![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
In the context of this discussion, do we need brightlines on zero tolerance behavior? While we've become so inured to vulgarisms that "fuck" is not actionable, is there not a line that must not be crossed? While one might see clearly that sexually violent imagery should be right out, apparently we don't. So should there be clear cut lines that cannot be crossed?
Just don't use any uncivil words while one sticks the knife in between their ribs and twists itI wasn't aware rib-stabbing is a Wikipedia feature. Turn off the drama, no one is getting stabbed here. Bright☀ 02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware rib-stabbing is a Wikipedia feature- you need to pay more attention to the Christmas wishlist! Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
no one is getting stabbed herecitation needed - Please re-source yourself. WP:NEWTREAT Stabing does occur. Melt 09:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I disagree with you very strongly, will not get me stabbed.
Fuck off, moron, will.
Its really not all that hard to not have someone stab and you twist the knife. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The stabbing is done by cleverly using the system to get people. Of course, talking very civilly while you do it is a part of the cleverness. A far bigger consequence than the pain of hearing a dirty word. North8000 ( talk) 13:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
to show what I meant, there is never going to be any brightines, as there is always going to be someone who will excuse egregious breaches of not only police, but also basic civil decency, as being stabbed in the back or entrapped ("yes I know he called them a cunt, but they did refuse to let him have his way, it was a deliberate attempt to get him to say cunt"). Slatersteven ( talk) 09:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
If someone is reading the dealing with incivility section of this page, they want to know how to handle a user conduct issue, right? But the text mixes in some advice that's only relevant to content disputes. For example, step 7 of the numbered list at the top says:
If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors.
But
WP:DRN says This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors.
.
The next section ("Dispute resolution") is a bit confusing, because it seems like it's trying to do the same thing as the numbered list above it (give a recipe for dealing with incivility), but... it's a different recipe? It doesn't mention DRN, but instead gives WP:Third opinion (which is also for disputes of content, not conduct) as the step before WP:AN/I. It also mentions arbcom as a further step, which the numbered list doesn't.
So here's my suggestion:
Note that the above steps are for dealing with issues of conduct, not content. For advice on resolving disputes over content, see Resolving content disputes, or if that fails, Resolving content disputes with outside help.Or maybe add a step early on saying something like
If the incivility is related to a content dispute, try to refocus the discussion on the content. If the discussion is going nowhere, consider requesting outside help in resolving the content dispute.
I don't really have any experience with these processes though, so I thought it'd be good to raise this here rather than being wildly WP:BOLD. Colin M ( talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
For those either against or in favour of a unified code of conduct across all the wikiprojects, there's a specific working group discussion on it at meta. I think it could use some extra discussion. Link to Basic Suggestions Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This summary of some research on Wikipedia found three types of incivility on the English Wikipedia (about 10 minutes into the talk):
This page mostly focuses on the "content-based" incivility, such as insults. I am thinking that it might be a good idea to write a short section on the first one. "Policy weaponization" encompasses what we might call wikilawyering and POV pushing, and they are both destructive to civil collaboration.
So imagine, for example, that someone proposes adding information about a given POV, sourced to several gold-plated reliable sources, in an article whose main subject is relevant to that POV (e.g., a social justice POV if the article is about a social problem, an Asian POV in an article about Asian countries, a feminist POV in articles about gender, a religious POV in an article about religion, a different political POV in an article about politics, etc.). Another editor personally does not agree with this POV and opposes including it. I think that these forms of incivility would not be entirely unexpected by any editor who has spent time dealing with dispute resolution:
All of these behaviors are bad for our articles and for our community. They harm our ability to work together, which means that they are uncivil. I feel like our current policy emphasizes the "name calling" parts of incivility, and I think that it would be helpful to balance this by acknowledging that harming the community comes in more, and more important, forms than anything that a "bad word checker" could identify. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Another thing that I thought was interesting in this talk was the identification of our social norms as being not just from encyclopedia communities, but also scientific and FLOSS communities. That last one might be where we get our notion that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – as long as you're not "thin-skinned" about being subjected to incivility, of course. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The updated recommendations (no major changes post phase 1 discussion) for a Unified Code of Conduct can be found at META Community Health Recommendations
Please give your views on its Talk Page Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
How do I deal with this comment? SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 01:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
With the announcement today (22nd May) by the WMF Board of several significant T&S-related changes, please consider taking a look and participating at the Village Pump Discussion to discuss a Community reaction(s). Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the policy adequately cover labeling people in ways that they do not identify with, and are poorly defined, or there is not sufficient evidence to indicate beyond reasonable doubt (or even balance of probability) that they are in fact a member of the group described by a well defined label? In some cases labels have been applied to people, or groups of people who have done something similar, and then apparently used as a reason to assume that their actions are influenced by them being what the label appears to imply. Many people are offended by what they see as mislableling as members of a group. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Should we encourage reverting edits that are uncivil or perceived as such more? There seems to be already some old discussions about how this policy is poorly or inconsistently enforced, many of which are more polemic than constructive. I guess reverting for incivility can be misused, as much as any Wikipedia policy, but if done right (with a not provocative edit summary) it could lead to a more constructive rephrasing. Discussions prone to incivility seem likely to be scrutinized more often by the involved editors, so abusing this for some kind of censorship seems less likely. The major benefit I see in this kind of approach is that less polite contributions will have a lower visibility and will not be perceived as an acceptable behavior by other contributors (replies which just mention the policy, rightfully or not, can have the opposite effect or be equally incivil, the article looks sometimes as a guide to escalate the problem instead of solving it). Not sure how this should be phrased in the already long article and some similar thoughts can apply to wp:NPA, but comments and suggestions are welcomed. Quaqual ( talk) 03:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
In the context of this discussion, do we need brightlines on zero tolerance behavior? While we've become so inured to vulgarisms that "fuck" is not actionable, is there not a line that must not be crossed? While one might see clearly that sexually violent imagery should be right out, apparently we don't. So should there be clear cut lines that cannot be crossed?
Just don't use any uncivil words while one sticks the knife in between their ribs and twists itI wasn't aware rib-stabbing is a Wikipedia feature. Turn off the drama, no one is getting stabbed here. Bright☀ 02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware rib-stabbing is a Wikipedia feature- you need to pay more attention to the Christmas wishlist! Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
no one is getting stabbed herecitation needed - Please re-source yourself. WP:NEWTREAT Stabing does occur. Melt 09:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I disagree with you very strongly, will not get me stabbed.
Fuck off, moron, will.
Its really not all that hard to not have someone stab and you twist the knife. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The stabbing is done by cleverly using the system to get people. Of course, talking very civilly while you do it is a part of the cleverness. A far bigger consequence than the pain of hearing a dirty word. North8000 ( talk) 13:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
to show what I meant, there is never going to be any brightines, as there is always going to be someone who will excuse egregious breaches of not only police, but also basic civil decency, as being stabbed in the back or entrapped ("yes I know he called them a cunt, but they did refuse to let him have his way, it was a deliberate attempt to get him to say cunt"). Slatersteven ( talk) 09:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
If someone is reading the dealing with incivility section of this page, they want to know how to handle a user conduct issue, right? But the text mixes in some advice that's only relevant to content disputes. For example, step 7 of the numbered list at the top says:
If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors.
But
WP:DRN says This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors.
.
The next section ("Dispute resolution") is a bit confusing, because it seems like it's trying to do the same thing as the numbered list above it (give a recipe for dealing with incivility), but... it's a different recipe? It doesn't mention DRN, but instead gives WP:Third opinion (which is also for disputes of content, not conduct) as the step before WP:AN/I. It also mentions arbcom as a further step, which the numbered list doesn't.
So here's my suggestion:
Note that the above steps are for dealing with issues of conduct, not content. For advice on resolving disputes over content, see Resolving content disputes, or if that fails, Resolving content disputes with outside help.Or maybe add a step early on saying something like
If the incivility is related to a content dispute, try to refocus the discussion on the content. If the discussion is going nowhere, consider requesting outside help in resolving the content dispute.
I don't really have any experience with these processes though, so I thought it'd be good to raise this here rather than being wildly WP:BOLD. Colin M ( talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
For those either against or in favour of a unified code of conduct across all the wikiprojects, there's a specific working group discussion on it at meta. I think it could use some extra discussion. Link to Basic Suggestions Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This summary of some research on Wikipedia found three types of incivility on the English Wikipedia (about 10 minutes into the talk):
This page mostly focuses on the "content-based" incivility, such as insults. I am thinking that it might be a good idea to write a short section on the first one. "Policy weaponization" encompasses what we might call wikilawyering and POV pushing, and they are both destructive to civil collaboration.
So imagine, for example, that someone proposes adding information about a given POV, sourced to several gold-plated reliable sources, in an article whose main subject is relevant to that POV (e.g., a social justice POV if the article is about a social problem, an Asian POV in an article about Asian countries, a feminist POV in articles about gender, a religious POV in an article about religion, a different political POV in an article about politics, etc.). Another editor personally does not agree with this POV and opposes including it. I think that these forms of incivility would not be entirely unexpected by any editor who has spent time dealing with dispute resolution:
All of these behaviors are bad for our articles and for our community. They harm our ability to work together, which means that they are uncivil. I feel like our current policy emphasizes the "name calling" parts of incivility, and I think that it would be helpful to balance this by acknowledging that harming the community comes in more, and more important, forms than anything that a "bad word checker" could identify. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Another thing that I thought was interesting in this talk was the identification of our social norms as being not just from encyclopedia communities, but also scientific and FLOSS communities. That last one might be where we get our notion that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – as long as you're not "thin-skinned" about being subjected to incivility, of course. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The updated recommendations (no major changes post phase 1 discussion) for a Unified Code of Conduct can be found at META Community Health Recommendations
Please give your views on its Talk Page Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
How do I deal with this comment? SpinnerLaserz ( talk) 01:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
With the announcement today (22nd May) by the WMF Board of several significant T&S-related changes, please consider taking a look and participating at the Village Pump Discussion to discuss a Community reaction(s). Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the policy adequately cover labeling people in ways that they do not identify with, and are poorly defined, or there is not sufficient evidence to indicate beyond reasonable doubt (or even balance of probability) that they are in fact a member of the group described by a well defined label? In some cases labels have been applied to people, or groups of people who have done something similar, and then apparently used as a reason to assume that their actions are influenced by them being what the label appears to imply. Many people are offended by what they see as mislableling as members of a group. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Should we encourage reverting edits that are uncivil or perceived as such more? There seems to be already some old discussions about how this policy is poorly or inconsistently enforced, many of which are more polemic than constructive. I guess reverting for incivility can be misused, as much as any Wikipedia policy, but if done right (with a not provocative edit summary) it could lead to a more constructive rephrasing. Discussions prone to incivility seem likely to be scrutinized more often by the involved editors, so abusing this for some kind of censorship seems less likely. The major benefit I see in this kind of approach is that less polite contributions will have a lower visibility and will not be perceived as an acceptable behavior by other contributors (replies which just mention the policy, rightfully or not, can have the opposite effect or be equally incivil, the article looks sometimes as a guide to escalate the problem instead of solving it). Not sure how this should be phrased in the already long article and some similar thoughts can apply to wp:NPA, but comments and suggestions are welcomed. Quaqual ( talk) 03:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)