User talk:Buster7/CERFC

Why are some editors rude

 * It's easier than co-operating or finding a common ground. Or so it seems. Ethnic slurs, insulting profanity, and unnecessary commenting on the contributor rather than the content is easier than research.
 * It's easier than co-operating or finding a common ground. Or so it seems. Ethnic slurs, insulting profanity, and unnecessary commenting on the contributor rather than the content is easier than research.
 * Incivility conveys a meaning - Disdain...Power...Anger...Threat...Control...Ignorance...Rudeness + Incivility conveys a meaning, an underlying purpose. Be it mDisdain, Power, Anger, Threats, Control, Ignorance, Rudeness.
 * But.....Wikipedia provides a delay mechanism; the Show preview button. The editor has a moment to reconsider. A civil editor will rephrase, reconstruct, recast the sentence; removing any hint of hostility. An un-civil editor doesn't: instead, he intentionally agitates, further and further, to the point of combustion. A civil editor channels his anger in a constructive manner and searches for a way to build the encyclopedia. An un-civil editor doesn't: an un-civil editor attacks.  But.....Wikipedia provides a delay mechanism; the Show preview button. The editor has a moment to reconsider. A civil editor will rephrase, reconstruct, recast the sentence; removing any hint of hostility. An un-civil editor doesn't: instead, he intentionally agitates, further and further, to the point of combustion. A civil editor channels his anger in a constructive manner and searches for a way to build the encyclopedia. An un-civil editor doesn't: an un-civil editor attacks.

Statement
There can be no WP editing without people. And when people gather there follows some sort or form of association for the purpose of maintaining order amongst those people. It is a given that WP is vulnerable to incivil behavior. The question becomes what to do once the behavior and the perpetrator have been identified. WP should be bound by an ironclad commitment to a safe and comfortable working environment for ALL employees. (I say employees knowing we are all unpaid. But, except for that minor detail we are "at work".) We should be assured of a professional workspace. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Protect the Assets
Editors of value are worth protecting. They do the work of encyclopedia building. They should not have to suffer Incivility. Turmoil, and the stress that accompanies it, should not be the "pay" an editor gets for his efforts. We need to do more to safeguard where we work. Our editors participate in the project expecting to be treated with courtesy. We must maintain high standards of decorum appropriate to an intellectual project. Attacks, smears, and threats directed against our colleagues must not be tolerated. Participating in Wikipedia can be fun and exciting, but editors who lack the maturity and self-control needed to take part in a fundamentally serious undertaking must be firmly asked to leave. Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals. One who sometimes has good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. This is in part due to people's fascination with conflict. Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult and time consuming.

What we do will echo down the Halls of Time
That certainly speaks to the Wikipedia experience. And confronts the need (and some might claim the obligation) of WikiEditors to work together to create a positive historic path. The subtle (almost un-noticed) but widespread drift into incivility is always so obvious when we observe it from outside the discussion, as bystanders. But it is hard to resist when we are on the playfield. The unfriendly attack is usually directed toward a lone individual but it lives forever and "attacks" others with its meanness for the rest of all time. Any Editor that traverses the various talk-page archives. etc will attest to their sometimes vile and attacking nature. I am often left thinking, "Did he just say that to another person"?

Peer pressure

 * Peer pressure is a valid force to change behavior. At Wikipedia, the behavior of group members can easily and anonomously be viewed by other members of the group. The higher the observation rate and subsequent involvement of concerned group members, the more likely the "contrary" members of that group will follow the group's norms and expectations. And the more likely that a wayward editor might see the error of his ways and alter his behavior moving forward. If enough GFE's show up, and demand improved behavior, then discordant behavior will most likely change for the better.
 * Peer pressure can become a positive challenge for all Wikipedia editors to confront incivility when it appears even though it is not directed at them. We should all voice displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens in our presence. Let the offending editor know that more and more of the community is displeased. Also, confronting of the civility by the editors that are present lets future admins (that may get involved) know and realize that the offense did not happen in a vacuum and that more than the victim was affected.
 * Peer pressure is a reminder to the offender that the social norms and values of Wikipedia are for the protection of the workspace, not just the editors. Peer pressure holds the capacity to be a vehicle for change within Wiki World, or a protector of the downtrodden, or a spokeperson for civility. Take your pick!

retreaved from here and there
The problem is that too many editors view the Wikipedia community as a microcosm of their own whole real-life community, where incivil behaviour is tolerated, and without strong consequences for unacceptable actions or comments. No big deal if you flip your finger at the guy who cut you off. But...Wikipedia is a workplace staffed by volunteers, and the workplace environment should be protected. If someone volunteers their my time at a local community center, but they were rude and abrasive to their co-workers, they would probably be asked to leave. We ought to do the same more often here. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.
 * Some editors' uncivil behavior is perennially tolerated, and this fosters a problematic atmosphere where it is unclear what is ok and what is not.
 * For good reasons, we do not generally tolerate name-calling in our real-life professional environments, and we should not do so here.

Some styles work, I think - I have had good results when I engage carefully - but some do not (the good old "My WPCIVIL club is bigger than yours is WHACK" approach...). When we fail to engage at all, it hurts. When we let someone engage on WP:CIVIL issues and they proceed to be overly aggressive or disrespectful to the parties in the way they respond, it hurts. Not having any consistency about the responses doesn't engender trust in the policy.
 * ....if you are intelligent enough to contribute to this project, you are intelligent enough to understand that its not acceptable to insult other people. You will be civil or you will be gone. Either outcome solves the problem, and its entirely up to the editor in question to which occurs. ...editors who already have a persistent civility issue (as recognized by Arbs or the community issuing a parole) are told enough is enough, and then given 3 additional chances to consider whether how much they want to be a member of our community.
 * "Is WP:CIV being abused with significant frequency?" (which is very counter-productive) To which my answer is yes, significantly, but not exclusively. Also, a good question "Is there a coherent style of collective enforcement" to which I answer "no".
 * For me the issue of civility is of prime importance, because it is at the core of enabling a community to colaborate. ....many editors even the most established ones have an understanding of being civil that amounts to "no swear words" - But the real problem is with "polite incivilty" consisting of using arrogant language without four-letter words, being uncooperative, dismissive, ridiculing or humiliating other editors, assuming bad faith, not being willing to admit errors, not being willing to apologize for what others perceive as hurtful or confrontational. For example a lot of persons attitude when confronted with someone asking them to be more civil is..."..that is not uncivil" or "..that is not a personal attack". If the other party finds it to be a personal attack - then the appropriate response is always "ok, sorry. I didn't mean it to be an attack". I also see that veteran editors (and particularly admins) get a much longer leash on civilty issues than other users - this is a problem.


 * Civility is not to be confused with wrapping things up in cotton wool. Politeness costs nothing. Rudeness achieves little.


 * ....at the origin of this phenomenon is a deficient theory of mind. Everyone is a little jerk at the age of four, because hey, you are the center of the universe. Then we are socialized, and come to assume that others are at the center of their universes, and we learn to make allowance for this, expecting them to make the same allowance for us. Then, during our teenage years we learn, very painfully, that we are really exocentric, and (we learn) that we can only be whole if we bear ourselves with both self-esteem and humility. But some people do not make this transition, and they take their toddler solipsism into adulthood, very much to their own grief, but also to the significant annoyance of their environment and the people in it.

..and here and there...

 * ...just a quick bit of advice, you may like being an asshole in real life, but it won't do you any good here.
 * ... Communicating clearly (not in English, which is not my first language) is what I do for a living. It has never occurred to me that I might make myself more clear by interjecting obscenities - quite the opposite.
 * Civility never impedes clarity. It only seems like it to editors who do not have the social skills to recognize when they are being incivil and then simply refrain from it, or who lack the verbal skills (or the will) to rephrase their emotionally charged comments to neutral polite responses. Everything that can be said in an incivil way can also be said (with better results) in a civil respectful manner.

A sincere apology
I responded to your concerns on my talkpage, however I wanted to add a brief note here. Since it seems that my wording have may have been offensive to you personally, I want to offer my personal apology if I have caused you to feel hurt in any way. Sincerely, User:AssumeGoodFaith
 * The current policy has been made into a sieve designed to be too vague and lenient to be useful. It is no coincidence that very many of the names on its history pop up at regular interval when aggressiveness and rudeness are discussed. As written, it makes a complete farce and mockery of our fourth pillar.


 * ...... downgrading this core policy to a guideline. There is already enough wikilawyering over this, along with a lot of feigned ignorance about what constitutes civil discourse. Collaborative editing and working towards consensus can only be achieved in a civil environment.
 * "I've been able to get through Wikipedia for years, in one of the most controversial of areas, with other people getting into trouble for civility violations right and left around me. I've had people take me to ArbCom twice, and a terribly hostile RfC. I edited for many months with most everyone, including admins, out to get me. And I've been able to say everything I needed to say, and almost everything I wanted to say. This is not because I only needed to say nice things. It's because I know how to be civil. So, I simply disagree that we need to have a watered down civility policy."
 * Conflict is as addictive as cocaine, and unfortunately Wikipedia's civility policies only limit incivility among those who respect them in the first place, and who have the personal strength not to need to retaliate. Anonymity is to cowardice what Viagra is to impotence.
 * "..... but requires also the acquisition of adaptations that permit co-existence with potential competitors."
 * "..... it unfortunately confirmed the identical issue that the other editors have complained of. Namely a bullying aggressive tone that is counter-productive to civil discourse on Wikipedia. That is the reason for the block. I truly hope that the time off will help the editor to read Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and WP:CIVIL and reflect on the merits of a calmer more friendly approach to fellow editors, even in the heat of disagreements.

...plus here and there
This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned"...User:CLHndLk

Civility is largely a social construct - what passes for polite conversation amongst a group of stevedores would scarcely pass muster at a gathering of the lords and ladies of the court - so one has to take cues on what is polite from other members of a particular society. You can see what sort of message you're getting. User:________ reminds us (above) that there is a human being behind the virtual User:---X---, and I urge you to bear in mind that the people you communicate with are also human, with the same need for a 'measure of dignity' that you have. Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages.
 * You wrote: "Try to do whatever on you can on Wikipedia that genuinely satisfies you." The problem is that some people are genuinely satisfied by fighting, arguing, and scheming. We have a preponderance of editors who, given the choice, would sooner comment on 100 dramas du jour than improve a single uncontroversial article. I think they are doing what satisfies them.
 * &Please don't confuse maintaining a civil and goal-directed working environment with "censorship". If you showed up at a town council meeting, grabbed the microphone, and started ranting about all the things and people that you don't like, would it be "censorship" if someone turned off your mike?
 * "I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it." Capt. Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove.
 * ....editors should focus on the merits of the content, rather than on unrelated personal grudges/conflicts/prejudice with contributors -the latter poisons the environment, particularly when and where disagreement arises.
 * It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance. Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary? Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go, being able to do so is the true test of strength and maturity. You only gain in the long run. Retaliating not only brings you discredit, but it increases your anger, and corresponding risk of over-reaction, as the number of related provocations rises.

...and even over there

 * Im not competing against you, per se. Im competing against whats in this basket. ...Chopped Contestant


 * Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion....In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions.


 * I wish we could all talk face-to-face -- I think this would be a much friendlier place. Online, it's easy to be rude; more commonly, we inadvertently miscommunicate our emotions or motivations ambiguously in ways that would never happen face-to-face or even over the phone. Pretty soon folks are seen as spammers and fascists. This is further complicated by our community's non-hierarchical, even anarchic structure and our labyrinthine myriad of rules...User:Wrydlight

When someone gives me "the finger" in real life, I usually just smile, knowingly, at their childish act. It drives them crazy.
 * ...It's just a polite conditional. In the same way, saying "I'd love it if you'd pass the salt" is more polite than the indicative "I want you to pass the salt", which is itself more polite than the imperative "Pass the salt". Embedding an opinion in a conditional expression reduces its force, and that suggests humility, non-aggression, etc.
 * It is absolutely impossible for anyone who claims to be rational, which is to say human, outrightly to defend violence .... [As Paul Ricoeur writes:]'. . . violence (incivility) is the opposite of discourse. Violence (incivility) is always the interruption of discourse: discourse is always the interruption of violence (incivility).' That violence (incivility) is the opposite of discourse means that it can never justify itself for only through discourse can anything be justified.
 * ...one of the earliest "manifesto's" explaining why a superb Wikipedia left the project: 1. JHK had a PhD in history but she never used her credentials to bludgeon another editor or even to justify an edit. She simply did high quality research. But endless arguments with other editors, who were both POV pushers and poor researchers, wore her out.
 * ...and what about over thereInitially, I believe that an editor deserves automatic respect as a part of the collaborative process. An administrator even more so. But when someone starts an exchange with disrespect then the process breaks down, I think. And though I usually realize afterward that it may not help the project, my reaction is to be less diplomatic than usual (ie, more blunt) because the other editor chose that path.

A New Look at the New Age
The current technological shifts in communication are unprecedented. We live in a new time where some of the old rules just don't fit anymore. The Internet, cell phones, the Social Media (FaceBook, Twitter, etc) have become a very important part of daily freetime for many people. Wikipedia exists on the Internet where the roots of incivility are tracable to several societal changes.

First, no one is satisfied with being average. Almost everyone wants to be associated with some kind of extreme activity or accomplishment. We want to be noticed in this new environment. For some, if that notice comes for the "wrong" reason, for being a "jerk', well...so be it!...thats OK!

Our interactions with other people that were once governed by internal mores and subject to the social rules of caution and embarrassment are now easily externalized; of no importance, no meaning, of little effect or value. "O well. So what!"

Secondly, controls of the past that prevented incivil social behavior do not exist on the Internet which decrease our capacity for reflective thought, our capacity to consider the consequences of our actions. It's pretty much..."Anything goes....who's gonna stop me". It is easy to say mean things, vile things about another editor with a feelig of glee and pleasure rather than with a sober sense that what you're saying should be tempered by at least a little truth and reflection. The easy display of malice on the Internet is twisted. In the past we were socially restrained if only thanks to the grimace on the listener's face. The person we attacked was right in front of us. Now, with no social punishment, the monstrous voice that previously just spoke in our minds now speaks out loud, in the open, and, strangely, with a sense of accomplishment.

Also, the Internet provides a worldwide audience. A site like Wikipedia is viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. True, for this discussion about incivility, its a notorious worldwide platform but... it is still a platform...and the contrary editor is being noticed. He is the topic of conversation. Its all about him! he revels in it!

Which brings to mind another factor: the troublesome editor is anonymous. When you take away someones name and face you take away personal responsibility and the dark side of human nature appears. Rage, hatred, jealousy, bitterness, a willingness to attack and other qualities that most people would never reveal bubble to the surface. And the confrontational editor gives them voice.

Another societal change that derails age-old civil constraints on how we behave in public is Reality TV where the really good parts, the ones that get the most camera time and audience attention are the obnoxious, inflammatory anti-social contestants that are quick to anger and to blow up. Controls of the past that inhibited bad behavior are so far expanded and ignored that almost anything goes.

A State of Peace
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Let me cut that up into bite size piecesa state of balance and understanding

in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialogue, peoples rights are respected

and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point without social tension.

The Workplace
Incivility and negative behavior make uneasy bedfellows with normal, forwarding WP editing. Thru thoughtful debate and the building of enthusiasm and support among fellow editors...the work of the encyclopedia gets done. Why tolerate here what would not be tolerated in RealLife. Collaborative potential is everywhere until you piss on my/our leg! The key is.....Be friendly. Smile. Put on deodorant. Brush your teeth. Civility is the lubricant between faceless editorsThe object of the discussion is:

to insure a comfortable, non-contentious, professional workplace for all concerned, to reward (via freedom of movement) editors that respect their fellow editors, to preserve feelings of compatability & congeniality thru mutually respectful interaction, to investigate possible solutions for growing concerns regarding incivil behavior. The question should never be "How can I counter-attack a fellow editor?" But, rather, "How does this useless diatribe forward the Living Encyclopedia?" We need awareness of and appreciation for the connectedness between mutually responsible editors. It is a critical component of a solution. We have established norms and values. They should be respected for the goodwill they create. They should be followed for the professional workplace they create.

Social Order
Social order is a concept used in sociology, history and other social sciences. It refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices which conserve, maintain and enforce "normal" ways of relating and behaving. A social order is a relatively stable system of institutions, patterns of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence. The concept refers to all those facts of society which remain relatively constant over time. These conditions could include both property, exchange and power relations, but also cultural forms, communication relations and ideological systems of values.

Principle of dependenceIf a group (in this case the Wikipedia Community as a whole) means alot to a person, they will do what it is that the group wants them to do. In this case they will stop doing what the group wants them to stop doing.

Principle of extensivenessThe more important the norms are to a society, the better these norms tie and hold the group together as a whole. How we engage with each other at the talk pages is critical to the health of Wikipedia.

Fundamental Law of Contingency
One thing leads to another. And when it doesn't, it leads somewhere else.

The Domino Effect
A pointed query about the role of chance in our lives. Contingency haunts us all. What if I had never travelled to Cinncinatti on business and met my future wife. What if I had taken the local train to work (which crashed) rather than the express? I might not have had a life-changing experience.
 * If drama isn't created in a talk, drama doesn't gain any strength or motion. If it never starts, it can't escalate.
 * Collaborative potential is everywhere; until you piss on my leg! My response is contingent on your act. And all the subsequent drama is contingent on the initial transgression, no matter how slight it might seem.

The Decline Effect
The door is always open for a consensus conversation or an edit discussion to go downhill, to decline, to become a brawl. Especially when both sides KNOW that they are right, that the truth is on their side. Editors are easily biased toward their own beliefs and away from those that deviate too far them (their opponents beliefs). Of course, they never acknowledge that as fact. In fact, their beliefs are always inherently provisional: the truth is slippery. Wonderful Human Bias. offhand demeanor...disarming vulnerability a stepping stone a healthy dose of community a welcome shift more focussed on collaboration and maintaining good faith than on success of argument. friendly fire reunite the editors into common cause replace competition with collaboration Jimbo at YALEWhen people think about security, they think about it as a binary model of locked and unlocked. That model doesn’t work very well, and isn’t necessary anymore. The best way to deal with problems is by increasing the cost of doing something bad and decreasing the cost of doing something good. It’s an interesting balancing act. What you would like to have is some sort of magical tool to have some sort of a priori knowledge of who has good intentions and who doesn’t. And there isn’t a magic tool for that. What we want to have is ways for the community to say, ”Dude, you’re annoying, knock it off.” ...with conscious control of their effect on the people we address.In writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. Decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. Here, at WP, we have access to the Show preview button and we need to hit the Save Button. This brings into play the issue of the editor who chooses swearing, racial/ethnic slurs, etc, (the tools of the uncivil editor). All to make a point or give emphasis but knowing that with it come all the negative connectors and responses and that the tone of the discussion/conversation will start downward. It is a conscious decision. The agitating editor has been down this road before. And he/she chooses to go down it again and again and again. Why? Because we have given them permission. GrenadesEditors that choose incivility are a small but defiant group. I choose to call them "grenades". The vast majority of us are GFEs (Good Faith Editors). We are intitled to work without bad manners surrounding us...intruding into what should be a rather clean environment. We are not bloggers! GFEs should be allowed to protest and ask for censure of an obvious transgressor. Right now the recourse is illusive and random based on the administrator handling the case.

'Grenades' are not harmless.
They create consequences that degrade the standards and policies of discourse and behavior at Wikipedia. The presence of 'grenades' is uncomfortable for most editors. (Its OK as long as no-one pulls the pin!) What should the consequences for continued "boorishness'be? Some say Ban. Some say Ignore. Still others support the freedom of expression that is swearing, name calling, etc. Those with the intensity of passion to constantly use uncivil behavior would claim that controlling their negative behavior would amount to a straight-jacket of restrictive prohibitors that will hamper their freedom of expression. When you come onto a talk page in order to defend your position to swear, etc., then that is what is talked about. Not improving the article, not concern for our customer, not creating an Encyclopedia. We should search for a handling of language and behavior that is characteristic of the norm of Wikipedia and that is uniform in its implementation. The goal should be maintaining a proper balance....and establishing a predictable, uniform standard.

Why are some editors rude
The steady stuccato of an uncivil editors actions shows individuals that like to sow controversy. Minor skirmishes develope into major timewasters for all involved. Un-civil editors seem to enjoy the debate rather than the editing process. They are preoccupied with creating dis-Order and anomosity...dis-Unity and dis-Cord. It is the reason they come to Wikipedia. This is their Battleground!

They enjoy the competition--which one of us (combatants) is better at name calling, single digit waving, etc. They seek pride--Wow! Am I a great wordsmith or what? Did you'all read that? They seek participation--negative participation, but participation none the less. They are still in the "game". . They infer that it is a natural or cultural instinct-- bottom line, it's an excuse not to change! It's easier than co-operating or finding a common ground. Or so it seems. Ethnic slurs, insulting profanity, and unnecessary commenting on the contributor rather than the content is easier than research. Incivility conveys a meaning, an underlying purpose. Be it mDisdain, Power, Anger, Threats, Control, Ignorance, Rudeness.

But.....Wikipedia provides a delay mechanism; the Show preview button. The editor has a moment to reconsider. A civil editor will rephrase, reconstruct, recast the sentence; removing any hint of hostility. An un-civil editor doesn't: instead, he intentionally agitates, further and further, to the point of combustion. A civil editor channels his anger in a constructive manner and searches for a way to build the encyclopedia. An un-civil editor doesn't: an un-civil editor attacks.

When You Are a Hammer, Everything in the World Looks Like a Nail
Why do some editors choose incivility as a consistent building block for their WP career? They seem to act without thinking. They are completely reactionary and are resistent to advice. Some editors are constantly looking for opportunities to strike (Hammer and Nail). Sorry to say, but some editors (and their behavior) are completely expendable. They have a stubborn resistence to correcting their ways. When they just won't listen.....or.....they outright refuse to understand civility.....or.....are unwilling to change any of their rude behavior; They need to go. Or at least sit on the sidelines until they cool down.

The question
should never be "How can I counter-attack a fellow editor?" But, rather, "How does this useless diatribe forward the Living Encyclopedia?" We need awareness of and appreciation for the connectedness between mutually responsible editors. It is a critical component of a solution. We have established norms and values. They should be respected for the goodwill they create. They should be followed for the professional workplace they create.

Transferred from Swearing
Comments on civility/incivility at WikiPedia by various editors collected over time Its time to stop the childishness without criminalizing the idiosyncratic styles of this new generation of WikiEditors. Reflects on the common everyday editors of wikiworld... We kowtow to controversial behavior while a treasure trove of creative works awaits. ....while we waste our time with drivel. To throw up our hands in defeat to on-line swearing is to show a lack of faith in the intelligence and reason of Wikipedia Editors. ...a Diverse culture of creative works...to help relieve.....indicated for the treatment of the dis-ease. ...feeling no pressure to dumb down my conversation... ...to spend extensive (and exhaustive) time as a referee. ...without the interferance ...garners better results... ...by developing a deeper understanding of co-operation. ...weakens wikipedia rather than strenghtens it. ...Mutual respect, give and take, civility and candor ...A one-on-one relationship ...When we write one thing, we exclude everything else. ...after various despoilers of this encyclopedia more commentsOne of the most neglected aspects of the debate is the atmosphere that incivility breeds, even on talk pages or project pages. It scares away contributors from participating in what is (rightly) seen as a gutter brawl. — Coren (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC) This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of _____ personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC) We have traditions of forgiveness and working with people to improve their behavior and ours whenever we can - User:Jimbo Wales from Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Paid Editors. ...incivility distracts people from the matter at hand. We will spend ever more time on arguing whether Editor:X was justified than say, establishing a community norm about trying to represent Wikipedia to the media, and the consequences of flouting it. Sadly, this dysfunction is not unique to Wikipedia, but is amplified by its nature....--Tznkai (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Decorum: 5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Passed 10 to 0, 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC). Treating our civility policy as a "rule" is a huge part of the problem. It shouldn't even be an imperative of any kind. Much smarter than "Rule: Be civil!" is "Fact: Incivility doesn't work." If we can make the policy communicate that, I'll be delighted. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) When facts and logic are on your side you don't need to take swipes at the other fellow -- doing so only works against you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Types of incivilityfrom Wikipedia:Civility archives Rudeness Insults and name-calling Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen") Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at a fellow editor Belittling contributors/fellow editors because of language skills or word choice Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility while not commiting such a breach themselves Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling a fellow editor a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign another editor Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups (such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others) in a derogatory manner Harassment Stalking Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform. Use of condescending language towards other Users. Implying Wikipedia has a rank structure and some Users are more equal than others. Questionable references to a fellow editors gumption...."I'm not sure you have the gumption necessary to build a Wikipedia community in the first place". Grenades are NOT UN-RedeemableFrom Editor Cailil with slight modifications. This is really a very simple matter. Read the policies as regards to appropriate behaviour on wikipedia and apply them. They are assume good faith, no pesonal attacks, the talk page guidelines and, more broadly, the civility policy.

Do not talk about your opinions or speculations about other people AT ALL. Make edits to articles and talk pages based on reliable sources and in line with the core policies of a neutral point of view, no original research and verifiablity. Restrict your points everywhere on Wikipedia to those that will improve articles in line with these policies. Withdraw even unintentional accusations about others. When requested, strike! If you have a problem with an edit - show a diff, relate the diff to the policy and leave it at that. Diversify the subjects to which you edit a) to learn how Wikipedia works and b) to get a broader perspective on the project's content and hopefully see how your current area of focus is seen by others. Avoid any remarks that could be interpreted as personal. "Talk about edits not editors". Remove those that others tell you are in fact offensive/rude/unnecessary/inaccurate. When requested, strike! Assume other people - even those you don't like - are trying to improve the project. Assume even when you disagree with someone else's decision that they are working to improve the project rather than against you. When you have a disagreement with other users, or a process/project/proposal, state your point once and state it civilly. Don't play games to get a point across to others. Don't make comments that are unhelpful or disruptive. And listen to what others are saying to you. 5 Stages of Growthper John V. Wilmerding, Jr., a Vermont Quaker.

transend the surface awareness acquiescence pacifism passive resistance into active resistance Active Peace William SwannSymbolic interactionism Identity negotiation Self-verification theory Possible interventionsbe specific - we need more concrete examples of what behaviors, within the scope of civility, are definitely not acceptable at Wikipedia. If it would offend most people, it is uncivil. be a model - show the way. Don't get pulled in. Avoid the Combat. Remain calm and in control and focussed on solving the problem. Lead by example. ask why - to better understand the behavior and the editors that choose it. We may be surprised at the answers and the results of this type of outreach. follow thru - stay in touch in a civil good faith way. It works in RL...why not here! ask for assistance - not to gang up, but to show how a normal WP conversation works. A covey of GFE's is very impressive and displays the norms and customs that are requested. Sensitivity Training. stay within the system 'cause the system works. "You're Not the Boss of Me"Personal responsibility and AccountabilityIt may be that we need to adjust our perspective of and our standards for WP Civility. Perhaps for our own social well-being and sanity we should work to communicate to our "troubledtroubled neighbors" that we accept that they have different standards of civility, but that we expect and hope they will take some personal responsibility and accountability for demonstating more empathy and caring for their fellow editors. They can be more self-policing, showing a capacity toward tolerance, and we can support their efforts to co-exist. They need to willingly follow the norms and customs of Wikipedia. But, if they continue to distract more than they contribute, they need to go. If they cannot follow a simple direction like respecting another editor, they need to go.

Bell the Cat
LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. “You will all agree,” said he, “that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood.” This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: “That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?” The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said: “IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES.”[1]

^ Æsop. Fables, retold by Joseph Jacobs. Vol. XVII, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/17/1/.

WP:Civility Poll/mid-2009
This page in a nutshell: A poll 2 was held to gather consensus on how the community feels about the civility policy. The results of the poll are that the majority of people feel the current civility policy is too lenient, and that it is inconsistently applied and unenforceable. Most people feel that civil behaviour applies as much on personal talkpages as elsewhere, and that there are particular problems with civil behaviour on Recent Changes Patrol and Admin Noticeboards. Almost everyone feels we are too harsh on new users, though just over half the people feel that when it comes to experienced users that expectations of behaviour depends on context and the people involved. Most people feel that baiting is under-recognised, although it was noted that it is difficult to recognise baiting, and that people have a choice in how they respond. There was no clear consensus on the use of warnings before blocking, though most feel that the warnings are about right. A number of people feel that everyone should be treated with respect regardless of circumstances, and that being civil does not impede communication. A number of people also feel that experts should be treated like everyone else.

Create a Single (Lone) Civility Administrator/Ombudsman
I suggest a single (I don't mean unmarried) Civility Administrator (and maybe some clerks as assistants)

a Safety Representative. For the safety of GFEs and WikiPedia. He is willing to 'Bell the cat'. appointed (?)...elected (?)....delegated (?)....selected (?). bans/blocks incivil editors> No waiting! No bickering! Not to many options for the offending editor. If it Looks like a duck. Walks like a duck. TALKS like a duck. ITs a duck! It's the re-accuring Bully that is the MAIN target. Disfunctional activity is no longer acceptable or tolerated. maintains a centralized list, a Rogues Gallery, as it were, of hazardous editors. Maintains pertinent information for future reference and use. Documents unsuitable behavior to prevent ongoing brutishness from article to article. A central kiosk. Is this editor a Bully or just having a moment? He/she knows the players...they can't hide behind the guidelines! steps forward with the facts...a watchdog? A referee? The Hockey penalty Box comes to mind. He stops the gridlock, the wasted time, the endless non-forwarding attacking chatter. co-ordinates the steps (?) necessary to facilitate an improvement in the constant negative interplay of incivil editors with good faith editors. resolves disputions...then again, maybe not. Too much buzy work. Too much chatter. Too much defending. Makes a judgement. Thats it! assists/inputs/has a major voice in implementing solutions and safeguards. Via a useful dialogue, the CivCzar nurtures a more realistic attitude. a strict controller of behavior...a civility Czar. Takes the time to investigate the history of diffs prior to the reported incident of incivility. Has had (or is aware of) previous dealings with the parties. provides guidance and mentorship to those that will listen. Or, better yet, can send them to a guide or a mentor. He is not a teacher or a mentor or a friend. But he can find you one if that is what you need. has a clear understanding of incivil behavior and can recognize it without question or doubt. The resident InCivility Expert. is sensitive to the overall value of productive working editors over troublesome "talk only" editors. has a clear SELF definition of incivil behavior. is grounded in the concept of assuring a comfortable and non-controversial workplace. A Leader. provides a word to the wise and can do something if they are not "wise" enough to follow his word. has the well being of the Wikipedia Project as a basic core mission. Who?I can think of a few editors that would be fair and impartial and bring their integrity of purpose to the role of Civility Administrator/Safety Representative/CivilCzar (or whatever he/she is called). Some are taking part in the discussion at WP:Civility/Poll. Exemplars of WP editing behavior. Trustworthy. Analytical. Investigative.

The current process is not trusted. I think it is because there are to many chefs in the kitchen. If there was just one chef (and maybe a sous-chef or two) we would all have a better idea of what was cooking and what to expect. And if the community did not like the flavor of the soup..."too bitter...too salty...not enough meat..."...we could change the chef until we found the right one. Verification of Uncivil ActsUp to the CA/SR/CivCzar.....Its his/her call. No questions asked. CA/SR has the communities trust and backing! We know they have researched and investigated. Incivility is not that hard to recognize. We can all recognize it when we see it. We may be willing to ignore it or not give it much concern. But we know it when we see it. Civility Admin--->...."No discussion required...You did it...I saw it (in the history)....Here's the price you pay!""

Notification of action
Notify the offender. in no uncertain terms, that they are in the spotlight, their behavior is under scrutiny by the Official Behavior Scrutinizer and they risk being blocked/banned for X length of time. Without notice. Not just at the article in question. Anywhere in WikiWorld.

Attach a temporary non-removable tag to the abusive editors user and talk pages... reward improved behavior w/ an Official Notification of Improvement, a barnstar maybe. Fear of retaliationLet us not forget the fear of retaliation that hangs over the situation of dealing with a troublesome editor. A real fear about a real threat. Stated or not. Be careful. If you cross them, you might easily become #1 on their Hit List. A negative relationship has been created. An editor with a history of incivility is unpredictable. Temper and anger and the cursing that go with it are right around the corner. So is revenge and retaliation. These editors are hard to work with---hard to live with. A safe working environment is threatened if you dare cross swords with one of them.

Bouncer
Maintains order...controls traffic.

Language
American English in its Cultural Setting, by DH Lloyd and HR Warfel, 1956.

Language is the instrument we use to communicate. Language is a channel through which messages flow with the least friction and the most significance. Language is the clear, clean, adequate conveyance of meaning.

American Way of War... Language is the prime vehicle of our conduct as members of a human society (Wikipedia).

Mystery
Civility at Wikipedia is no more a mystery than proper civil behavior in any social setting is a mystery. We deal with the written word, not the spoken word. The Editor has time to think, to use his social radar to make decisions. Writing is only a loose parallel to verbal speech. Lacking qualifiers, writing is a less effective transmission of what we mean. We don't blurt out writing like in a pool hall. We have time to think, to decide, to weight the result. We make use of words to convey what we mean in spite of the limitations. Rudeness, vulgarity, disrespect, etc. toward another editor should be rare in this environment. We don't except grafitti on the garage door. Is incivility really any different? Editors should be persuaded that defamatory actions don't work. They may achieve Momentary Power but it's just a waste of time.

Writing
Reading and writing are NOT a mystery anymore than proper civil behavior is a mystery. Writing is only a loose parallel to verbal speech. writing lacks "vocalizations'... NO inflections--NO shouting or whispering---NO pitch or tempo...NO rasping voice or volume NO gestures...NO body emphasizers...hand, head, body movement NO musical score to tell the reader HOW TO READ ALOUD the prose. writing is a less effective transmission of what we mean... The persons whom we address (when we write) are NOT in our presence; writing is the means by which men and women in human societies communicate with each other They do NOT meet our eyes with theirs; They do NOT lean into the communication and "help" coax it into being; They do NOT talk over, alongwith, along side, at the same time, etc. Writing lacks the face-to-face immediacy (and intimacy) of conversation; it lacks the SUPPORT of our ACTUAL presence, the reinforcement of our vocal qualifiers and our gestures and our ability to hear and be heard with the help of our "hear-ers" (and "here-ers"). Initial point of contactnew editors=the easiest victims of uncivil behavior

....Rules of the Road...non-compliance? You lose your drivers license.

Greeting by bot/explaining Safety Representative/Civility Czar.

A tag--->limited to civility training

>procedures for reporting >Contact suggestions. A warning of the repercussions for incivil behavior should be an integral facet of the initial greeting or welcome of a new editor to WP.

Safe Harbor
This discussion deals mainly with civility and the lack of it (incivility) on the talk pages of WP articles. Vandalism, Graffitti, etc., while showing disdain for the value of WP and are certainly uncivil, are handled by WP:Vandal, WP:Bite, and others.

Manners
common courtesy to handle shortcomings, common vocabulary (no legalese, jargon, etc) good natured banter. Acceptable social behaviora mellow tone, consensus building via easy interactions, indenting, staying on topic within a thread, no animosity, no negative reactions. Respecta minimum requirement of good editing is civil behavior toward others, we are all editors doing work in a mutual condition and arena, at the heart of AGF, a commonality with your fellow editor. Comparative judgementdecision making on what to say and how to say it, with what level of confidence or strength, the right comment at the right time for the right reason, maintaining a professional working environment.

Collaboration
useful, forwarding dialogue. positive relationships. Cognitive: ideas perceived as cogent by most in the population who encounter them. Cognitively transmitted memes depend heavily on a cluster of other ideas and cognitive traits already widely held in the population, and thus usually spread more passively than other forms of meme transmission. Memes spread in cognitive transmission do not count as self-replicating. Motivational: ideas that people adopt because they perceive some self-interest in adopting them. Strictly speaking, motivationall