy is a code of conduct stating that users on the Urban Dead wiki should treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, users should behave reasonably and courteously in order to keep the focus on improving the wiki and maintaining a fun work environment. This policy applies to all editing on the wiki, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow users.''
 
''Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, hostility, and aggressive behaviors that disrupt the wiki and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project, however, and it is not the purpose of the civility policy to prevent the free expression of those opinions. Also, personal definitions of incivility may differ from user to user. Therefore occasional incidents are not in themselves a concern, nor are they punishable. A demonstrated '''pattern''' of incivility, however, is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. Threatening a user on this wiki will not be tolerated and may result in blocks without consideration of a pattern.''
 
''The use of profanity in general is not considered uncivil for the purposes of this policy and therefore is not punishable. Directing profanity at another user in an abusive manner is of course uncivil and should not be encouraged, but it will not be punishable unless it (1) is indicative of a larger pattern of abuse, or (2) is considered an egregious personal attack by the mediation team.''
   
''The civility policy is not to be used as a weapon against other contributors. To insist that a user be sanctioned for a perceived slight or an occasional offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.''

ADDENDUM:

Fear does not exist on this wiki, does it?
''No, sensei!''
Pain does not exist on this wiki, does it?
''No, sensei!''
Defeat does not exist on this wiki, does it?
''No, sensei!''
Fear does not exist on this wiki, does it?
''No, sensei!''
Pain does not exist on this wiki, does it?
''No, sensei!''
Defeat does not exist on this wiki, does it?
''No, sensei!''

--[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
====Discussion====
Nothing much to add, but if we plan on going with another system, mediation, how would it work? Few things:

*It would have to be compulsory, although the user could choose not to participate, the process would still have to go forth with or without the user.
*Anyone could participate, but there should be maybe 3 or 5 mediators?
*Needs actual evidence, like links. There could be a guideline on what can be considered abusive.
*Shouldn't be "X makes statement, Y makes statement than response", it should be quicker and with the desired outcome would be to stop the incivility without blockings if possible.

Also, Mediation is kinda a bad name for this, don't you think? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

::I’m just now having a look at how Arbitration and V/B works. I think incivility cases would have to work differently than either process while combining a little of both. 
::*It would definitely have to be compulsory, but who would be able to bring a case against a user? Only those who have been insulted, harassed, etc., or third parties as well? 
::*For voting, either put it to the community (I gather this takes too long?) or go with 3 sysops and 2 independent users, with 3 votes needed to carry a decision. But who chooses which sysops and which independent users? 
::*Evidence, hell yes. If the offended party/parties can’t be bothered to present solid evidence, then no case. I thought about adding examples of abuse to the draft (sort of like what’s on the Vandalism page), but this might actually make it easier to game the system. Maybe leave it a little vague and let the arbitrators (or the community) judge. A minimum number of alleged abusive incidents would have to be presented in order to bring a case, I think. 
::*It shouldn’t work like Arbies does now, I agree, although Bob is right that cases like this will be subjective and therefore must be arbitrated in some way. So maybe they belong in arbitration but would work more like VB, with the arbitrators basically making a decision and moving on? Unless they go to community vote, in which case they would work more like… uh… historical group voting? Shit, I don’t know. 
::Yup, mediation is a bad name. If a case is brought, an “arbitration team” will have to make a determination. --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::*I would say only those who have been insulted. They are the ones in the best position to judge whether the insults being thrown around are worthy of being taken to "court".
:::*I would suggest a system like Arbitration, but with a twist. A group of 5 people (no sysop/user quotas) are randomly chosen from a list of people who are willing to be potential judges. The list would have to be dilligently updated to remove inactives.
:::*Well, that would depend on whether the offended party is simply looking to have a restraining order type of restriction placed on the other person or whether they're actually after them being warned. If the former I would say that a single case would be sufficient; if the latter... only enough such that a pattern of abuse can be shown. Hard numbers are a bad thing in a system like this as they can be easily skirted around by canny users.
:::*No, I think that if you're going to be warning people for uncivil behaviour a slightly longer process is required. To be honest I don't see why a simple restraining order is not sufficient in all cases of this nature, but it seems that people will not be satisfied with anything less than escalations. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*Yes.
::::*5 is good. I'd rather have some sort of peer review of them first, not just anyone in the hat.
::::*Hard numbers no, but examples for what could be considered abusive would do, as a guideline. 
::::*I'm under the belief that it'd be better if the system simply got the uncivil behaviour to stop, reserving warnings and bans if only absolutely necessary. They may simply stop after seeing the case, perhaps unaware that a civility policy existed. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, the best way of stopping a given behaviour without using warnings or bans is through restriction orders - something arbitration has always been invested in. Reforming that to get rid of its dreadful inefficiencies rather than creating a whole new system might be the way to go here if avoiding escalations is the goal. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 03:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Okay, but why reform arbitration if there's no civility policy? Don't you have to vote on the latter before addressing the former? --[[User:Paddy Dignam|Paddy Dignam]] 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Nope. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 06:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::We still need a system to deal with content disputes. I'm not sure we can mesh everything into one. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 16:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure we can; Arbitration does a fairly good job of handling both as it is IMO. The only thing it needs is a slightly more rigid structure to speed up the process of starting and finishing cases as well as preventing people from jamming the system up by not participating. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 07:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::That's not really it, Arbitration needs to be redesigned in a manner that it can actually illicit informed members of the community making rulings based on what is the community standard and common place. It needs good editors with a history of maintaining the pages and a shown respect for everyone's right to use the pages while understanding their purpose and the intent behind their design. Moar like Vantar, less like Iscariot(who is actually listed as an arbitrator even though he has a tendency of causing arbitration style disputes). Out of the current arbitrators list there are about 5-6 that actually can say they have the experience in it and the tendency of not choosing sides that should be expected from Arbitrators but we don't let the system cull towards. Most all of them are or have been sysops which has it's own set of issues as far as arbitration goes. So, basically, it might be time we actually brought assigning arbitrators under the sysop control to some degree so that we have a way to limit it to users like SA, Jedaz, Seventythree, or Gnome. Preferably while prohibiting sysops from being arbitrators unless there are no other arbitrators available to take it and with a promotion in system that is more communally based than sysop promotion. A sysop vote seems like a solution for that but probably not the best one, a full community vote though certainly isn't in this type of thing. That is, if you insist on making arbitration this type of system because the big issue with arbitration starts and ends with it being open to anyone arbitrating.<br /><br />As for the other, well, I saw plenty of Sysops != moderators garbage, and a bunch of conspiracy to get you banned type stuff. That's kinda why this probably won't pass but it has nothing to do with the merit of the idea. To be frank, Sysops are Moderators, or they are supposed to be, they aren't here to settle personal disputes and aren't given the powers to for one simple reason; Wikis aren't normally the place for personal disputes. The guiding theory behind the wiki idea is that you're all here to provide information and work towards that end, that you respect the opportunity for others to do so and that you'll leave your baggage at the door. To be fair that would be the case if there were an in-game forum. There isn't. UDWiki is both the community forum and information source. Here Sysops are moderators but cut off from the ability to reasonably moderate until it's already gotten well out of hand. The community needs to let go of the convenient delusion that they aren't and actually accept the necessity of the administrators to administrate when necessary and if that include letting them make judgment calls about when someone goes too far the worst that will come from that is a system where people don't get into a 90th of the flaming arguments over small things like Suggestions and suburbs pages that they do; A stricter system isn't actually a worse system. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::tl;dr (also you're wrong) --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::You should probably respond to the first part which is exclusively about the major problem with arbitration at current because it's actually two comments. The second one I'd expect as much for a response :P. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well, I think that the system is self-correcting; if people are known to be bad arbitrators they won't be selected. Simple as that. To restrict who can and cannot sign themselves up to be arbitrators would be incredibly draconian - and generate a shitstorm of drama as people argue over who should and should not be arbitrators besides. That particular aspect of the system is not what needs fixing. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 09:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I do wish I could see a better solution but the problem is more fundamental than that. It's that you have to deal with the bad arbitrators in the first place, you don't know who's bad until they do something horrible there and moreso the new users don't even know period, they assume some sense of neutrality and authority from having the ability to arbitrate. You run into issues like the KotD v Recruitment cases where one party tried to fudge the facts around arbitrators to get the other to choose someone who isn't expected to act in a neutral manner. Just look at the Sgt Raiden case where Iscariot did ''exactly'' that. The issue with that part of the system is that you have no guarantee of quality unless you want to allow a third part to step in and make sure that the arbitrator is fair and the ways to do that are either gonna be third party approval of the arbitrator, essentially arbitrating the arbitrator based on how the conclusion was reached or by limiting who can be arbitrators. In the second case if the drama is drama you can limit it to private discussion on the issue in a possibly group restricted part of the wiki, both of which are possible with Kevan's agreement to set it up but that's even more Draconian. The issue is basically protecting the uninformed users from informed abusers, and from intentionally stonewalling. If you fix this you can actually start on fixing the rest and we can start enforcing the sysop chooses rule because we can be guaranteed that the arbitrator will behave themselves or actually lose the ability. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::One of the main reasons arbitration needs reforming is that the long history of bad arbitrators have tainted everyone's view of it. Basically its become little more than a bad joke that solves nothing. I think Kareks suggestion that the whole wiki needs "moderators" might actually have more merit than I would like but it would also require that Kevan step in to oversee such a change, it would also require every sysop to undergo a review based on the new powers/role because none of them were promoted to be moderators and that just doesn't seem likely to be acceptable. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:Having gone through some of these clusterfuck arbitration cases, and as a general observer of wiki politics and sysop-on-sysop (and sysop-on-general-user) fuckwittery, I do think you need a group of people who (Karek and/or Bob said this above) deal with mediation/arbitration but are not necessarily sysops. Just because someone has mad wiki/technical skills does not mean he/she has mad interpersonal/mediation/arbitration skills. It would be sort of like a separation of powers. Vote in a group of 5 – 8 arbitrators and let them handle the cases (5 per case, majority opinion rules). No more of this dragged-out morass of both parties choosing the arbitrator based on bullshit reasons, followed by a chaos of angry and prepubescent commentary. The arbitrators will already ''be'' there. As for how they will be voted in, I don’t know. My first thought was that they would have to be nominated, receive 3 vouches, receive 2/3 approval votes from the community, and 2/3 approval by current sysops. --{{User:Paddy Dignam/sig}} 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::The trouble with having a system that votes in arbitrators is that the community is small, and the chance of a conflict of interest is easy. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 20:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::If we vote in mediators, the same issues that comes up with SysOps would come up. In other words, there'd be people bitching at each other over Mediation Cases. And then they'd need Mediation cases to settle their differences...And. Wait, no, I like that.
:::Also, what exactly does the 'egregious personal attack' mean? And how would that be ''determined?'' Would it apply if I were to call Paddy a ''God-Hating, Anti-American, Hippy-Liberal-Faggot''? Because he totally is. --{{User:DT/Signature}} 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::It's not that hard, just use common sense. If people are complaining about something uncivil a user is doing, chances are it's a personal attack.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Pardon me for saying, but I think you're putting a lot of faith in the Common Sense of the masses. Also, 'Common Sense' rulings tend to look very arbitrary. --{{User:DT/Signature}} 21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::No, not really. It's very obvious when people start bitching about someone's incivility. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The arbitration team would make the determination on personal attacks, Tom, but since I know you're desperately attracted to me (stop sending threatening emails to my girlfriend, by the way) I wouldn't even lodge a complaint in the first place. As for the other bit, it's easy to tell who sucks at being unbiased and who doesn't. Karek named some of the level-headed folks above. --{{User:Paddy Dignam/sig}} 21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

== The wheels are spinning, but we're getting nowhere ==

Are we going to make a policy here, or something? We have the civility part worked out reasonably well, but we haven't decided on a system. Does Arbitration need a major reform, or do we need to use a new system like "Mediation" or a current one, A/VB?

This is a straw poll that'll hopefully get something going. Pick one option only. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

===Reform Arbitration===

(1) Reform Arbitration (it is needlessly cumbersome and invites drama) and (2) institute some manner of civility policy that would be litigated within the new Arbys structure. --{{User:Paddy Dignam/sig}} 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(2?) Split Arbies into 2 parts, one for actual mediation and one for settling edit wars and abusive behavior. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

===Use a new system===

===Use A/VB===