User:Ched/civility sandbox

Pesky's first thoughts

Clarifying civility stuff. Let's try and keep the language as clear and simple as possible, so that the maximum number of readers can understand it without effort.

Here are a few meta-pointers I'd personally like to see included in a reworded civility policy.

Equity of Enforcement

In anything other than an emergency situation, blocking for incivility should only be considered as a last resort, after all other attempts have failed. Dispute resolution, wikiquette assistance, and community comments on user conduct should all have failed before a block would be considered. Blocks are for prevention, not for punishment. There will, of course, be some instances where a user's transient incivility may have been caused by intoxication, in which case a twelve-hour block would be sufficient to prevent the immediate problem. Editors are advised not to edit while intoxicated!

Other than emergency situations where immediate action is required, only in the case where an editor's incivility rises to the level of causing disruption and all else has failed should a block be considered; and then not without consensus from the community. The more established an editor is, the more important this becomes. On occasion, an out-of-character incivility spree may indicate a Real Life problem. If possible, suggest to the editor that they take a short (unenforced) break until they are calm again.

Nobody is exempt from the requirements in this policy. Administrators, in particular, are expected to maintain a very high standard at all times. An administrator should never reprimand, sanction, or block another editor for any behaviour which they themselves have also exhibited, or for any behaviour which they would have tolerated in a different user.

Unfairly-applied and ill-judged "civility blocks", in non-emergency situations and without consensus, could result in action being taken against the blocking admin. The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon.

First do no harm

There is no excuse for being deliberately hurtful.

The editor(s) you're communicating with have feelings, which can be hurt even if you didn't intend to do so. And if you did intend to do so, then slap your own wrists! Intending to cause someone hurt or harm is about as uncivil as it gets.

On the whole, most people are self-aware enough to know perfectly well when they're doing something downright nasty, or with a downright nasty hidden agenda. Don't do it. Take a break; walk away; let someone else fix the problem (if there is one.)

In the simplest of terms, "civility" consists of just three very basic, easy, and easy-to-remember rules.

Be kind.
Be patient.
Be understanding.

If what you're about to say or do isn't kind, patient and understanding, then don't do it that way. Even if you find yourself having to call for action against another editor, do it as calmly and neutrally as the calmest, most level-headed person you can think of would find possible under the circumstances.

The unforgivables – intentional harm with malice aforethought!

Deliberately "setting someone up" or trying to get them into trouble
Provoking someone until even a saint would snap, and then reporting them for snapping (baiting, in other words)
Making false accusations about someone.

These actions, once you're found out (and eventually you will be) are viewed extremely dimly by the whole community. And quite rightly so, too.

Plain misunderstandings are common

These are often at the root of squabbles that turn into heated arguments. Saying the same thing in the same way repeatedly doesn't work. Pointing someone to the same policy page over and over again doesn't work. If they didn't get all the nuances of what you said (or what the policy said) the first time around, shouting it at them won't work either. Re-word it as necessary, draw real-life-experience parallels if they help to illustrate and clarify your point. And double check whether what you've understood someone to be saying was what they actually meant, before making any assumptions about them. They may be using a slightly different version of English than the one you're used to, in which some words have slightly different inferences and meanings than the way you've always used them.

Try not to make assumptions, too! The person you're imagining as being a 17-year-old boy may actually be someone's granny, and vice versa. Who knows, it might even be your granny! Or sibling, or aunt, or best friend's sister ... On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Seek first to understand, and then to be understood.

Do some research; seek insight

When you come across an editor you haven't "met" before, particularly if you're having trouble understanding each other, it's often very well worth while reading through their user page, looking at their userboxes (if they have them), and browsing through their talk page to get a better understanding of the person you're interacting with. It can make an enormous difference if you just take a little while to "get to know someone" a bit better. You may find you have other interests in common which will help your communications. Another thing worth doing is looking at their user talk page interactions on other people's pages, to see how other people get along with them, what works, what doesn't. It's hard to "know" someone instinctively online as we have so few cues (and some of us aren't brilliant at in in real life, either!) But we can take some time to learn the other person. Nothing's usually terribly urgent in Wikipedia, nothing's on fire, and a bit of time spent sussing out who someone is can save an awful lot of hassle and time wasted in bickering.

Appreciate both similarities and differences

Being "different" isn't the same as being "evil"!

The WikiCommunity has a lot of shared aspects with the global community. All editors have feelings; all editors are human; all editors are fallible, and the vast majority of editors, the vast majority of the time, did what they genuinely felt was the best thing at the time they did it.
BUT ... there are lots of differences between the WikiCommunity and the Real-Life community, too. Consider, for example, how many of the people you meet at work, in the pub, in the café, at school, or in any other Real-Life situation, would be the sort of person who will happily decide to spend hours of their time, unpaid, writing an encyclopedia, as opposed to going out for a meal, or a party, or some sporting activity, or anything else that most people in "Real Life" would prefer to do. We're a bit different in here. We have more than our fair share of people who are very bright but whose interpersonal and social skills are not quite so good. (Which may very well explain why they'd rather stay home and edit than go out and party.)
Long-term Wikipedia editors are passionate people, and frequently with a more-than-average level of obsessiveness. They have to be, to stick with it. That's why they're here.

Get help early

Conflicts occur because passionate editors who care about Wikipedia see things differently. Recognize when you and another editor just aren't going to agree and get more members from the community involved. For example, WP:RFC, WP:DRN et. al. Never leave it so long that you're just sick of trying to cope any more; conflict is best nipped in the bud before people get hurt.

Friends and foes!

Don't "take sides" unless you're taking the side of the encyclopedia.

It's perfectly OK to have differences of opinion; that's one of the things which helps us to expand the encyclopedia and make it better. We can learn a lot from differences of opinion. Eventually, you're going to come across other editors who you just can't get along with. When that happens, stay away from them as much as you possibly can. You're also eventually going to get into situations where you have two WikiFriends who can't stand each other. That's OK. You don't need to be "on someone's side" or decide which of the two you're going to back up in any argument. In fact, taking sides is one sure way of finding a lot of people who you subsequently won't get along with, too. Sometimes your "enemy" can be right and your "friend" can be wrong. Judge on the situation, not on the people in it.

If your worst enemy puts sweetener in your coffee, it's not going to kill you! If your best friend accidentally puts strychnine in your coffee, you've got a problem! Watch your coffee, not who's just stirred it.

When you find yourself in the middle of a situation you're not sure how to handle, you can either back away from it, get help, or ask yourself how the wisest and fairest person you can think of (in fact or fiction) might deal with it. Whether it's Saint Benedict or Professor Dumbledore doesn't matter. Try to deal with it in the way they would.

If you find yourself in the middle of a conversation which seems to be turning into a catfight, don't snap back. Don't join the fight. Take a deep breath, count to ten (or a hundred, if it's bad), and consider posting something along the lines of "Please can we all step back for a while and calm down? We're not getting anywhere like this." And if someone snaps back at you, shut up on that page and call for help.

Do's and Don'ts

Edit summaries

Remember you can't go back and change them!

Do

Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess it quickly
Use neutral language
Be calm

Don't

Make snide comments about what you've edited or what you're responding to
Make personal remarks about editors
Be aggressive

Examples:

Cut rambling crap N
Shortened for clarity Y
We're writing an encyclopedia, not a novel N
Reworded more encyclopedically Y
Unverifiable BS N
Removed until sourced Y
Stay the fuck off my talk page in future N
Please don't post on my talk again Y

General interactions

Try not to get too intense. Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.
Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over. (See Editing under the influence!)
Take a Real-Life check; disengage by two steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough, many people can just brush things off, and it's water off a duck's back. So, to get a better perspective, ask yourself: "How would I feel if someone said that to my granny / mother / partner / sister / daughter / nephew / best friend?" instead. How would you feel if someone said that to someone you love who can't just "brush it off"? If you'd find that unacceptable, then don't say it. And, if you've already said it, strike through it and apologise.
Just because we're online and unpaid doesn't mean we can behave badly to each other. People working together in a newspaper office aren't supposed to get into punch-ups in the newsroom because they disagree about how something's worded or whose turn it is to make the coffee. Nor are volunteers working at the animal rescue centre allowed to start screaming at each other over who left ferrets in the filing cabinet or the corn snake in the cutlery drawer. In fact, there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-callng. Same applies here, too.

Different places; different atmospheres

Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces. They're places to talk about how to improve the article, and to discuss the article (though it's OK for conversations to wander into related areas, or go more into depth than the article does, as that helps with research and gives ideas on improvement). But an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there. Clearly, just like in a real kitchen, it's no more acceptable to stick a knife in someone than it is in the office! Personal attacks aren't acceptable anywhere, but expect users' own talk pages to have a much more informal atmosphere than article talk pages.

It's OK to say sorry

There's no loss of face in apologising. We all make mistakes, we all say the odd hurtful thing, we all have bad days and bad moments. If you have a sneaky feeling you owe someone an apology, offer the apology. Apologising doesn't hurt you.

Remember, though, that you can't demand an apology from anyone else. It will only get their back up and make it either less likely to happen, or to be totally insincere if you do get an apology. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of "pride" is destructive; in fact it's not even "pride", it's pig-headedness.

Dealing with incivility

First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification.
Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better! (Note: if an awful lot of people seem to be getting ratty with you, the problem may be with you!)
Even if you're hurt, be as kind as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm.
Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors aren't mind-readers!
Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they haven't already done so by this point.

If none of this is working, either walk away (if the other person isn't damaging the 'pedia or being uncivil / unkind to other editors), or get help. Dispute resolution and Wikiquette input from uninvolved editors might resolve something. It's worth a try!
In "emergency" situations (where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call) take it to the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard.
For longer-term, less acute, but persistently unkind/uncivil editors, request for comment from the community.

Disruption or disrespect

The Wikipedia civility policy Civility

Wikipedia's editors should not disrupt discussions. To further our efforts in building an encyclopedia, we need to avoid using language which can be reasonably expected to confuse, upset or insult our readers, or is likely to be construed as belittling or demeaning to another user. That kind of language is very rarely necessary in order for another editor to be able to convey a clear and reasonable explanation of why the changes to an article are inappropriate. Once the fact that their behaviour is unacceptable has been made clear to an editor, they should stop that behaviour or explain to the complaining editor why they consider it reasonable. An editor who has brought a problem to the community's attention should generally step back at that point, to concentrate on something else; ideally contributing to the encyclopedia content.
If the editors are unable to agree on what is reasonable conduct, the wider community should be asked for input to judge consensus on the issue. If an editor continues unnecessarily to use language or behaviour which the community has decided is offensive or upsetting to significant numbers of Wikipedia's readers, or which is judged to be belittling or demeaning, sanctions may be imposed upon the editor in question.

Likewise, if an editor repeatedly accuses another editor of inappropriate conduct after they are aware that the broader community has decided that the conduct is acceptable, sanctions may be imposed to prevent the editor in question from continuing to make vexations complaints.
If it is decided that an editor's activities are causing serious disruption or damage to Wikipedia, extra sanctions may be imposed through administrative action.

Blocks and other sanctions will not be applied for breaches of this policy unless the community has agreed that the sanctions are fair and necessary.