Wikipedia talk:Maintaining a friendly space

First post

This essay is largely lifted from m:Grants:IdeaLab/Friendly space, a (presumably) binding friendly space policy that applies to the Wikimedia Foundation's Idea Lab. It gives practical, succinct advice on how one can strive to contribute most constructively to a discussion. When I saw the policy on the Meta-Wiki, I quipped "If only Wikipedia had (and enforced) these rules." This being Wikipedia, I decided I could just copy it over to Wikipedia. For now it is an essay. In time I would like to see this content incorporated into the corpus of Wikipedia's policies, but one thing at a time. Eventually, we will get it right. All are welcome to improve on this page, of course. Harej (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If only people would be nice, everything would be great! But what about spammers and POV pushers and drama-only accounts? It is not helpful to push friendly without at least acknowledging the problem of having to deal with trouble makers who do not assist the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The recommendations apply to them, too! Harej (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Especially this one: "Am I familiar with Wikipedia's rules and processes, or am I bringing in assumptions from other spaces?" Harej (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, the problem is that Wikipedia has been noticed, and people have learned how to tick CIVIL while spamming and POV pushing and fermenting drama with little compensatory article improvement. Indeffing vandals and harassers is done quickly, but natural selection ensures that the proportion of unhelpful (but nice) free-loaders in the community increases over time. Dealing with the nonsense over and over and over is hard to take. Do you have any ideas for how to streamline the process of removing civil POV pushers? Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no particularly brilliant ideas on this front, but wouldn't civil POV pushers be guilty of violating WP:NPOV even if they were otherwise civil? If someone refuses to respect fundamental editorial rules after being told to do so, it is quite possible that Wikipedia is not for them. But for those who accept Wikipedia's editorial rules—or those who don't know better, but could with some helpful coaching—there is a lot of value in maintaining an atmosphere where people feel respected and not like they're in the middle of a shouting match. That is what this essay is about. Harej (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We all agree that civil and friendly are good—the very few who don't are easily removed. Here's an example of a simple case: a misguided new editor got an unfriendly response, and the solution was diff + diff (and watch the pages so any further problems can be escalated). Plain unfriendliness is easily handled, and a motherhood essay is not needed. Civil POV pushers are rather more difficult to deal with because there is no reasonable way to show they are violating NPOV—blatant cases are handled at WP:NPOVN, but most just linger on indefinitely with the two sides sniping at each other. Sanctioning the side which breaks CIVIL improves friendly, but may damage the encyclopedia. Look at Talk:Gamergate controversy to see how difficult it is to handle an army of civil SPAs. Then there are the returned users who are talented, but who have a grudge against an established editor—talented people can pick and poke until they get the desired unfriendly response, then call for their target to be sanctioned. I am waiting for an essay which at least acknowledges that CIVIL ain't easy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to write such an essay. Harej (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong, necessarily; I've observed those types of editors on Wikipedia for a very long time. I don't think your argument invalidates the premise of friendly space recommendations either. Just that the essay speaks to a different issue than the one you raise. Harej (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Português

Português Chimpanzé hedonista (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Harej: Greetings. While harassment is a serious problem it usually has a beginning. That beginning would be any personal attack on another editor, even one time, that fosters an unfriendly environment. While egregious attacks are easy to identify many times a conflict begins with unfriendly remarks and when directed at a specific editor they are an attack. An editor familiar with our policies and guidelines may try to provoke a negative response that in the heat of things might be retaliatory and itself an attack. As long as the initial attack has served the intended purpose any like response will result in the attacked becoming an attacker and subject to like sanctions as two wrongs don't make a right. The slap on the wrist the perpetrator "may" get will simply be a warning, possibly a 24-hour sanction, likely equally shared, and maybe a directive for the two editors to avoid each other.

The fact that a victim was provoked usually carries no consequences. Our policy on this could be used as well as the policy directive to Comment on content, not on the contributor to foster a friendly environment. Otr500 (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)