User:Guy Macon/Civility

(The following something User:Snow Rise posted to Wikipedia talk:Civility on 02:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC), edited by Snow Rise to remove the part that talked about the particular case we were discussing and leave the general comments about civility. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC))

When I first became a more regular editor here around eight years ago, if you dropped "fuck off" comments with a volatile tone, you got blocked&mdash;you just did. This was just not even a question. But something has changed in the intervening years--and no, it's not just the worsening climate for respectful debate and discussion that has settled upon the first world in the last couple of years (or at least not just that), because this trend began to develop in the years before the worst developments in the larger social sphere. That's a situation that has perplexed me for a while now, because I've always had the impression that most Wikipedians are rationalists who would recognize crass displays of anger or animosity in place of logic as a path to self-defeat in any discussion. We all know ten people on this project who are obvious exceptions to that rule, but the rest of us outnumber them by a considerable ratio, so clearly the problems here are with our systems, not with our contributors, by and large.

But whatever the cause, the situation has gone from bad to worse, particularly in the last three years. Support for civility is much, much higher in our editorial community, of course, but it is more diffuse and stalwarts of WP:CIV are much less organized and engaged in community spaces than are hotheads who see the writing on the wall for their own conduct and mobilize quickly to oppose efforts to shore-up our enforcement of bright line violations (though to be fair, they do this in good faith, believing that completely unrestricted speech is nothing but virtue). All of that said, the response to this situation must take stock of our broader issues, and many of the solutions will be common among responses to all manner of incivil WP:disruptive behaviour. If this kind of thing is already against policy (and it is) then the solution is unlikely to be "make more policy"; the answer has to be something about our culture and how we implement those policies. I do have some ideas as far as that is concerned:
 * This has got to start with the admin corps. Look, my friends, I understand how easy it is for you to step into it and face personal repercussions, but you are in a unique position to head problems off fast (or at the pass, to use a that charming American colloquialism) by drawing a line in the sand when necessary. Policy and community consensus are on your side, provided you make the distinction between incidental swearing and directed/insulting swearing. You may pay a price in drawn-out battles at ANI and before ArbCom at first, but once the standard is re-affirmed, it will again become less drama to uphold our conduct guidelines and those who cannot adapt will dig their own graves. We all agree to work collaboratively here, and those who can't or won't were going to need to be shown the door eventually anyway. Admins are invested with authority for the very narrow and specific purpose of upholding our policies and intervening to provide a bulwark against disruption. WP:CIVILITY is not just a policy, it is a pillar policy of this community. It ought to be applied accordingly.
 * The corollary is that admins cannot do this without vocal support from the rank and file. Admins need a clear indication about how important this is to us so that they know they are acting in accordance with community will and they need our support when their names get dragged through the mud by our most volatile community members in reaction to the slightest efforts to reign in their behaviour or that of other hotheads. Holding people to the standards of our policies is not "admin abuse", nor is extracting a promise from a disruptive editor to try to do better before the community lets them off the hook for something inappropriate they said. Commit to spending some time discussing our cultural values--the hotheads and WP:CIV skeptics (who are not necessarily the same people) already do this, and that's how they manage to slowly move the needle on our conduct standards despite being a small minority. Speak up when you see a discussion about hostile behaviour. Do it respectfully and responsibly though--ANI and similar spaces where most conduct issues are raised are inherently tense and adversarial places. Most people being scrutinized there are not necessarily at their absolute best in that moment, and understandably so. The goal must always be to first try to convince the editor of the value of a different approach and sanction and public condemnation is often entirely avoidable, with enough patience and forethought.
 * Speaking of the WP:CIV skeptics, befriend a few of them. By and large they are not WP:disruptive and of that limited portion of them that are, they aren't irredeemably disruptive. Most of them have just lived a life (professional and otherwise) where they believe that "calling a spade for a spade" is simply a form of honesty. But they value this project and its future as much as those of us who view WP:CIVILITY as needing stronger enforcement. We must make our case to them and not just each other. Engage with them. Even if it means turning a blind eye to things you'd rather not. Even if you suspect its a lost cause. You might have to take a few on the chin for your efforts. Oh well, that's the usual cost for consensus building. Some of you may find this advice a little convenient given I am above talking about establishing firmer enforcement above, but I do not see a conflict here: the line in the sand is important, but it stands miles away from the first opportunities we usually have to win someone over.
 * Put your money where your mouth is. The thing about civility is that it is a form of strength; it tells the world you have self-control and a sense of security about the value of your point of view. The worse the abuse you can stand through without breaking down and doing something impulsive, the taller you stand in a time where mudslingers are a dime a dozen. Incivility says the exact opposite; it demonstrates (especially on this site) that you are not able to stand toe-to-toe with your rhetorical opponent and win through the virtue of your beliefs and the ability to break down illogical propositions, so you will instead resort to an emotional outburst. But you have to have the self-discipline to make that case by example: usually nothing else will do. Resort to a report or process as the very last stop; if you haven't weathered thirty combined insults from multiple parties for every time you report someone, you probably aren't trying hard enough. Racist, misogynistic and other group insults are obviously an exception; that's about more than you, and you ought to report those immediately. But if someone tells you that you are a nitwit for feeling the way you do about WP:BLP or WP:CRYSTAL, have the strength to ignore the insult and focus on the weaknesses of their argument, at least for a time.
 * There are also some things we can do in systemic terms. For one, I think it's time for us to reconsider the value of allowing threads at ANI to be closed with a (non-admin closure) (NAC). Let me say that I think the vast majority of the time, these are simple procedural closes and the non-admins do a fine job summarizing the consensus of the discussion. The uptick in NACs has also made ANI much more readable the last two years. But it's proven to come with a cost. Some non-admins are being a little too loose in how often they utilize them and where they feel comfortable in doing so. These may represent a minority of discussions, but the ones that do get closed prematurely often forestall action that may be sorely needed. We have admins for a reason, and though I am very happy that we have a collaborative culture where non-admins are expected to be heavily involved at behavioural discussion spaces, it's important to have someone with the authority to implement a consensus be the one to decide it. When discussions are closed prematurely with a NAC, it short-circuits the possibility of an admin taking ownership of a bright line call. It also opens the door to more bias, with editors becoming increasingly likely to close a discussion which has implications to the conduct which may have brought them to ANI recently. WP:BOLD has an important role in our community, but I think it is inappropriate for a closure at ANI.

I have other suggestions, but this may be my single longest comment anywhere in my history on this project, and those of you who know me know that I am not exactly short-spoken. Anyway, at the end of the day, this is not about rules, it is about culture. It is about who we decide, as a community, to be. We can enshrine all of the policies we want, but if we don't re-commit daily to walking the walk and speaking up where necessary, we will continue to spiral into acrimony and this project--the laudable, noble endeavour to share the sum of human knowledge-- will come to a screeching halt. Most of us take it for granted that Wikipedia is a fixture in the world now. Don't. It takes a lot of work to maintain good things in this world, and nothing is harder work than getting along with human beings. We're a mess. But we have potential, and that's what Wikipedia is all about. Snow let's rap 20:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)