User talk:Buster7/Incivility

solution #1

• Assume every talk page situation is one of mixed company

comments from WP:Civility/Poll

• not consistently enforced...
• impossible to enforce...
• need to define a brightline, a cut-off point...
• enforcement not workable...
• enforced unevenly and often unfairly...
• a waste of time...
• impossible to be consistent...
• unevenly enforced...
• unenforceable...

a coherent style of collective enforcement

A single clearinghouse for belligerence... bad-tempered behavior... curfews for the hot heads... a cool breeze in a hot-tempered environment.

Making New Choices

...staying focused on article editing/creating.

...individual, selfish,

...the private lives of ordinary people......

You don't get the opportunity to be part of the potential_________

With their finger on the pulse of an ever-changing Wiki.

Commitment...Admins...should NOT be questionable> But their swearing raises doubts as to what is really important....a PowerPlay...embrace a disciplined process of character, and act as guides......

AWW...Our choice of words is a channel. When we write we exclude everything else, no matter how interesting, that does not seem to bear on thwe topic.

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert around mid feb 2009

Sensitivity Training

"de-couple" as a train

"i would like to have dialogue with you.

When you come in defending your RIGHT to swear then that is what we talk about"

"Why do you believe that (to be true)"?

DAG Acronym/Dignity/Adult (behavior)/Goodwill

1. ...Dignity is required in this process
2. …Engender goodwill and approval, not the opposite
3. …you mis-characterize yourself
4. …Establish A PERIMETER OF PROPRIETY
5. ...Now that you’re an adult in an adult social environment
6. ...There is no good argument to the contrary.
7. ...Our choice of words is a channel.

PROVOCATIVE

Chosen to shock...pushes the envelope...

inflammitory....undermines....

American Way of War/(Eugene Jarecki)...worrisome disfiguring....predisposition to corruption....antithecal to liberty....a tangled web of corruption...back on course...

AWW....Marginalizes the user...Illusionary sense of POWER....the cost?...

AWW....a serious examination of the implications and complications of swearing

AWW....Language is the prime vehicle of our conduct as members of a human society.

examples

I have removed the User:name to prevent a problem or retatiliation. And it is not necessarily the words that are used that create incivility... It is the fire and anger behind them that is uncivil.

• Wikipedia Sucks...I always contribute. Everyone always deletes them. Fuck you ____, you dumb bitch. Kiss my ass you british Man whore. You haven't seen the Last of me! you have no life plus your going fail in school Bitch. I'm going to report your ass to Jimmy Wales..Fuck you! Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:__"

• Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking committees on this motherfucking encyclopedia! [[User:__]]

Initial point of contact/new editors-the easiest victims

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
  • ---->enumerating procedures for reporting
  • ---->with 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.

War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning

• By Chris Hedges

Non Civility

• usually a single agressor

• The growing focus on civility...see [WP:Civility/Poll]

• A devious tactic to entangle talk and turn it into bluster.

• The attacks might be thwarted by not paying attention to them. But the next victim is just around the next talk page.

• transparency...caught up in the torrents...grabbed by its collar...thrown into the den of blasfeemers and ______...the facade of gentility is broken...devilish conspiracies...irratating, preposterously inflated ego...black-hearted villian...tyrannize...in the chaos...arcane matters...a brawler and a prankster...formidably street-smart...its all nonsense...come along for the ride...the fighting techniques...against an opponent...

• It pains them to contemplate/consider their own downfall...like a crazy uncle...quirks and contradictions and trespasses...repudiation was rash...reluctant or unable...unrepentant...foot-in-mouther...hard to ignore, harded to convince...spasm of vigilance...fighting a competitor not collaborating with a cohort (accomplice;supporting the same thing)...having a dialogue not a diatribe (a prolonged denunciation) ...let go of all that...a great deal of latitude (extant or scope)...guilelessness (honesty)...

• Confounding ideas and conventionally ireconcilable contradictions...grungy fringe...either oblivious or dimly aware of civility etiquette (customary behavior)...throw tinder on the smoldering fire that was just about to ebb...raised a fury...insincere or even counterfeit...a cynical con...a gateqway to decadence...pieties (devout act)...perplexing paradox...cares alot about appearing not to care...righteousness

Each man and women on earth

is a complex matrix of language, habit, nuance, gesture, and shared mythology, the sum total of which identifies them as members of a specific nation, culture, society or class.

• The notion of identity.
• criticize, complain, indulge your sarcastic wit...
• .....that incivility (changed from love) can be as sticky as a vat of molasses, as unpalatable as a hunk of spoiled yeast, and as all-consuming as a six-alarm fire in a bamboo and canvas tent.

William Swann

• Symbolic interactionism
• Identity negotiation
• Self-verification theory

Comments from Ched

Very well written indeed Buster, but then again, I expect that to be the case when you set your mind to keyboard. Apologies for the high expectations, but I've grow familiar with your work - and nothing I've ever read has been sub-par. ;). I do believe that your thoughts are what we should strive for, but from a realistic standpoint - I doubt that it's something we can expect. We have many "young" editors here who think it's "cool" to type words like: "damn", "shit", "hell", "fuck" etc. I think we should strive to explain that this is not the preferred pattern of speech, but I suspect it won't be easily removed either. Part of the problem with this particular group of editors is the fact that some "adults" that actually support this behavior via the "NOT CENSORED" criteria. It's a pity really; because we have the opportunity to provide an environment which could benefit these young users, but they tend to be enabled by those who are not eager to see an evolution in humanity.

As an "open" environment, I suspect that we will always be forced to endure the childish base language. Hopefully we can keep these things limited by providing a good example, and responding to these things in a firm, yet kind manner. I can promise that I will do my best to always maintain a civil tongue, but admit that even I have had bouts of "emotional" thought which would make a nun blush. I do my best to walk away on these occasions, but even the best of us have our breaking points I fear.

This lead me to a second group of editors which we see. People here are very passionate about the work they do, and very supportive of the friends they have made here. THAT is one case that I happen to sympathize with. These are the "one-of" things that occasionally crop up, and I think it's best to be forgiving and simply offer support in a way that makes it clear that "you goofed", "calm down". There are times when emotions limit a persons ability to access the higher brain functions which provide us with a larger, more mature, civilized language repository. It happens with the best of editors - and I can't agree that these cases should be dealt with in the same manner as those who simply "get a kick" out of defying the system.

In my opinion, it's those editors who enjoy the "stickin it to the man" attitude with their foul, abusive edits on a regular basis which need to be weeded out, and put on notice. Either "shape up" or "ship out". The "I was baited by trolls" excuse only goes so far - when I see an editor who is continually "baited", I have to wonder why. There are some good editors here, and some fine upstanding administrators who want to perform these tasks that are needed - young and older alike. Unfortunately we are often out-manned, and out-gunned. There are a group of editors who actually "support" the "toxic" personalities with cries of "but he/she writes good articles". I've seen too often an administrator called on the carpet for a block that was justified - simply because the person they blocked wrote a couple FA pages. Pity really.

I think that one item that does compound this issue is the few administrators who seem to outright "enjoy" using the block button. They block when they should talk. Blocks without warning are simply as bad as warnings without blocks. Be it an admin who is "protecting" a friend, or using their extra tools to simply apply revenge for past grievances; the small number of "bad" admins., makes it twice as tough on those who want to do the right thing.

All I have left to say is this: I will do my best to act in a respectful manner to all editors. That's really all that I can do at this point. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from LHvY

I am putting this here, rather than on the essay talkpage because I don't want too many people to read and comment - because it may be the genesis of a dispute rather than its resolution. Please remove the Jimbo "toxic personality" quote(s), because the background to it is counter to the purpose of the essay. There are those who consider the comment offensive and unfair against the individual to whom it is thought (by those who find it offensive) to have been aimed. I consider it unfortunate and ill considered and still, on the basis exampled by your essay that the perception rather than the intent is what is important, not apologised for. There are those, among them individuals who may well be pointed toward this essay should it achieve recognition, who would most certainly be annoyed or even inflamed upon reading those references. It may be a good example, but it demonstrates the point of the essay - don't ignore the sensibilities of those labelled as acting contrary to the best interests of the project.

Other than that, I think the essay is very good and would be a useful tool in any person who has unwittingly stepped onto the downward path toward not respecting other people and their viewpoints. It is perhaps a little naive as regards tolerance of "evidenced" incivility, since civility issues are often used as a lever in content disputes - just because someone is right and starts cussing at the other party does not mean that the other party can then remove the opposition to their viewpoint by removing the editor. It also needs a more comprehensive ending, in line with the initial premise which is (I trust) that we all need to take that little bit longer to consider what we are saying and ensure that we hold to the spirit as well as the wording of WP:CIVIL.

I am not going to say more, because I am sure you want to work on this further and since I have only said it is good generally the once and then found a couple of issues where I feel it might be improved it seems that I am finding more wrong than right about it. Not true. The fact is, I think it is worthy of being promoted now - but, hey, why not see if it cannot be even better?

Give me another shout when you have refined it further.

Regards,

Mark (LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

from Civic Virtue

Incivility is a general term for social behaviour lacking in civic virtue or good manners, on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for elders, to vandalism and hooliganism, through public drunkenness and threatening behaviour. The word "incivility" is derived from the Latin incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen".

The distinction between plain rudeness, and perceived incivility as threat, will depend on some notion of 'civility' as structural to society; incivility as anything more ominous than bad manners is therefore dependent on appeal to notions like its antagonism to the complex concepts of civic virtue or civil society. It has become a contemporary political issue in a number of countries .

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dayewalker&diff=prev&oldid=323567691

• ...those who stymie every attempt to indicate that there are contrary viewpoints on many issues, practice ownership of some articles, behave appallingly to editors who express a desire to edit to a differing POV and habitually demonize, deprecate, and dispute with admins who try to apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines, regardless of who is violating policy. Presenting opinion and comment as "personal attacks" is one of the usual gambits used. These editors champion themselves as stalwart defenders of WP neutrality.

2/21/2011

• a revolution in morals...what it does to our intelligence.
• The N-Bs believe we are on the brink of a new Utopia, where information will be free and democratic, news will be made from the bottom up, love will reign, and cookies will bake themselves.
• (N-B) the new connective technology, by joining people together in new communities and in new ways, is bound to make for more freedom.
• a cartoon of the truth.
• If you stretch out time and are sufficiently casual about causes, you can give the printing press credit for anything you like.
• ...to reduce Liberty and enforce conformity.
• ...the Internet produces the global psyche: everyone keyed in like a neuron, so that to the eyes of a watching martian we are really part of a single planetary brain.
• We may not act better than we used to, but we sure think differently than we did.
• Cognitive entanglement.
• Wiki Paragraph....
• At every moment, machines (new Social Media inventions and uses) make new circuits for connection and circulation.
• "Information overload"
• The combination of delight and despair.
• ...condescendingly..."We've been here b4"
• The digital world is new, and the real gains and losses of the Internet era are to be found NOT in altered neurons oe empathy tests but in the small changes in mood, life, manners, feelings, it creates--in the texture (and fabric) of the age.
• A way of coming together rather than pulling apart.
• ...the absence of context, the disintegration of the frame (TV).
• The Internet's addictive nature and its destruction of users inter-familial lives.
• The real demon in the machine (?) is the tirelessness of the user.
• Evil things will register more vividly than the great mass of dull good. The peril isnt that the users lose their knowledge of the world. Its that they lose all sense of proportion.
• ;Our contraptions shape our consciousness, but it is our consciousness that makes our credos, and we mostly live by those.
• Its all about the butter!

3/12/2011

• Its like getting punched and then being asked to apologize for getting in the way.
• The stagnant water in which he swims.
• maelstrom.
• Unfortunate First Encounter
• ..needed to negotiate the unsightly bumps of incivility.
• Ungentle, loudmouth.
• Brazenly derogative.
• his randy bluster
• the unmistakable impression that we have no control.
• The threat, the provocation, ramshakle,

• ;We should work toward the Harmony that is possible.
• Needs guidance

Lifts from MF case

• This issue, civility, has been tearing apart Wikipedia for years. A quick look at the length of this request will confirm that fact. There have been numerous studies about civility on Wikipedia and the media write about it all the time.

It has gotten to the point where the WMF is so concerned about Wikipedia driving away contributors that they are putting financial resources and man-hours in to helping us solve the problem.ArbCom may not take on meta issues like civility, but it does take cases. And thier ruling on these cases help shape our laws (i.e. policies and guidelines). This is one of the last major issues to be dealt with on Wikipedia. Therefore I have two questions that I ask of each arbitrator.

If not ArbCom, then who?

If not now, when? Editor Hydrox

Editor Nobody ent.... Timeline: Malleus uses word "cunt" in discussion. Note that Wikipedia does not prohibit use of any word in discussion (see recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Foul_Language_In_Discussions ). He is requested to change word, declines, notes that "dick" is commonly used and indicates from his cultural background "cunt" and "dick" are equivalent. I explain the sensitivity of the word from this side of the Atlantic, and ask if will let a redaction stand; he agrees [2]. Comments are redacted. This should have been over.

Comment--_______ doesn't agree!!! That diff [3] shows a stubborn person, dug in and ready to fight. The very next diff [4] is an administrator. Here you are right--it should have been over. _______ should have listened, maybe apoligized (not necessary but a gentleman would) and everything would have been over. But he doesnt apoligize. Does his cultural background force him to be rude and deny a woman the courtesy she is entilted to in most cultures that I know of? Name me one culture that says his snappish NO was OK. When I asked him to be a gentleman he should have shaken himself out of his cultural background and realized that he was tumbling down a road he has travelled many times before. But he didnt do that. He didnt reconsider his loutish behavior, even if a woman was involved. (I think its fair to assume that editor Deb is a woman). Maybe one of the first Standards that we take on as a society is that we will henceforth always assume that conversations are in mixed company, ie there is always a woman present. That way the tired argument of cultural background can slip away to where it belongs----far in the background. So far that it will be thought to be ridiculous when used as a defense.

History

[5]

FYI to Deb

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case [6] where you are mentioned via diff. As I state there, MF's swearing doesn't really upset me. It's the abusive bullying tactics behind it. His refusal to consider your simple request was the moment of clear and decisive incivility. If it was the local pub, the owner would have asked him to leave. WikiPedia has higher civility standards than a saloon. Thank You. Buster Seven Talk 12:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Buster7

Lifts from RaF

When people are rude at a grocery store, they are thrown out. When people are obnoxious at university, they are expelled. When an employee is a dick at work, they are fired. Why is Wikipedia different? Why is WP:CIVIL one of the few policies that's never enforced? Everytime the subject comes up, people say civility blocks don't work or they say we don't need the civility police. It's true that there are no civility police in modern society and that's because everybody enforces civility. Parents enforce it with thier children. Managers enforce it with their employees. Store owners enforce it with thier patrons. Wikipedia, and many online communities, don't enforce civility. This allows the most hostile members to rule those communities. Many of our best users leave because of the hostility here. We enforce WP:VANDAL, yet we don't enforce WP:CIVIL. Which one does more damage over the long term? At what point will we be willing to enforce WP:CIVIL? When there are 1,000 highly active users left? 100? I hope it's before 2 because when there's one person left, there'll be no need to enforce it. User:Hydroxonium 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

...... This has gone on for far too long without a lasting resolution. I've seen _______ around RfA many times and have never had any particularly negative interactions with him, but I would certainly hate to be on the receiving end of his sarcastic jibes and harsh remarks. He is quite frankly rude and dismissive when there's no need for it. It's OK to be blunt every now and then, but _______ takes it to extremes and it's part of what makes RfA such a toxic environment.

Comment--its not just what makes RfA toxic, its what makes other construction sites, other talk pages toxic. Its like there is a live grenade, laying on the table amongst all the editor, waiting to go off. Regarding being on the receiving end of his jibes and remarks is exactly why there is almost never any peer pressure, in the moment, asking _______ to stop. If you step forward, as a concerned Editor, your liable to be the next in line to be attacked. The only reason Editor Deb said anything was because she had never run across _______ before: she had no idea what she was getting into. But the rest of the editors present knew that he would not let her audacity to tell him to stop slide. He would retaliate. It was just a matter of time. Her bravery actually gave me the courage to do what i had always wanted to do: stand up as _______'s peer and pressure him to stop. Her reluctance to participate may be because he put the fear of being bullied on her. Its the fear that _______ brings with him to a talk.

email from Percival

Well, I trust I only offer the respect that is honestly due. Honour is a beautiful thing, it is shared between those who are equal in their valuing of it. We so easily forget that, saying "we honour people", when really we are paying homage to those who pretend or we pretend are somehow superior in some way. No, no, we are all sisters and brothers, between whom mutual honour ought to be the life-blood of civilization. Unless I'm mistaken, that's precisely the chivalry of *truth* that has always motivated you and Wiki Knights.

Lift from Pesky on 4/12/2012

Big waffly essay on how I see it

We all (I think) are born and go through life thinking that what our own mind does is "normal", and therefore everyone else's mind should work in exactly the same way, and be capable of exactly the same things, as ours does / is. Minds are invisible. Bodies are different; we can all see that bodies are different, we've been able to do so since we were able to focus at that distance, we identify people by the differences in their bodies and faces. So it's inbuilt in us to see that it's perfectly normal for everyone to have different bodies, with different attributes, and different voices, with different depths and timbres.

As we get older, we learn that people don't always physically see and hear things the same way we do. We learn that people can be blind, or long-sighted, or short-sighted, or colour-blind, or whatever ... or that we are, and other people have 20/20 vision. As we get older, we learn that dogs have a sense of smell thousands (millions?) of times more acute than ours is, and that they can probably "see" the world of scent in as much vivid detail as we see the world of light. We can watch them doing this, finding and tracking things using scents hours or days old. These are learned things. But we rarely ever get the opportunity to learn that the human mind is just the same in its variations as the human body is. We rarely (if ever) get "officially taught" to internalise the concept that minds have different capabilities, and that we can't expect people to be able to do everything that we can do. It's obvious to us that someone can't help not being as tall as us, or as slim as us, or having colour-blindness, or a different colour hair, and that it doesn't mean they are deliberately setting out to be annoying or irritating or could "get better if they only tried to". We've learned not to get angry with someone for being less physically able than we are due to some physical limitation. A trapeze artist in a circus can see quite clearly that most people can't do what he does, and that most people probably can't ever learn to do what he does. It's not just a matter of "trying harder" or "learning skills". A chunkily-built and inherently unsupple person is never, never going to be able to learn to be a consummately-skilled trapeze artist. and they can't help it. They're not doing it on purpose to annoy the trapeze artist. That's just the way they are.

Some people with outstanding brains (and I'm including Malleus and Kiefer here, as well as several others) just hagve trouble understanding that when someone is seeming to be so bloody stupid, arseholeish, pathetic and all that, there's a good chance that they can't help it. Some people are just naturally lacking in what it takes to see right through to what is so clear, and so obvious, to people like MF and KW, and it really feels as though they must be doing it on purpose. (Of course, sometimes some of them are. But not all of them, all of the time.) When you really feel that someone is going out of their way to be obnoxious, it makes you angry. That's normal. It's a normal human reaction. All that people with truly outstanding and right-at-the-end-of-the-bell-curve minds, which think in less-than-usual ways, which have lightning-fast comprehension and clarity in some areas, need to do, is to remember that "normal" people can't help not having the same kind of brain. If we/they tweaked the perception a smidge and decided to view "normal people" as being "comparatively disabled" instead (they can't help it), maybe the anger and irritation would take much, much longer to kick in.

People with truly outstanding minds and thought-processes tend to think that what they are is normal, on an internalised level. Minds are invisible. We can't see the differences, and we having nothing, nothing whatever, in our own experience, to compare them with. Pesky (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus and Kiefer (and others like you): you have the ability to "see" mentally with the naked eye (as it were) things that other people can't see without an electron microscope. You can see why something is areseholish. But not everyone else can do that. People genuinely can't see why what they did is arseholish or cuntish. They can't see it any more easily than red-green colour-blind people can see the numbers in those colour-blindness tests ... which means that, when they can't see it, they can't ever understand why what seemed perfectly OK to them is not perfectly OK to others. They just don;t have the perception that you have. Pesky (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said Pesky. I might point out that it's a two-way street and that arseholeishness should not beget arseholeishness, but I think that point has been said far too many times, albeit without the "word" arseholeishness. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, far too many times, and nearly always just because one side or the other can't "see" something! The more I look at problems on Wikipedia, the more I become convinced that at least 75% of them stem either from plain misunderstandings, or some people simply not being able to "see" what the other side is "seeing". If only I could wave a magic wand and make us all pure telepaths, so that we could understand each others' abilities, strengths and weaknesses better! Everyone (well, everyone reasonable) has no trouble making allowances for someone in a wheelchair not being able to climb mountains. The mind thing is exactly the same, but invisible. And everyone thinks that what they personally can and can;t do is "normal", and everyone else is being either deliberately and wilfully obnoxious, or is "abnormal". Pesky (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I like that. I too feel that the majority of personal conflicts on Wikipedia stem either from plain misunderstandings, or some people simply not being able to "see" what the other side is "seeing". And the written conversation format doesn't help to "see" others. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the things that often amuses me is that some persons supposed to be total opposites in both characteristics and views, eventually turn out to be more similar to each other than to anyone else. I'd go into more details but I think that might be better off-wiki. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hugz Demi; I'm very fond of you, too, and you've been incredibly good to me when things were rough. I think, underneath, in ways we don't expect, loads of humans (despite their differences) are actually very similar! I bet if all of us here could sit together in my local pub, share a really good local beer, and some sunshine, and excellent pub food, we'd actually all get on like a house on fire. Everyone has the occasional glitch. There's no need to start battles over occasional glitches. Pesky (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Firestorm over JcClemens comment

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJclemens&diff=518912431&oldid=518898596
• User talk:Jclemens
• ```Buster Seven Talk 13:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nov 8/12 Move

What we do will echo down the Halls of Time

Longevity 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 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"? 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. Counter-attack is a natural response. A nasty remark on one side is met with a response in kind. Perhaps even just a bit nastier.

Peer pressure

• Peer pressure is a valid force to change behavior. At Wikipedia, the behavior of group members can easily and anonymously 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 the observed discussion 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. Perhaps not immediately...but a different more successful path has been laid out.
• 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 that work there. Veteran editors have great power to transmit the acceptable, social language of civility to the younger more "bitey" editor, even during casual discussions. Peer pressure holds the capacity to be a vehicle for positive change within Wiki World, a protector of the downtrodden, a spokesperson for civility.
• Volunteer authors and editors are an evolving resource. As they work they grow into members of the Wikipedia Community with the responsibility to respect their fellow editor. Editors will be as receptive to new rules as they were to the old ones.

Civility Soup

• Transferred From User:Sieberts Talk Page:

I see you have a pot of Civilty soup on the back burner. I wonder if I might add the following:

Writers of Encyclopedias have always corresponded...always been collaborators. The “back and forth” between editors/encyclopedists/collaborators MUST be congenial. For generations, writers of all kinds have corresponded and worked out their differences without conflict. In order to maintain a working relationship they rarely, if ever, attacked each other. We do not create articles or edit them in isolation. By that I mean we are not constrained within, and limited to, our own race or religion or ethnic background. Collaborators are challenged to see the bigger picture, to stretch their minds from the teachings of adolescent control and open themselves to new possibilities. Many times, editors are not satisfied with the results of consensus. They start to build a hornets nest of resentment. When you stumble upon a hornets nest, you don't hit it. You back up...for your own well-being. I have learned not to get stung. Wikipedia editing should be enjoyable, not aggravating. Arguing is stressful, aggravating and, most importaly, polarizing. Collaborating is goal oriented, unifying and stimulating. ```Buster Seven Talk. Before I read your reply I should point out ...this was meant more for your page stalkers than for you. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 22:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me a prisoners dilemma: if everyone will accept this your advice, Wikipedia will become a very comfortable place ... for aggressive editors and POV-pushers. Indeed, you will enjoy editing until the first arrival of some aggressive POV pusher on the page you are working on. Then you move to another place, then to the next one... until every page will become dominated by aggressive editors, who will easily realise that for thier viewpoint to prevail they simply have to be aggressive enough. I see two problems with that: 1. Wikipedia will not be a collection of good quality and neutral content, and 2. when only aggressive users will remain in Wikipedia, how will they collaborate with each other?

I would say, your advice is quite valuable ... when you are dealing with civil users. Meanwhile, I've just realised I developed a formula, which is a paraphrase of one famous aphorism:

"God, give me ability to friendly collaborate with a user who is willing to collaborate,

Courage to resist to a civil POV-pusher, and

the Wisdom to distinguish the former from the latter."

With respect, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Respect, in return. See User:Buster7/Incivility for some of my gatherings on the subject. Since my focus has become new users, my conversation with them is along the lines of staying out of the bramble bushes of working with aggressive and abusive editors. I in no way mean to imply that WE sacrifice the Encyclopedia to the "grenades" as I refer to them. But we both know that it takes a concerted effort not to go toe to toe with them. And new fragile users don't stand a chance. They need the fertilizer of success to strengthen themselves for the inevitable conflicts of WP editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: From President Obama's 11/15/2012 Press Conference:

" fair minded people can come together in agreemnet. Compromise is hard....not everyone gets all that they want."

November/2012

• People object, universally, to radical infringements of the SELF by ANOTHER; culteral diversity aside, no one wants to be mistreated or sworn at.
• Various social institutions/conventions came about to regulate our behavior for the good of the group.
• EVERY word we utter is a conscious choice. Even more so when we type it.

Vincenzo Valente

A member of the so-called Società dello Scorfano, an Italian poetic society which ironically emphasized its supporters' brutishness; among its other members was the poet Ferdinando Russo.

"(Maslow 97)"

What the heck kind of cite is this? Author year: page(s), please.24.19.234.62 (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

more comments from Silk Tork

• Premise: Maybe a solution to moving forward with the long and winding discussion is discussing Courtesy rather than Civility. Maybe Courtesy is a broader, more universal and uniformally International concept than the arguable more abstract concept of Civility.

Reply: It's an interesting thought, but I don't think it would make much difference. Civil works for me because it is part of civilisation. When people come together for a mutual project, we create a civilisation, and in order to make that civilisation work effectively we adjust our behaviour. Humans are social animals, and on the whole we do work together well, and we adjust our behaviour to accommodate others. We are polite, helpful and welcoming. However, there are noticeable variations within this sociability. We are more sociable to those we know / like / admire / recognise as being part of our group. We tend to be less welcoming to strangers than friends and family. We tend to be less welcoming to those who don't share our values, or who may give the appearance of not sharing our values. Racism comes from that trait. It's possibly a primitive survival instinct - go toward the familiar, and you are safe. Baby elephants will instinctively follow a large moving object, such as a Jeep - this is safer, as the large moving object is more likely to be an elephant than a tiger. We are, of course, more sophisticated than baby elephants, and we have developed since the times of tribal society, so racist and uncivil behaviour is now quite unacceptable.

There are, however, going to be reasons why people occasionally react in a primitive manner, even though they are otherwise urbane, sophisticated, knowledgeable, mature and intelligent. The internet is a recent communication system which divorces people from the emotional signals that we have picked up over generations, and which warns us to modify our behaviour at tense times. It is similar to driving a car, in which we become disconnected from our surroundings. People, on the whole, do not behave the same on the internet and in cars as they would do in a close contact social gathering. Added to which there is pressure/encouragement to behave in a certain way - sometimes positive, sometimes negative. People who continue to behave poorly on Wikipedia have been allowed, even encouraged to do so. Some people get trapped in that behaviour without intelligently analysing it. They might even enjoy the attention they get from it. This is often the case with children - so parents and teachers are instructed to ignore poor behaviour and praise the good. And added to all that, is the emotional aspect of editing Wikipedia. People often edit subjects which are meaningful and important to them - they place a good deal of their self worth in the subject matter - it could be religion, politics, ethnicity, pop idols or sports teams; when others add negative material to such articles, people take it personally. And there's also the pride and self worth people feel from doing work on Wikipedia, and they feel belittled if this is attacked or undermined. It's all quite complex, and cannot be summed up or dismissed easily.

How do we ensure that civility is maintained on Wikipedia? We draw up a civility policy, we try to enforce it, and when the community struggles with that, we take the issue to ArbCom. But when the committee feels unable to deal with it, then the community needs to have a serious think about the way forward. With elections coming up, perhaps the community will vote in stronger committee members, and that may create an imbalance going forward, so that ArbCom becomes rather tougher than the community as a whole actually wants.

While I don't like incivility it doesn't have a significant impact on me. I am concerned, however, for how it impacts on the wider community - the unseen silent majority. Strong debate should occur, and sometimes this will descend into hostility and cutting remarks. OK, but when those affected by the hostility raise the issue, then we should do something about it rather than shrugging it off, or excusing it. User:SilkTork/14:21, 30 October 2012

Compliant bystanders are affected

Bullying affects bystanders as well as victims. Studies suggest that there are psychological and physiological effects associated with being a bystander to bullying. Being a compliant bystander contributes to a sense of social mistrust and disconnection, and is associated with higher levels of stress, depression, and anxiety.