Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cart before the horse?

It's all well and good to discuss whether or not civility restrictions are appropriate. They are, however, dependent upon the civility policy, which itself is poorly written to the point that no two individuals interpret it in the same way. It seems a little backward to decide whether or not this policy should be applied in certain circumstances when it is obvious that the wording of the policy itself is the cause of problems with civility restrictions. Risker (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Risker is quite correct - hence User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy. Really, I do think the official version needs to be drastically shortened along that line. Moreschi (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have read this before I responded on the main page. Well, by what definition is "fuck you", "asshole", "delusional troll", "full of shit", etcetera civil behaviors, and why are these kinds of comments routinely tolerated from established users? The inconsistency in application is a bigger problem than the definitional issues, and recent ArbCom double standards haven't advanced resolution of this issue. When even clear and blatant uncivil behavior is regularly tolerated, I suggest we need to focus more on consistent application of policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. My feeling on that is that we are unlikely to get anywhere asking for big changes. The community needs, at the very least, a clear answer to proposal B. Proposal A will likely result with no clear consensus between the three options. I don't think that either A or B are strictly dependent upon a rewritten WP:CIVIL. My plan is to see how this works out, then ask another series of very specific questions regarding the aims and implementation of the policy. Then we can get a good look at how the community feels on the subject. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility will always be a vague concept. However, people know it when they see it, and have general agreement. We just have to trust this. It can however be defined in more detail than this, though that might make a fine lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Moreschi has it more or less right. What one person recognises as civil behaviour may unacceptable to others. Phrases and words used in the daily lexicon of one region of the world can be considered shocking in others. (The verb "to toss" is a classic example.) We boldly say that contributions will be edited mercilessly, but then permit people to take grave offense when they are, or when their contributions to articles or to the general discourse are dissected. Is there really a difference between politely analysing an editor's personality in minute detail (making all kinds of assumptions and using pseudopsychiatric terms) and describing their behaviour using slightly negative terminology in one sentence? Why is it that some editors are blocked for saying (in some cases, in identical words) what other editors can say freely? The civility policy desperately needs simplification, and should be as short as possible. WP:NPA says comment on the content not the contributor; I think content reasonably includes behaviour and concept (the latter when one is discussing policies and practices, for example). Risker (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see, I've been able to get through Wikipedia for years, in one of the most controversial of areas, with other people getting into trouble for civility violations right and left around me. I've had people take me to ArbCom twice, and a terribly hostile RfC. I edited for many months with most everyone, including admins, out to get me. And I've been able to say everything I needed to say, and almost everything I wanted to say. This is not because I only needed to say nice things. It's because I know how to be civil. So, I simply disagree that we need to have a watered down civility policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The_Dumbledore_principle ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, Martin, but that sounds more like it's due to your having a thick hide, rather than your mastery of civility. The problem is, not everyone has a thick hide, and it's unclear to me why they should have to in what is supposed to be a cooperative, collegial community. In fact, I've found that established editors who indulge in incivility often insist everyone should have a thick hide as an excuse for their (mis)behavior – which is why I find Balloonman’s AN example so disheartening. Certainly it's a must for admins, but why for average editors? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should focus less on the thick hide/thin skin dichotomy and more on what might be the general causes. Speaking of this as "thick and thin" turns it into a discussion on the recipient and we have an innate urge to (at least I do) want people to "suck it up" if it is something minor. I try to look at it a different way. As long as wikipedia is here and doing something right, people will be engaged, even obsessed about the project. That is a good sign. It is a sign that what is here is important enough for people to invest a considerable amount of emotional energy. If we take that and combine it with the various means textual communication both breaks down inhibitions and eliminates contextual clues, you get a recipe for problems regardless of the person's resilience. I've got a pretty thick skin, but that varies based on what is being criticized. I'm not replying to criticize the basic idea, just that we should be looking to preserve an atmosphere where people can be excited and devoted without fear of spite. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A3 Wording

A3 currently reads "It is not possible to offer broad guidance with regard to low level incivility by long term editors. Editors and administrators should just each pattern of behavior against the editor's overall contribution to the encyclopedia but also consider the impact the behavior itself has."

Is there a word missing in the second sentence between just and each? And do you really mean to propose this as each pattern instead of each incident? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good catch, fixing that. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the "pattern" issue. the problem with "per incident" civility violations is that they don't provide evidence of future disruption (cause for a block). Patterns might, but "low level patterns" (like those fut Perf, Giano and others are accused of) fall into a huge gray area. A.3 is there to respect that gray area and note that we may not be able to write a one size fits all policy to fix it. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wider audience

Can more active participants please announce this RFC on, oh, ... the Request for Arbitration, AN, possibly Village Pump, ...

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I archived this discussion and pasted it in its entirety to Wikipedia_talk:Editing_restrictions/Civility_restrictions#Additional_comments where it can be continued. --Irpen 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]