User talk:Cynwolfe/civility proposal
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
How to find outside observors
Cynwolfe, I love the idea that civility complaints should not be brought by those who have themselves been incivil. This could stop some of the baiting that goes on. My only question is where would the outside observors come from? I envision a lot of canvassing and/or another noticeboard. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good question. I don't involve myself in a lot of this, and don't have a grip on all the steps in the procedure. If there's a notice filed before an RfC, this would be part of that filing, I think. And yes: Every time I've looked at a civility complaint, the party making it was as guilty as the accused, or certainly not blameless. It was plainly a tactic in the conflict. If what we're trying to do is create a positive working environment, it won't do to use civ as a weapon. The policy says clearly that it shouldn't be used that way, but provides no mechanism to prevent it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I think about this, I'm not sure about closing the case without action. If the outside parties find that User A was as much at fault as User B, what then? We're back to the Wild West on the talk page, with A and B shooting at each other. Sigh. Perhaps if the outside users find that A was not blameless, A would have the option of (a) dropping the accusation or (b) receiving the same block as B, if that were the outcome of the action. Some rare honorable souls might actually go for B. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good start but possibly a bit bureaucratic? Another idea is to dump civility altogether and go for collegiality instead. So if somebody comes along to an old opponent, subtly poking and baiting in the politest possible way, and gets roundly told to fuck off, the first editor would be in breach more than the second. Currently the second is more likely to get blocked. The other advantage of the collegiality approach might be that a good ding-dong argument between two equally robust editors would be fine, but the same attitude towards a gentle newbie might not. It's all about the editing/discussion process which should be manifest throughout the exchange rather than arbitrary rules about naughty words.Fainites barleyscribs 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree about it being overly bureaucratic; I suppose I was thinking of fighting fire with fire, since red tape was being used to tie up the one who says "fuck off" and not the one who might (but not always) be causing the problem, that is, a CPUSHer. This reminds me, BTW, of being an older sibling: my little sister would pester me for what seemed like hours, I'd finally throw a toy at her, she'd run and tell Mom and I'm the one in trouble. So yes, it would be nice if WP weren't run the same way. This is all food for thought. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- God that's so true! My older brother and I used to argue all the time and I always got the blame because "it was your voice we could hear". I can see you and I have both got over our childhood traumas though and no longer dwell on them. Fainites barleyscribs 20:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree about it being overly bureaucratic; I suppose I was thinking of fighting fire with fire, since red tape was being used to tie up the one who says "fuck off" and not the one who might (but not always) be causing the problem, that is, a CPUSHer. This reminds me, BTW, of being an older sibling: my little sister would pester me for what seemed like hours, I'd finally throw a toy at her, she'd run and tell Mom and I'm the one in trouble. So yes, it would be nice if WP weren't run the same way. This is all food for thought. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Good start but possibly a bit bureaucratic? Another idea is to dump civility altogether and go for collegiality instead. So if somebody comes along to an old opponent, subtly poking and baiting in the politest possible way, and gets roundly told to fuck off, the first editor would be in breach more than the second. Currently the second is more likely to get blocked. The other advantage of the collegiality approach might be that a good ding-dong argument between two equally robust editors would be fine, but the same attitude towards a gentle newbie might not. It's all about the editing/discussion process which should be manifest throughout the exchange rather than arbitrary rules about naughty words.Fainites barleyscribs 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I think about this, I'm not sure about closing the case without action. If the outside parties find that User A was as much at fault as User B, what then? We're back to the Wild West on the talk page, with A and B shooting at each other. Sigh. Perhaps if the outside users find that A was not blameless, A would have the option of (a) dropping the accusation or (b) receiving the same block as B, if that were the outcome of the action. Some rare honorable souls might actually go for B. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)