User talk:Ched/civility sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Discussion prior to the creation of this page took place here)

(Welcome from Ched--)

  • help yourselves folks - I'd love to see some clarification on the civility issues. — Ched :  ?  11:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the small select group <jokeys> are done drafting here, by all means it might be possible to give some material an outing at the Wikipedia:Civility/Workshop.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbyguesses (talk • contribs)

OK .. ummmm, not sure what to say here but perhaps I should have mentioned a couple things:
  1. This page was thrown up toward the end of the Civility Arbcom case due to a specific request through a brief conversation between Red Pen of Doom, Pesky the Commoner, Malleus, and me.
  2. It was not an attempt to create a "small select group" ... all are welcome here.
  3. I was not aware of the civility workshop .. I'll check that out, and if it's a parallel concept - I'm fine with deleting (or moving this page)
  4. Not sure of the edit summary legend either .. but I'll read. Nothing here is or was meant to exclude or offend.

cheers, — Ched :  ?  15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No group with me in it can be considered "select." There's an open invitation at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision#Next_steps.3F Nobody Ent 15:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with self-selection! Pesky (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience links[edit]

Convenience links

  • Conduct policies
  1. Civility talk workshop History
  2. Consensus talk workshop
  3. Ignore all rules talk workshop Versions
  • Core content policies (Articles)
  1. No original research talk workshop History
  2. Neutral point of view talk workshop History
  3. Verifiability talk workshop /History
  • -Further information concerning WP:POLICIES
  • Staying cool when the editing gets hot
  • 'No personal attacks' is the crux of civility policy, in the sense of "being nice".
  • 'Wikipedia:Edit war' An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned.
  • 'Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Focus on content' Focus on content The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

Passing reference to specific passing decision from Arbcase : Civ (closed 20 Feb 2012)[edit]

(1)-- is directed at conduct that deteriorates the quality of discussions, reminding all editors that uncivil conduct can be a factor in the breaking down of consensus forming, and that blocks or other restrictions may be used in the event of repeated disruption to ensure the collaborative environment of Wikipedia is maintained.

Civility and consensus policies[edit]

Extended content

Some thoughts on how policies are written, why they are written, when they are written and where they are written[edit]

The decision not to make an edit[edit]

The decision not to make an edit is still a decision. What does that mean? ==

  • --

That is the case[edit]

When we write we are obliges to use words and sentences.

  • These two sentences - when would they be used in an encyclopedia?
  1. Hegel was certain that was the case.
  1. Hegel was certain that that was the case.
  • Must writers care about such esoteric matters?
  1. -
  2. -
  3. -

The civility and consensus policies[edit]

Extended content

Questions[edit]

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories
Is shut the fuck up less acceptable than shut the forks up? Why?
  • They're both uncivil! "please stop posting here!" or "Please stop saying the same things over and over" are both much to be preferred. Pesky (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it always depend on the context?
  • Only in the broadest of terms, I'd personally suggest. User talk pages are less formal. Communication between editors who know each other and are happy with each others' ways of talking shouldn't be a problem on their own talk pages. Pesky (talk) 13:31, 20
If it always depends on the context, how do we determine consensus, case by case? ===

If it's always on a case by case basis, how or why do we get a civility policy?[edit]

  • By keeping the policy as pure and simple as possible. Pesky (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get to documenting the consensus at a particular time and place, at 'this' time and place, or the civility policy?[edit]

  • Dunno, mate! I'm better with words than with people and democracy / beaurocracy / politics and processes! That's SEP. (Someone Else's Problem ;P ) Pesky (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of disrespect, which ones are disruptive[edit]

Presuming that is that we can discern the difference. Discuss?

  1. I'm telling you to shut up'.
  2. I told them to shut up.
  3. I would have told them to shut up.
  4. I would have told them to shut up, and I will tell you too, the next time.
  5. five

Civility and consensus, the Civility policy and the Consensus policy, sectionalize this as necessary[edit]

Sorry, maybe this should have gone in Questions, above, since I have no comprehensive Answers.

What is civility, with a small c ?[edit]

  • We all agree, !?! that civility is required of us, and our contributors, on every page in en:Wikipedia and in all our interactions as wikipedians, since it has been established, through many edit wars and slanderous altercations, that incivility contributes to a break down in communication or else is a symptom often of a breakdown in communication, while civility accompanies successful communication. Successful communication improves our chances of being in compliance with our stated and well-anticipated aims, summed up as : a better encyclopedia.
  • Wikipedia:Civility

Be nice. Do not make personal attacks. For more details, see editing policy

What is consensus, with a small c ?[edit]

  • We all agree, yes?, that the method we refer to as consensus is the method which we are inclined to apply in all decision-making situations, since we are inclined, as a community, to regard it as a successful and well-tried method, from our combined experience.

Discussion of our two c policies[edit]

  • Now I want to say that civility is not the same thing as "The Civility Policy" and neither are the same as (the words on) the page, *Wikipedia:Civility*. And discuss this.
  1. Civility is commonly used by uncommon persons in general society to mean something which one might interpret or as suggesting *Be nice*
  2. Civility *Be nice*
  3. Civility - &No Personal Attacks&
  4. 4
  • And here I want to say that consensus is not the same thing as "The Consensus Policy" and neither are the same as (the words on) the page, *Wikipedia:Consensus*. And discuss this.
  1. Of course, we also commonly use the word consensus in such phrases as , form a consensus, seek a new consensus , consensus on the talk page for the article is, the consensus decision at the ARbcom case, there was consensus to stop now...
  2. Consensus, in everyday life, whether political or domestic is a complex inter-personal process, ongoing
  3. In a wiki, this complexity is evident as a reality; as the wiki talk however has *some* attributes of a MPG !!, there is a modelled layer to the interaction.
  4. The upshot is that defining the concept of consensus in wiki talk is less complex.
  5. In terms of en:wikipedia, our consensus is "what we are inclined to do". In terms of writing/documenting wiki policy pages, consensus, "what we did, because we wanted to, and we liked and are ""inclined to do again".
  6. So, in our documentation, we write down the *approved methods - &Use section headers&
  7. And document the pitfalls we would rather avoid next time - *Do not edit war*
  8. 8
  • Of, course, in saying that the nature of consensus is easy to sense, that is still to acknowledge that the process of determining consensus remains a complex matter.

Civility in action[edit]

( New revision 2012-02-21 06:31:35  : Old revision 2012-01-19 21:06:38 )

  • See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing |Campaign to alienate productive editors | Campaign to drive away productive contributors
    Shortcuts
  1. Interesting complexities of civility here. Allegations of personal attacks and disruptive editing, resulting in page protection of a core content policy. (Disclaimer, NBG is heavily involved, but hoping to escape with skin intact, yikes.) NewbyG ( talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, disputes are resolved at dispute resolution[edit]

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette and the essay Staying cool when the editing gets hot for more tips. Also please remember that Wikipedia is not about winning.

Notes and essays on Civility[edit]

Civility is required on talk pages, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

  1. When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.

Shortcuts: WP:TPG#YES WP:TPYES

  1. Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.
  1. Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes ( NewbyG ( talk) 12:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)), and they will be replaced with your username and time stamp, like this: Example 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC). Please note that it is impossible to leave an anonymous comment because your user name or IP address is recorded in the page history.[reply]
  1. Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out.
  1. Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic.
  1. Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach.
  1. Shortcut:

WP:EXHAUST Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion.

Difference between frank and insulting[edit]

Wikipedia guidelines
Behavioral
Discussions
Content
Editing
Organization
Style
Deletion
Project content
Other

Personally I am much more offended, and consider it far more uncivil to speak down to a person. I'd much rather that an editor who disagrees with my point of view say point blank: "Any chance of you waking up?" or even a "Oh pull your head out of your ass" than the snide condescending I'm better than you "Perhaps you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand what I trying to tell you" ... to me that's my "nutshell" version of civility - so feel free to kick this off. — Ched :  ?  11:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*I* am mucho offended, just in general, but keeping it private. Comment not on the editor, but rather on the content. Don't do it. NewbyG ( talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get what Ched is saying -- both forms (blunt/condescending) are bad. It can be very difficult when dealing with a WP:IDHT that editor. The whole civility thing can not exist in a vacuum -- we need to be quicker and more willing to help other editors when dealing with tendentious editing, and we need a way to do that without have the canvassing no-on thrown at editors. Nobody Ent 14:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bboth forms (blunt/condescending) are bad. *I* am thinking that the condescending format is more irritating. p? NewbyG ( talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are other options - it doesn't have to be a dilemma between frank and condescending! I was badly misunderstood as being condescending when all I was actually doing was trying to be as "gentle" as possible, to remember to praise what had been done well, to suggest improvements to what had not been done so well, and to finish with encouragement to continue with what had been going well. It's actually the way I was taught to teach, but it was badly misread. We all need to remember to assume good faith as much as is humanly possible.
I find it helpful, if I'm getting into what seems like a surreal argument, to take a double-check on whether the other person and I have actually just got our wires crossed and misunderstood each other (often it's that simple). I also find that being prepared to accept that my own communication; either explanation or understanding, is a bit glitchy. Something along the lines of "I'm having real trouble completely understanding you here; I;m probably being dense or something! Could you possibly explain it really, really simply, like you would to a favourite niece or nephew, to see if I can "get it" then? Thanks!" Or, at the other end of the same thing, "I'm obviously not explaining this well at all. Let me have a think and see if I can come up with a better explanation, that might make it clearer." Being prepared to accept the fact that communication is a two-way thing, and maybe one's own side of the communication isn't quite up to scratch for the situation, really helps. I've had to learn to do this, being both an HFA and also a professional instructor who's had to learn to teach Auties and Aspies and others who don't always understand the first explanation. Pesky (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Please excuse the constant typos and stuff; combination of compressed nerves and morphine![reply]
Also, look what happened when an editor "praised" another editor, "Good copy-editing". That editor *took offence*, they write articles, to be thanked for copy-editing was demeaning! NewbyG ( talk) 16:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, actually, if you're thinking about the situation that brings to my mind, you did get it wrong. The one I'm thinking of wasn't "copy-editing", it was a total re-write of the article. In which case, it's a bit like saying "Thanks for washing my car" when the person you're "thanking" had done a complete overhaul of your car, changed the oil, wipers, brake pads and clutch, fixed all the loose connections in the wiring, done a total inside-and-out car valet service for you, and then made sure it would pass its MoT test. In circumstances like that, "Thanks for washing my car" shows only a complete lack of appreciation for all the work that's been put into it. Pesky (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I still have a comment to that, Pesky. It is not the same as washing my car for me. Someone copy-editing/ rewriting an article is not doing *me* a personal favour, the article belongs to the community. Why any editor would choose to take offence and escalate a situation after being "praised", however inept the wording of that implied praise is beyond my comprehension. Wouldn't *you* just let it slide? What purpose to be so prickly as to cause trouble when none is necessary? NewbyG ( talk) 18:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish between disrespect and disruption[edit]

  1. So,*we do need to distinguish between disruption, which generally requires administrative action, and "disrespect" which goes through WQA Wikipedia:Wikiquette alert before it gets to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Discuss.

    So, this means that *we do need to distinguish between disruption, and "disrespect" 'at the wp:civ project page' and also at 'the wt:civ' talk page. Discuss.

    NewbyG ( talk) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's premature to discuss sanctions and dispute resolution. The first step is the community agreeing on what is and what isn't okay in discourse. Nobody Ent 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Before sanctions and dispute resolution comes; discuss it on the talk page; what is an okay discourse. NewbyG ( talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. *we have to give exemplars of that at 'wt:Civility' and 'wp"Civility'...
  2. the canvassing non-non thrown in at the end.

quick note[edit]

One thing that always tickles the back of my mind is the concept that there are folks here that actually go looking for incivility. I know text is a far different medium than the spoken word, and it's very easy to take things the wrong way, but still... If one goes hunting for "incivility" ... then sure - you can adopt an "I'm offended" attitude towards a LOT of things here. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this gets to the crux of some things, Ched. It's also, IMO, one reason that so many policies here are vaguely worded or cryptic. It's much easier to find "offenders" that way.

One thing to consider might possibly be changing 'nice' to 'polite' in some references. IMO polite is easier to define and break down should someone need guidelines.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for offenses is the role of referees in all American sports, which is why Americans have such difficulty understanding football (association football, or soccer) and usually make terrible referees.
"To go through life prickly towards all things is the wisdom of the hedgehog" sprach Schopenhauer.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehogs, eh. that Schopenhauer sure knew how to party. NewbyG ( talk) 12:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting[edit]

One thing that has frequently frustrated me about AGF is how to deal with baiting -- Pesky says it well about how one editor harasses another until a saint would snap. It is like the kids on the playground where the playground aide gives detention to all the kids in a fight, even when it's the school bully harassing the nerdy kid until the nerdy kid throws a wimpy punch (and then this gives the bully an excuse to pound the living crap out of the nerdy kid) and no one cares to sort out the situation; the nerdy kid gets the same penalty as the bully -- often worse, as it is accompanied by a "you of all people should know better" -- hence the victim is unjustly punished for trying to stand up for himself, and the bully, who spends half his life in detention anyway, is given no additional deterrent and in fact gloats that he got the generally good kid in trouble, brought down to his level. Sure, we tell our kids "don't lower yourself to his level," but lordy -- someone eventually has to stand up and fight, else the bullies rule everything and we have Lord of the Flies territory. Curious the thoughts of others. (yeah, personal experience talking, WP and RL, but also my observations of how others have been treated as well) Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's something that certainly must be addressed, especially when there are examples of admins doing the baiting. Bullies often seem to hide behind the "assume good faith" provisions, protesting that they're just trying to help and that others are ganging up on them or creating a closed shop. I'm not sure sure there's a good, automated way to deal with this, but I do think more needs to be done when it comes to assessing who really threw the first punch. If someone has a history of baiting (or is in a position of authority) the penalty should be harsher for them that it is for the person who finally says "enough." For that to happen, the situation must be examined systematically, which takes time and possibly more than one set of eyes. Maybe this doesn't happen enough. Some of the bullies may also have higher-placed defenders who ride to their rescue. I think you'd have to set up some sort of tribunal system: one advocate for the bully, one for the resister, and then an uninvolved person who may reach the final decision. It may take more than one; I don't know. But to address it we need to acknowledge that bullies do exist, they aren't all just editors, and some of them have protectors that may screen them from penalties for a time.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than one aspect to the baiting thing (as with probably almost everything). Sometimes (looking at the Aspie/Autie+neurotypical interactions), what was genuinely meant very well can appear to be baiting; sometimes the baiter/bully honestly doesn't realise that that's what they're actually doing, and sometimes it's only too clear that that is what they're doing, but, as Intothatdarkness says, really extensive homework is required to sort out the situation if it's been going on for a long time. I think the "Get help early" section we have is important in many respects. If a situation is left festering for too long, it's incredibly hard for an outsider even to get a vague handle on it; whereas if the bully's known for being that way early on, their activities are more likely to be well-recorded and/or nipped in the bud. And some people are seen as bullying when they're just terse, a bit impatient, a bit (too?) outspoken, and fed up with idiocy and occult incivility (that's the sort which makes saints snap). Pesky (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think I might resemble some of those remarks! I like "occult" incivility -- and as I am not a saint -- LOL! But seriously, the get help fast thing can also be problematic, as it could be viewed as biting a noob -- I think the posts where Pesky has compared her welcome at WPEQ to that of another editor who started a short time after, with less success (cough) are apt -- many of us started out opinionated and a bit edgy, some of us still are, but the successful editors are those who choose to learn how to attempt collaboration. But the bullies are also still amongst us. Even more problematic are the situations where essentially decent sorts find themselves at loggerheads and there is no clear reason why... Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...to everyone here for taking on this difficult task, and to Ched for hosting it. Just to say, I've watchlisted the page and will try to help in any way I can. Geometry guy 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Words...[edit]

Just tossing out some musings... I think we can all agree that words have power and weight that may not often be intended or expected. Using "conversation" instead of "discussion," for example, can create a verbal spiral without end (a conversation) instead of a reasoned discourse with the expectation of some sort of decision or conclusion (a discussion). In this vein, I wonder if we might consider using "polite" instead of "nice" when it comes to working out some civility issues? It may just be my innate hard-wiredness, but nice seems more nebulous and hard to define, while polite seems more quantifiable and discrete (using "please" and "thank you" to give two basic examples). Wiki-manners might be another way to think of it...a socially quantifiable code of polite behavior. Just some random thoughts before the weekend.Intothatdarkness (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor "polite," or better yet, "civil." Nice, yeah, that one's loaded! Montanabw(talk) 03:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with both polite and civil is that someone can be thoroughly nasty, with an even nastier hidden agenda, and couch every damned thing they say in a polite or civil way. But, for me, "nice" means they actually have to be nice ... not just nasty with a sugar coating. That's part of the problem with the current policy; people seem to think that they can do the nastiest things if they word them politely. What better word can we come up with which gets across the idea of actually treating people nicely as opposed to "being careful only to use acceptable words whilst stabbing someone in the back" ? Pesky (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adjectives such as "collegiate" and "collegial" are often used, but colleagues can be backstabbing sobs, so this doesn't convey the message strongly enough, in my view. A noun that Arbcom sometimes uses is "camaraderie" (mutual trust and sociability, and distinct from "comradeship", despite indirect links via their French etymology): this is much more suggestive of the idea that we can/may slap each other around a bit sometimes (i.e., "engage in robust argument and disagreement"!) without fundamentally undermining relationships or losing sight of our common interest and goals. We don't all have to be friends, but we need to engage with a similar level of mutual respect. The word "amicable" springs to mind as a point on the spectrum between "constructive" and "cordial", but there must be better adjectives for engaging with camaraderie. Geometry guy 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Words like "respect" are good words. "Amicable" is an aspirational goal, though difficult with someone you dislike. My problem with "nice" is that sometimes honesty is not "nice." Sometimes "nice" is not honest. Sometimes even kind intentions can be misconstrued as "not nice." (My horses don't think I'm nice at vaccination time) And when someone stabs me in the back, I sure as h-e-double-toothpicks am not going to be "nice!" ;-) But I do agree with Pesky that people can couch very unkind things in superficially polite terms. And, for that matter, sometimes one person can call another a "fucking asshole" with the greatest of affection! LOL! I think it's difficult to find perfect words because one has to look at the whole sentence, paragraph, or body of work to understand the full context -- for example, if a few words were perfect for conveying meaning, then why do we have at least a half-dozen English translations of the Bible? Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I so do want to get involved in this conversation. I wish I had more time. I think the word "respect" is a key word here. I can disagree with someone, but if I (and he/she) show respect - then the conversation can find ways forward. I don't need someone to wrap a disagreement with things like "I really 'respect' your view, but I think you fail to realize the concept". I personally don't need sugar coated words. If you disagree - fine. I admit that I do tend to wrap things up in that "I really respect your view" blanket all too often, but only because I don't want to offend anyone. In my opinion there is way too much WP:ABF all the way around in regards to the "civility" end of things. If someone has a point of view, and another person calls "bullshit" ... so address the issue .. not the person. Just some wandering thoughts as I pass through. — Ched :  ?  06:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pesky, you hit a nail on the head when you say that "for me, nice..." (italics mine). I agree that people should try to be nice as much as possible, but it's a very subjective word and it can be used in a superficial way as well (just like polite and other social concepts). Geometry Guy makes a good point with the collegial debate and discussion ideas, and I'm also partial to the idea of "amicable" discussion. To an extent what we may end up needing are "Wiki rules of order" that spell out in simple terms what's acceptable and what isn't in these discussions...something like "rational discussion of ideas and issues without recourse to attacks on the individual." You'll always find folks who want to twist or use concepts like politeness, but if we can define acceptable parameters it's easier to isolate the bullies (to loop back to the earlier point) and possibly help them adjust their behavior so they can be productive here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have this input here. Now, another word we use is "etiquette", as in etiquette. I think wiki-manners sounds great, thanks for that one! NewbyG ( talk) 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Be as pleasant / friendly as possible; where you can't be friendly, be neutral"? Something like that? "Remember the other person has feelings, too..." Or something. I'm tired! Should get some sleep ... Pesky (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ched: having wandered after you and read quite a number of your "wandering thoughts", they always strike me as very, very sound. You have a good think-box up there! And express those thoughts well, too. Pesky (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awww Pesky .. what a kind thing to say. thank you so much. I often look at what I write and wonder if I'm sounding like a complete idiot. (insecurity issues maybe?). :) I also find great and sage wisdom in what you write as well. And I think the kindness and huge heart that you display here is an absolute wonder. You are a great inspiration to us all, and it would be tough to find someone who sets a better example of how to treat folks. <hugs, pats to wolfie's head, and best wishes> — Ched :  ?  22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Pesky blushes mightily] (>**)><(**<) Pesky (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polite, or better?[edit]

How about "Be kind in your dealings with other editors." ? Pesky (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reasonably define "kind"? If so, I'm all for it. It seems to me that if we give people a fuzzy line (like the current 'civility policy'), some folks will plow right through it or warp it into something that it's not supposed to be. I guess that was what was behind my Wiki-manners idea. While Wiki seems perfectly willing to impose its own standards on outside things (horses, firearms, history, etc.), we seem very unwilling to impose a standard in an area where it might do some good: how we interact with each other here. Maybe some examples or standards would help people find that kind zone.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need the opposite: Do not make people cry, give them stomach cramps, or lead them unto throwing the laptop through the wall... Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wait .. wait ... am I on Candid Camera? .. and I didn't throw my laptop ... I just sorta picked it up and shook it a little. :) — Ched :  ?  20:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MT, that is kinda where I was verbally wandering. It's often easier to tell people what NOT to do in these situations, or at least easier to provide examples of what not to do. That or the "if someone said this to you, would you punch them?" rule. Granted neither approach is perfect, but it's something worth taking a stab at if we want something worthwhile to result.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of hoping that the opening concept of First do no harm would cover "unkindness", with the deadly sins bit underneath! Maybe just a link to the Wiktionary definition of kindness? Though Wiktionary fails dismally in getting across the idea of kind / kindness. Someone go and edit that .... hehe! Pesky (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Do no harm" has a certain elegance. I am thinking that "kind" has its limits, as "kind" has a certain relative meaning -- anyone who has raised an adolescent has undoubtably had the following conversation: Parent: "No dear, you cannot go egg houses with your new friends "Buzzard", "Snake" and "Carcass." Adolescent: "You MEANIE! I HATE HATE HATE YOU FOREVER AND EVER. YOU ARE DESTROYING MY LIFE! HOW CAN YOU BE SO MEAN!!!!!" Yep, I was most certainly "unkind." So sue me, eh?  ;-D LOL! Montanabw(talk) 18:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support "do no harm." It's a direct statement with far less wiggle room but still allows for some leeway and variations.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"First do no harm" is about the first thing I put on the page! It sums everything up extraordinarily well, I think. Pesky (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One word has come up in the recently closed Arbcase:Civility enforcement and that is "collaborative" as in foster a collaborative environment. There's a brief summary here. Particularly numbers 5 and 6, any comments, on the principle behind it, and the words? NewbyG ( talk) 11:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't crazy about the original draft of that statement, as it left far too much discretion when it came to "lowering the level of discourse." I think that was taken out or revised in the final statement (although I could be wrong).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you are correct there. The operative phrase, it seems to me at (6) on talknewbyguesses is "--that uncivil conduct can be a factor in the breaking down of consensus forming", and that "blocks or other restrictions may be used in the event of repeated disruption to ensure the collaborative environment of Wikipedia" is maintained. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 17:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to deprecate the terminology edit-war on WP[edit]

  • I propose that we deprecate the term “edit war”on WP.

In a war, people get killed, we ought to take the word “war” seriously, and use it only in serious serious situations. It is an insult to all those innocents who have been killed in conflict throughout History, that we use the word “war” in such a frivolous and unthinking manner. And it unreflexively encourages a social mileu rather like that of a bunch of six-year old boys tearing round the playground going “Bang, bang, I got you with my bazooka, or my super-X light sabre or my tank or aircraft carrier” or whatever.

It is unproductive to WP to give any encouragement at all to the continuance of a community poisoned by excess testosterone and combativeness.
  • Provisionally I propose the term edit-war be deprecated in favour of “edit confusion”. NewbyG ( talk) 13:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor intentionally changes back to their favoured version there is no "confusion" about it. I think your proposal is merit-less and, in light of your recent track record, it verges on nonsense designed to be disruptive. Leaky Caldron 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is unproductive to WP to be so quick to resort to incivility, user:Leaky Cauldron. The post was made in good faith, and your quick evaluation of its merit is welcome. Your quick resort to side-taking and a combative attitude, complete with insults and unsupported purportments of knowledge are definitely not designed to be productive. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 17:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by confusion, is that when there is a flurry of edits to an article or project page, any editors watching the editing but not participating in it will be confused as to what is going on. That is what disruptive editing is, of the quick and nasty type, not the long-term type; it is when no-one can tell what is going on at the article or project page. NewbyG ( talk) 17:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a good point, about "war", but I fear the phrase is so entrenched that it may be impossible to remove. These things happen when people get too passionate about something, and act in haste. Generally both sides mean well, but both have lost sight of that in the other one. Can we think of a better, short, easy, catchy phrase to replace "edit war"? (And, regardless of the passion involved, and despite the possible giggles, I'm not sure that "edit orgy" would be right! ;P ) Pesky (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many alternative phrasings available, bit It's likely that the current jejune metaphor is too well- entrenched, as it were, and even trying to divert to sports-oriented metaphors (Casey's at the bat! Who's on first?) might not get up. Used to use teh phrase back at WT:CONSENSUS back in teh old days - a flurry of edits - the interesting feature being that a flurry of edits by 3 or 4 editors may appear to be a conflict; and on closer examination to be good, bold editing. {This was noticed and remarked upon by a long-time editor, user:Kim Bruning.)
In other words, it takes some fairly close scrutiny to determine if an edit conflict (on a project page) is occurring, and precise, nice (in several senses of the word) terminology could include "edit confusion", "disruptive flurry of edits", "rapid change editing", "negative editing", "non-consensus editing", "ignoring the talk page", and so forth, Oxford comma, fuel stop. NewbyG ( talk) 22:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now there once was a page which had to get protected regularly, since the length of the discussion/editing that used to take place there was simply unbelievable, check the 1000's of edits in the Revision History of WP:IAR! Sometimes a good idea is to peruse versions of policy from sister projects, where it is a imitation of en.wiki, and wher a new excellent idea has surfaced, yes. NewbyG ( talk) 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Que?[edit]

es:Wikipedia:Ignora las normas - ignore the normals? that can't be right?

id:Wikipedia:Jangan terbebani aturan jangle your turban?

ia:Wikipedia:Disobedi al regulas '"Disobey the regulars, Yay!"'

sr:Википедија:Игнориши сва правила non passeran

pt:Wikipédia:A Wikipédia não possui regras fixas além dos cinco pilares no possums upon these pillars!

ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:விதிகளை மீறு Beautiful!

Recognisey voo ? NewbyG ( talk) 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rule all the ignorami? Pesky (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption is a matter for administratistrative action, after a consensus is discerned[edit]

One "big problem" about how to deal with disruptive editing (which is the major or a major focus of the Civility policy) is that administrative action is basically required to deal with disruption. Firstly, there is so much "gaming of the system" with respect to admins being branded as "involved": So, in order to remain "uninvolved" the first admin on the scene must be utterly determined to remain utterly uninformed so as to avoid being called "involved". Any admin who accidentally becomes "informed" is in danger of being threatened with de-sysopping.

Secondly, when admins rush in to take some random action in response to some random complaint from the most likely culprit, the utterly last thing that the admin would consider is to seek a consensus - seeking a consensus would indicate to all and sundry that the admin is not gung-ho enough to retain the trust or fear which is traditionally due to authority figures.

So, our policies are designed not to deal with disruption. Our policies are designed so as to avoid at all costs the pain of having to think. Policies like that are easy to write, and they only hurt those who are too stupid to be able to give up thinking. NewbyG ( talk) 19:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a sock of Jimbo Wales by any chance? Leaky Caldron 20:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If user:Jimbo has any alternate accounts, I am sure they are for a legitimate purpose. cheers NewbyG ( talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to include the admin who rushes in and admonishes the wrong person! Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched/civility_sandbox&oldid=1142926220"