1

Building an encyclopedia is certainly why we are all (supposed) to be here - and some of us produce better, and more content than others. That isn't the only way to be productive - but it is certainly one of the best. Civility policy - in fact all conduct policy - is meant to stop personal human distractions such as emotion, ego, insults, grudges and the like from misdirecting productive discussion and the production of neutral content.

Incivility has time and time again disrupted Wikipedia - if only by distraction - and further could the matter at hand because we spend a lot of time talking about his incivility. If we accept that it is natural to be uncivil while defending ones self (a common defense of incivility) - we have to accept that it is natural to get distracted and irritated about incivility. Incivility generally, is a problem - and is more of a problem in article and article talk space, sure - but it is still a problem elsewhere.

Looking through the various comments here one thing is clear to me - this RfC isn't just about Giano but has a host of issues surrounding it - it may be as simple as battleground mentality, cabals shadowboxing, or genuine disagreements. To that end I want to try to find some sort of established ground where most of us will at least agree before moving onto Giano himself.

2

Content is king

All policy and processes on Wikipedia are designed with the end goal of of creating an effective, informative, neutral, well written encyclopedia. Be we primarily writers, copy editors, vandalism reverters, or even administrators, we're all volunteers trying to apply our talents and abilities to try to make Wikipedia better - and if any of you aren't this isn't the right place for you.

Good Wikipedia governance ls important

Better policy, and better application of policy creates better content. Content policies control the quality of our content, conduct policies should control contributors so they remain focused on content instead of eachother.

This is where good administration comes in - administration is supposed to reduce disruption, help forge consensus, encourage productive conversation, do boring work, remove problem users and otherwise protect the editing environment. Problem users can range from vandals to genuine stalkers. Those focused on administration should do so with the intent of getting problems, distractions and themselves out of the way of people who are doing the writing, research, and maintenance of articles (and images).

Editors are human beings

We have human frailties and strengths. We make mistakes, we hold grudges, we cast aspersions, and we get angry and frustrated. We respond poorly to insults, perceived or real.

Civility works better than incivility

Generally speaking, civility works better than the alternative. Making things personal distracts from the substantive issues. Editors should be focused on the issue at hand, not by insults, bad language and other unpleasant beahviors.

Civility processes and policies have been abused

Conduct policy is not a road map to banning for administrators - it is advice, guidelines, and expectations. Conduct policy has - and likely will continue to be - abused by grouchy admins in furtherance of personal or political feuds. This extends to the abuse of proccess by non-admins as well, but and the end of the day, the buck stops with the people clicking the block link.

There is such thing as a reasonable disagreement

This is the most difficult part, but intelligent good faith Wikipedians will disagree - and disagree dramatically - about what needs to be done about a situation. We give into the temptation to say "I'm right, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, knows they are wrong, and they are being wrong for Evil purposes." This is the very reason the assumption of good faith is important.

Good criticism is important

Disagreement may well be the foundation of Wikipedia process: everything is built with the assumption that people start out in disagreement and work towards consensus. Nothing improves unless the flaws are pointed out, not personal behavior, not articles, not Wikipedia governance.

3

(Undent, replying to Vintagekits) Vintagekits, I appreciate that you're willing to apologize, especially to Thatcher. Wiki gets frustrating, and I'm sure most people around here will be able to forgive and forget. In the future, try not to transfer your invective from the user you are in conflict in to the administrators and other users trying to come in and settle the problem. Administrators, as a breed, tend to try to create peace (whether we are any good at it is another problem.) They are not ignoring the content issue as such, but trying to deal with the problem at hand - and it behooves you not to create a civility problem, so that the content issue IS the problem at hand. I myself will get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mkil, your behavior was just as uncivil as Vintagekits' was. Your tone was patronizing at best. At worst, it is exactly the same tone someone who was taunting Vintagekits' would take. I don't know you, so I havn't a clue whether that was deliberate, but that doesn't stop it from being a problem. Do not make it personal. Ever. Users under restrictions are NOT punching bags, and you need to take care not to even appear as if you are using them as such. I'll get into the content issue when I can, but on the article's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to make something clear, in relation to my comments to Vintagekits and MKil above. Accusing other editors of biased editing is inflammatory, and in most contexts, uncivil. Excessive snarkiness is uncivil. Rudeness is uncivil. Being patronizing is uncivil. Being a jerk, dressed however well in gentility, is being uncivil. For whatever reason, many Wikipedians take their on wiki reputations as model Wikipedian writers very, very seriously. Telling these people that they are POV pushers, bringing up their block logs is uncivil. These acts are no less uncivil (or at least not in any way that matters) than the obvious swearing and name calling that happens. It is all unacceptable behavior, not because we're running a kindergarten, but because of how quickly uncivil behavior derails actual conversation.

In case it needs to be said, we administrators, as a breed, need to be able to deal with civility issues. Our job however, is to defuse the problems, not to sanction the users involved. In addition, when we can, we should help out with the content issues underlying, and if we can't do it ourselves, we should try to find someone who can, otherwise, what use are we really?--Tznkai (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)