User talk:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy

Feedback

• • I LOVE IT!!! --harej 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• So tempting... --> WP:CIV rootology (C)(T) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• yesTombomp (talk/contribs) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nice...Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Better. But I have my doubts about whether rational commentary will always be recognized as such. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would suggest changing "... not dealt with by blocking" to "... ideally not dealt with by blocking." This recognizes that blocks for "incivility" are depressingly common (it's even a pre-formed block rationale on the drop-down menu!), but that they are not the optimal way to address incivility. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Altered. Moreschi (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Rather, " Violation of this standard should not be dealt with via blocking, " to Individual violations of this standard should not routinely be dealt with by blocking. The intention of the following sentence seems to have been a roundabout way of saying repeated ones will led to a block for being disruptive, which amounts to blocking for repeated violations. And for some violations, such as deliberate ethnic slurs and other grossly odious behaviour, a block seems appropriate. What's the alternative to doing so? DGG (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, sort of. You can always find a different blocking reason, though. If someone's trolling talk pages with ethnic slurs, then block for talkpage disruption, or WP:BATTLEGROUND violation, or baiting other contributors, or harassment, or something similar - a block reason that actually makes sense. You'll never actually have to block for "incivility". And repeated ones shouldn't always lead to a block for disruption: incivility has to be placed in context. Thoughts? Moreschi (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• While I agree with most of the general philosophy you present here Moreschi, I find I having a nagging feeling that this is how WP:CIVIL originally started out ... before it encountered the real world. I suspect the subsequent accretions all follow from cases where folks in the community decided to rule out one wikilawyered excuse after another in an enforceable way. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, you're wrong. I don't mean this nastily, but I do know how WP:CIVIL started off. You can read the original version on metawiki somewhere: it was an essay by Anthere not dissimilar to the current version - it's changed little - and IMO it was poor even then. Moreschi (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Incivility Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• yes. WP:CIVIL meets WP:DICK. A historical note of how "be civil" ended up being abused for filibustering 9 times out of 10 may be in order. I endorse "be civil", but most people who violate this already have no business being here for lots of other reasons already, so the current WP:CIVIL doesn't serve much of a de facto purpose. I am very tired of being reminded to "be civil" when I tell people detachedly that their nonsense is "nonsense". --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. A history of where policies go wrong would certainly be interesting. I'll have a think about it. Moreschi (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• The sad thing is that policy is descriptive, and this totally doesn't describe how things currently work. But it should. Giggy (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • True. Moreschi (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• For what my $0.02 are worth, I agree with your sentiments.
  --NBahn (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Should "rational debate" be construed as "take no hostages and sink them all, just do it rationally?". NVO (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• This continues the prejudgment, and wiki-misconception, that rhetorical devices are good, and that parrhesia is bad. Nothing would be changed. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Refreshingly more concise than so much instructional guff here. One rider: I don't think that surrendering a point of principle on the basis of consensus makes sense. To take an extreme example, agreeing to murder someone on the basis that most others want it done is unconscionable no matter what the consensus is. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• The funny thing is that this far superior, concise and useful policy proposal would be aggressively opposed by the exact same group of people who usually shouts down every proposed improvement as CREEP. --78.35.237.98 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)