User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Reforms for Wikipedia/Incivility

Civility vs. Incivility

Wikipedia:Civility is a policy and one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia — FACT.

We should already have a proper anti-bullying policy — but we don't.

Why? Because one of the main issues is that both the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Harassment policies lack "teeth" to allow for blocks, interaction bans and site bans in the most extreme cases without gaining broad community consensus over weeks, all while the offending editor(/s) can continue to disparage and attack editors.^[1] However, the wait for consensus allows for both meat-puppets and sock-puppets to defend the accused while also shifting the community's focus to unfairly criticise and "boomerang-block" the filing party.

An old, but repeated, proposal is that administrators warn editors to not "follow" other editors that they are in conflict; It is proposed to also allow for Admins to impose temporary interaction bans until either the original dispute is resolved or a set amount of time has passed. ^[2]

Name-calling, 'written' assault and blame-shifting in a heated content dispute is highly disruptive and editors should be properly warned and sanctioned.^[3] However, even when there is evidence of disruption and blatant incivility, editors should focus on improving the page rather than name-calling and "editor-bashing".

Uncivil behaviour during a content dispute – such as alleging editors of "POV-pushing" & "WP:IDHT" behaviour, as well as basic insults – is uncivil behaviour. Alleging "ownership" of a mainspace page via the talk page or a revert is also disruptive. Claiming such behaviour is "not uncivil", "just a joke" is uncivil and rude. It is proposed that an editor may be blocked for a period of one month after a warning by an editor or an administrator if they continue to be uncivil. If the uncivil behavior continues after being blocked then they could be blocked for a period of two months and so on.

The word "consensus" is widely used on Wikipedia, but all too often, disputes are settled by shouting and bullying; the winner is the person or group who shouts loudest.^[4] Wikipedia has an essay on WP:Bullying but this is not a policy. Some female editors have also stopped editing Wikipedia because they do not wish to enter into abusive fights with men.^[5]

It is proposed that both the original, and supporting, editor(s) could be blocked starting with 24-hr blocks, and increasing the time amount if the editor refuses to discuss issues civilly. In cases that are taken to WP:ANI, it is proposed that blocks start from a minimum of 1 week for the original uncivil editor, and 36 hrs for editors that participated in uncivil commentary during the discussion - regardless of an editor's "side" in the dispute.

A new noticeboard, perhaps a "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility", made specifically for handling civility issues may help alleviate the problems editors face when having to confront aggressive editors.

^
- Pun intended.
- The offending editor being the most uncivil editor(/s) in a dispute, regardless of their "side" of the dispute.
^
- Editors would be allowed to interact at Administration Noticeboards if required, as well as the original dispute - on request. On articles and pages uninvolved during the original dispute, the interaction bans would be upheld.
- "'Uninvolved' articles and pages" is to be considered broadly construed, including related pages that would be unaffected by the original dispute.
^ The author notes that there is a warning template that can be used for uncivil behaviour, but has not encountered an offending editor (despite blatant incivility) that has had the template placed on their pages, either before or after being taken to WP:ANI or direct blocks.
^ Kamm, Oliver (16 August 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Archived from the original on 14 August 2011.
^ Gardner, Sue (19 February 2011). "Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia, In Their Own Words". suegardner.org (blog). Sue Gardner.

[1] 
Pun intended.

The offending editor being the most uncivil editor(/s) in a dispute, regardless of their "side" of the dispute.

[2] Pun intended.

[3] The offending editor being the most uncivil editor(/s) in a dispute, regardless of their "side" of the dispute.

[2] 
Editors would be allowed to interact at Administration Noticeboards if required, as well as the original dispute - on request. On articles and pages uninvolved during the original dispute, the interaction bans would be upheld.

"'Uninvolved' articles and pages" is to be considered broadly construed, including related pages that would be unaffected by the original dispute.

[5] Editors would be allowed to interact at Administration Noticeboards if required, as well as the original dispute - on request. On articles and pages uninvolved during the original dispute, the interaction bans would be upheld.

[6] "'Uninvolved' articles and pages" is to be considered broadly construed, including related pages that would be unaffected by the original dispute.

[3] The author notes that there is a warning template that can be used for uncivil behaviour, but has not encountered an offending editor (despite blatant incivility) that has had the template placed on their pages, either before or after being taken to WP:ANI or direct blocks.

[Kamm2007-4] Kamm, Oliver (16 August 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Archived from the original on 14 August 2011.

[Gardner2011-5] Gardner, Sue (19 February 2011). "Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia, In Their Own Words". suegardner.org (blog). Sue Gardner.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]