Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epipelagic (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 29 July 2013 (→A Higher Standard: ~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The initial Misplaced Pages:Civility essay was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by User:Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l. & (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy." Long before the creation of the formal policy, User:Jimbo Wales wrote his Statement of principles, wherein certain points echo the idea of civility. User:Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making more civil," , & (Nov. 2002) after reading User:The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Misplaced Pages" (Mar. 2002). User:Jimbo Wales picked up on Larry's point , and thereafter User:Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editor's thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009.

This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Pillars

• WP:FIVE
• WP:5P
• WP:FIVEPILLARS

Misplaced Pages operates on the following fundamental principles, known as the five pillars:

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Misplaced Pages etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,930,275 articles on the English Misplaced Pages to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

1. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be repaired.

Shortcut Misplaced Pages:Five pillars

Discussion of the Five pillars

discussion of the five pillars

Essays on wikipedia civility

• Policies and guidelines  ; How to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance

So, this may be a dumb idea, but...

I was thinking last night about civility and the apparent longstanding difficulty Misplaced Pages has in dealing with it. (I am deliberately not invoking names or past blowups I've read about, so if a discussion happens here maybe we can keep it to general principles? I think that would be awesome).

WP:CIVIL, as a Thing, is just bloody hard to enforce in any meaningful way. But there is a policy that's actually really easy to enforce, and I don't really understand how it's not used in civility/NPA issues. (And hey maybe someone has thought this before. I admit I didn't comb through the archives because that way lies madness and a rabbithole like TVTropes).

WP:BLP, in a nutshell, says "Don't say shit about people that isn't supported, kthx."

Would it be a terrible idea to reorganize the concepts of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and just use WP:BLP as the basis for any blocks/enforcement/finger-wagging? Different countries have different standards of civility which is a big problem... but basically anything that really is a problem is something that would get an editor blocked pretty quickly for if they ever did it in an article. And BLP states that it applies to every page on Misplaced Pages, and unless I'm mistaken all editors are live human beings, so BLP applies.

What does everyone think? I haven't worked out all the details in my head, but it seemed like it might be a good approach, and would have positive effects on traditionally unpleasant areas like AfD and RfA and so on. — The Potato Hose 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to policy (no escalating block lengths)

Yes, this is in part motivated by recent events, but it is something I've been thinking about for quite some time (See User:Adjwilley/CERFC#Appropriate sanctions). At issue is the tendency for administrators to exponentially increase the block length for repeat offenders (24 hours, 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, etc.). This practice is supported by some broad guidelines given in WP:Blocking policy which state, "incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hour blocks, longer for successive violations" and "Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur." While these guidelines work fine in general, they don't seem to be working on the Civility front (certain recent events come to mind). In short, if the amount of disruption resulting from application of the Civility policy exceeds the amount of disruption caused by the incivility itself, then the policy should be changed or applied differently. That said, here is my suggestion, in the context of a couple other options. (In all cases, we are assuming a repeat civility offender who otherwise makes positive contributions to the project.)

Break (New proposal without limits on block length)

Thank you all for your comments. It seems clear that the 24-hour limit isn't going to fly... In the spirit of compromise, how does this look? Instead of imposing a 24-hour limit, it advises to carefully weigh the benefits from long or controversial civility blocks against the disruption and drama caused by block reviews and unblock requests. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody have any objections to this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

At a glance I might replace "drama" with a term less prone to being deprecating, and I would add "potential for" instead of suggesting that it must occur in all cases. DonIago (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Another at a glance reading, I would replace "uncontentious" with "unambiguous". No opinion as yet on whether to support or oppose.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit, slightly modified based on the feedback here. I added the sentence: "Benefits derived from long or controversial civility blocks should be weighed carefully against the potential for disruption caused by block reviews, and unblock requests." I figure Amadscientists's suggesting can be implemented in a separate edit, since it doesn't affect the sentence I added. If anybody disagrees feel free to revert or discuss... ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A Higher Standard

Of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages, it is being upheld by four pillars, and this is not one of them. Misplaced Pages is not doing an effective job of ensuring civility.

I think that it should be mentioned that editors are held to a higher standard of civility in Misplaced Pages than they hold themselves to in live discourse. In live discourse, if you are joking or being sarcastic, that is clear. On the Internet, there are no non-verbal cues. It has been known since 1985 that the lack of non-verbal cues in electronic discussions and the permanence of electronic comments creates a real problem for people who post quickly and then rethink. Because there are no non-verbal cues on the Internet, including in Misplaced Pages, an editor needs to be careful about their comments. You can't just say what you feel like saying, and then think that it will work out. It may, in a live discussion. In Misplaced Pages, or elsewhere in the Internet, what you have posted is there forever. You can apologize, but it isn't necessarily enough to apologize. So think before posting, even to user talk pages.

I will also mention that I have stated on other pages my concern about editors who are said to be "excellent content creators", but who are habitually uncivil. Should "excellent content creators" be given a pass on civility? (Answers are optional, because I just violated my own rule, and was being sarcastic.)

At least since 1985, it has been understood that the lack of non-verbal cues in email can cause problems, especially if people are hostile, sarcastic, or engaged in weird humor. (See http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283.html)

I think that this policy should be revised and strengthened to include some reference to the permanance of what are thought to be casual insults (there are no casual insults) and the permanence of electronic communication. Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lovely, so long as the policy can also say something useful about how to deal with the devastating effects of CIVIL editors who push and poke indefinitely. Misplaced Pages does not need more text on being nice—instead, two things are required: a mechanism for cutting off nonsense that passes the CIVIL test, and a reasonable way to handle the case referred to above (hint: over-the-top blocks that are known to upset many good editors are not helpful). Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I propose that something be added about the lack of non-verbal cues. Policies don't always need reliable sources, but I have cited one of the oldest reliable sources on netiquette. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Second, I agree with User:Johnuniq that the specific case in point was handled badly. I have, on other pages, said that editors such as the one mentioned should be dealt with by the ArbCom (as was the case in 2005 through 2007), because "community consensus" is a will-o-the-wisp. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Third, it appears that User:Johnuniq is referring either to civil but tendentious editors who edit with a biased POV, or to editors who try to provoke other editors into incivility. It is not clear which. I agree that both types of editors are problematical. The first should be dealt with by Dispute resolution. Stricter enforcement of civility would make such disputes more likely to be dealt with by dispute resolution than by name-calling, a common practice in disputes. If he is referring to the second, editors who deliberately provoke other editors, I think that deliberate provocation should be viewed as uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are talking about the tiny little overly small area covered by this policy, and you are probably right about that area. But Misplaced Pages is a very vicious place and this policy completely fails to get into the areas where that occurs and so overall it tolerates and sanctions vicious behavior and so is overall very lenient. My impression is as follows:

• Editor A says: Dear sir, I just killed your wife and kids and am trying to get you killed. Happy editing! Have a nice day! Editor A will live long and prosper in Misplaced Pages.

• Editor B says: Hey bro, I read your stuff and it sucks! Editor B will end up banned from Misplaced Pages.

North8000 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Recently I actually agreed with North8000 on a talk page. Now it isn't clear what he is saying should be done. Is he actually aware of a case where someone discussed a murder that he, the editor, had committed in Misplaced Pages, or is he being sarcastic on the Internet, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After spending time at WP:ANI and other noticeboards, the meaning of North8000's comments becomes very clear, and is related to what I wrote above. Many onlookers do not want to take the time to evaluate a case, and so try to judge who is "right" by counting how many bad words each side used. That's an oversimplification, but it's not far off the mark in practice. Someone who satisfies CIVIL can cause enormous disruption. Sending people to WP:DR against a civil POV pusher is saying "we don't care, just go away", and DR will do nothing except swallow another large slab of time and energy, and will almost always not resolve the issue in a manner that helps the encyclopedia. DR only works when there is some rationality on both sides. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand North8000's comment. I think that I addressed Johnuniq's comments. Civil but tendentious editors who push a biased POV are difficult but can be dealt with by dispute resolution. Editors who are civil in the sense of not using offensive words, but who habitually provoke other editors, should be treated as uncivil. I still don't understand North8000's comments about murder. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I used "murder" as hyperbole(/metaphor for trying to get someone discredited, banned, blocked, shamed, chased away etc. as a way to further ones ends) to clarify a point. The real viciousness that makes Misplaced Pages such a nasty place is mis-using policies and guidelines to try to do harm to people, includine misstatement/misrepresentaitons etc. regarding them. And those people are clever enough to pretend to be civil while they are doing it and slip under the wp:civil radar. Two real but unnamed editors come to mind that illustrate this:

• Editor #1 (who I disagree with about 98% of time) uses rough language, and is extremely blunt and rough. I've gone to bat for them at least 2-3 times at noticeboards when they've gotten in trouble for that.

• Editor #2 is the most vicious warrior that I know of, who is always trying to mis-use the system to get people who stand in the way of their POV quest smacked or banned. They pretend to be sweet when writing, and even have the equivalent of "Have a nice day" embedded in their signature.

I consider editor #1 to be refreshingly blunt, and if they tell me that I'm full of sh*t, I appreciate that they are being straight with me. They do not try to do harm to other editors. and yet they keep getting in trouble with wp:civility. Editor #2 is emblematic of what makes Misplaced Pages such a vicious nasty place, and they never get in trouble with wp:civility. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The worst perpetrators of real incivility and violence on Misplaced Pages are those admins and editors who hunt other editors, particularly highly productive content editors, that they can accuse of or provoke into some form of superficial verbal incivility. These perpetrators, who rarely contribute anything of value to Misplaced Pages articles, then try to get the other user banned or blocked, or try to bludgeon them with threats of banning or blocking. Instead of giving this destructive malevolence short shift, these perpetrators are indulged on the drama boards and given barnstars by other perpetrators. As a result, it is no longer possible to have honest and robust disagreements between honest and robust editors on article talk pages. Instead, we have to resort to a sick-making form of doublespeak and politically correct wikietiquette. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Two Follow-Up Questions

First, is Johnuniq asking about POV-pushers, or about editors whose words appear to be civil but are trying to push or provoke other editors? If the latter, would it be appropriate to treat their behavior as being uncivil? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Second, having not spent time to WP:ANI, can someone explain the context of what is being said about the homicide? Is the basic point that the use of "bad" or "inherently offensive" words and phrases is only a part of the civility policy, and that it should not be oversimplified by reducing it to the avoidance of offensive language, but that context is important?