Wikipedia talk:Civility/Poll

Curious support for adequacy of civility policy

It's early days, but I did chuckle that the only person so far who thinks the Civility policy is satisfactory is a new editor of six months. If the ranks of that section are filled by such users, I will have to change my contention - at least Civil could be shown to be working in not biting them. Joopercoopers. 04:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't ask the right questions

I have loads of objection to the enforcement of civility policy as it is, but none of them falls neatly under the headings given in this poll. It's not too lenient or too strict; it's fundamentally misapplied. It's used as a cudgel by POV pushers against those who try to stop them from pushing their POV. I consider it fundamentally wrong-headed to enforce the policy the same way when incivility directed at constructive users than when it's directed at destructive users, as it effectively says that it doesn't matter what you do content-wise; just keep your speech nice. There's also a strong tendency to punish the one who reacts and let the provoker off scot-free. Those are my objections to the civility policy. Oh, and it really wouldn't kill us to ignore it sometimes instead of using the sledgehammer method. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unenforceable as a heading came from me, when I saw too lenient and too strict as not hitting the mark... they were orthogonal from the real issue, or part of it anyway. If you think you have another orthogonal issue (and I agree with you that using it as a cudgel is not good... IMHO this is part of what GTB is getting at with his comments) you should add it in there, and see what you get. This is not a normal quick poll, it is a discussion starter, in my view, and if the discussion needs to go in another direction too, make it happen, please. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Heimstern, I threw this up as a general discussion and poll to get broad consensus first. It needed some structure as there are too many editors to have reams of unformatted text. As opinions are coming through I was imagining more specific questions for editors to comment on to appear at the bottom. As more specific observations, then we can start to conceptualise what specifically might need to be done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a feeling that it's giving The Right Answer. Perhaps not a widespread feeling, but who can tell. . dave souza, talk 19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have some reservations about whether the perspective of someone with 24 mainspace edits so far this year is cognizant of the day to day experience of admins in the trenches, but then he's the boss. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't feel it appropriate to respond when an IP uses his words as a stick to beat admins.[1] Which is sensible enough, but no doubt the pattern will be repeated. . . dave souza, talk 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Off topic, moved from mainspace

I like this comment from bishonen that states, Admins are supposed to be role models for users. To give her comment extra weight, she adds this... (WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are expected to lead by example".) (Off2riorob (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

What we can all do as an experiment is all edit this page with the same standard of civility that Bishonen used, and the people that are not admins can of course use an even lower standard of personal insult. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Please confine your comments to whether or not you would block given the same circumstances, and refrain from sarcastic commentary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

this is discussion,, if you don't like it you know what you can do! (Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

The irony of the above response in the context of a discussion of civility is duly noted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Risker's removal of discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

ad hominem section stays off the page. My blunder. I should have removed it before. Wikipedia isn't a battleground and a section like this detracts much more than it can possibly add. We all need to be on the same side and look forwards, not back. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I have reverted his/her unilateral removal of an ongoing discussion. If s/he had concerns for the direction or contents of the discussion was taking, the correct place to discuss this is the talk page I am using now. I completely disagree with this removal, and find it a strange thing to do: discussions are never removed, maybe closed, or maybe archived, but removed?

I ask Risker explain his/her actions, and that a discussion be opened around it.--Cerejota (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The title and the entire basis of that conversation was an example of incivility in itself. The fact that the editors participating in that conversation do not recognise this is one of the greatest reasons why there is an incivility problem on Wikipedia.

What that section did was set up an internal meme focused on two editors: the one who said "little shit" and the editor to whom the epithet was directed. It is highly uncivil to turn our editors into memes. Your restoration of the material without discussion when I was explicitly clear that it was to remove incivility only serves to perpetuate the incivility. One should never return material clearly labeled as uncivil without discussing first.

This is a discussion about how to make Wikipedia a place where people want to contribute. It isn't a place to continue the needling of people, and the fact that a discussion on how to improve the editing climate includes a significant focus that blatantly mocks certain editors demonstrates that the problem goes far beyond the policy on the page today, and that whatever is written there, it certainly hasn't captured the essence of civility. Let me encapsulate it for you: Civility is treating every editor with dignity and respect. That's all it is, one sentence for the entire policy is all that is required. Treat every editor with dignity and respect. Risker (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The case became a talk of the town much earlier, well before someone jumped in defence of the aptly named characters. Censorship of a highly watched page only contributes to the bonfire. P.S. if "the editors participating in that conversation do not recognise this" then maybe there's not much worth recognition? NVO (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That entire section, specifically the title, is a disingenuous, and inappropriate for Wikipedia in general, and this discussion especially. This is targeted at one editor, surrounding one incident, deliberately stripped of context and boiled down to reinforce exactly one side of the argument. For those of you keeping track at home, this is analogous to talking about someone in the room, as if they're not there, and pretending that they are too stupid to spell. "Hey, hypothetically, if tee-zee-en-kay-ae-i wrote something angry, would you block him?"

Civility discussions have time and time again disintegrated because instead of talking about the issue at hand, we make it about personalities, technicalities, and melodrama. Burn the section down the ground, or at least, I dunno blank it. That isn't censorship, its common courtesy.--Tznkai (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and also the retaliatory or and equally misguided and disingenuous follow up section too.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed it once more. Risker, an Arb, was quite correct to remove it. It was a salacious tittle-tattle of a section instigated for, I beleive, doubtful motives. Giano (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the removal; yon page has to be kept focused. For teh record; two oldids: [2] and [3]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

redux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move along. Jack Merridew 06:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The wholseale and unilateral removal of an entire section of germaine discussion after numerous replies, including Jimbo, is utterly out of order, seeing as it is seemingly based on one person's idea of what is incivility, the very issue being debated. Giano and Merridew's 'support' for the removal has got to be a joke, considering they commented on it first without raising its appropriateness at all, so I find their later support utterly transparent. MickMacNee (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Although at least Merridew had the courtesy of providing a backlink for the 20 or 30 editors who must now be wondering where that entire section they had commented on went, with no indication on the page it had ever existed. Even the talk page has no real clues for people looking for information as to what happened. How's that for unilataleral pronouncement on what one user's interpretation of what 'civility' is. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's some very good, if cryptic, advice Mr MacNee never smile at a crocodile - I'm sure we understand each other. Giano (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you the crocodile in this whole nonsense? MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mick, I don't think we've met before, although I've seen you about teh wiki. I was not joking — I hope you'll understand when I am. Note that I did not support either of those two not so great notions; I did have some dialogue in the discussion sections and got what I think is a significant statement out of Jimbo. The sections have served all the purpose they ever had and are best gone. Jack Merridew 13:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The links you provided above could mislead, Jack. You linked to the discussion of the first poll (which therefore skips the actual poll) and the poll on the second one (which therefore includes the entire poll and discussion). In the interests of fairness, these two links might be more accurate: [4] and [5]. Ha! (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that the claim that the intent of the poll was to humiliate and make fun of one editor was incorrect and out of order. To see it as deliberately titled to humiliate seems to me to require an assumption of bad faith that isn't valid. The first poll arose out of a well meant response to repeated challenges that there was no support for the block and the second poll was a response to the first. Also, the fact that only one poll was removed and the other was left was out of order because, if the second one hadn't been removed later, what was left behind would have given a very distorted representation which predominantly included only one particular group of editors' views, in a poll that some people weren't prepared to comment on because of it's potential bias. In hindsight though, although the polls did attempt to answer the question that was being asked, they did have the potential to escalate tensions and, as Jack mentioned, they have probably served their purpose. Ha! (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. I found that section quite useful in the discussion. As it happened, I must have been vacationing on Mars for the last month, I took the question as hypothetical, and responded that way. But then, later, reading it, I saw that there was reference -- in quite inappropriate discussion -- to the admin involved. In review, that the section header was so explicit was the basic problem, otherwise individual comments referring to the case might have been redacted. Changing the section header would not help with the legitimate purpose of keeping as-is, for people who commented or who see comments in history to find it. Leaving the section header would leave in place what was probably way too inflammatory.

There is a big problem on Wikipedia: discussions of policy based on no examples. Real courts won't take hypothetical cases. A state attorney general won't issue an opinion without a real case. Legislatures may avoid discussing real cases on the main floor, but do most of their work in committee, where real cases may be examined. My position is that we need to analyze and understand real cases, we tend to bury them as no longer relevant or important, but if policies and guidelines are to be what we claim, representations of actual practice, we need to not only discuss real cases, but refer to them as "precedents" or reasons why practice was nudged by policy page changes or ArbComm decisions. And because we avoid examining real cases when they are presumably "settled" or "moot," we avoid addressing the massive inconsistencies that are so obvious to observers of Wikipedia. The case underlying the flap over the removed section was actually a strong counter-example to what is far too often alleged about Wikipedia: favoritism and bias in how policies are applied. To me, it's sad that the weight of this fell on one excellent administrator; but I must also fault her for failing to recognize the opportunity it presented and instead behaving like an inexperienced user: full of bitterness and blame and biased interpretations, to the point of massively and repeatedly distorting what was actually said by Jimbo on the matter. In doing this, she was being perfectly normal. Except that a perfectly normal but not so well-established editor would have been blocked for what she did, if (1) repeated after warning, or (2) sufficiently well-established that the editor would be expected to anticipate that the edit was offensive.

The lost opportunity: Suppose, after having been harmlessly blocked for a few hours, she had written, "Thanks. While I may have been justified in some sense in making that comment, it was contrary to policy and I'm apologizing to the user I gratuitously insulted. I appreciate the point you are making by blocking me, and it is a very important one, and I'm grateful to have served the project by being an exemplar of just treatment of administrators, who quite properly are held to higher standards than other editors, not to mention expected to rigorously refrain from incivility, and I clearly crossed that line."

We'd have had a very different ensuing discussion, I'm sure. I don't blame her for not seeing that, for her response was quite normal. The majority of editors, blocked, go ballistic. But going ballistic for a short block like that, not quite so normal. I learned a great deal from Durova, who resigned her admin bit when it developed that it was going to be hugely disruptive to maintain it, even though, in fact, she had made what should have been a harmless error, blocking an editor incorrectly for less than an hour. Since then, avoiding unnecessary disruption has been my personal policy, and I've been learning how to do it even as I address contentious issues; I asked that a ban discussion at AN/I, over a topic ban issued by an involved admin for me, be shut down before any defenders of me but one had an opportunity to reply, because I saw that nothing but more disruption would be accomplished, and even though I believed that a deeper examination would have prevented the ban. Quite simply, the right to edit one article for a month was not worth the disruption. But some editors and administrators become "vested" at the same time as they start to lose patience, it's part of the burnout phenomenon, which we need to address directly, instead of blaming Jimbo for acting to respond to one of the pathological symptoms. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merridew, there is a difference between archiving a discussion that has run its course after participation, and unilateral removal due to deciding it in itself is a violation, in contempt of all previous inputs. The issue of archiving is actually irrelevant anyway, this is an open ended Rfc, not an ANI post, we do not archive inactive portions. We certainly don't remove sections based on some precautionary idea that it might get feisty (the irony being, this is a debate about admin enforcement of civility). So Merridew, you need to get on the same page as Risker, and either suppport the section's unilateral removal on principle, or simply oppose it. Supporting based on the fact you've had your say and now don't really fancy having it around anymore, is unnacceptable. I am really not sure what value you see in eliciting a valuable response from Jimbo about civliity, only to have it dissappeared from the very venue of record that is discussing the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We've moved well past unilateral by now - and I have said nothing on that section, but left my reasoning clear as day above, which I believe, has not been challenged. While I thing that Abd has some interesting reasoning up there about the significance of "real examples" I think the balance of facts clearly shows this particular question to be deceptive and misplaced. RFC/U is thattaway, discussions on civility - not personalities, belong here.--Tznkai (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Who do you want me to Rfc/u then? Jimbo or Bishonen? If that's the only way I get to defend myself against your accusations, I'll, do it. And when that Rfc/u drifts back to concluding that the community interpretation of the civility policy in general is FUBAR, I'll link it back to here, and we can start the whole merry dance once again, having got precisely nowhere, as usual. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you not RfC/U anyone, because I think that RfC/U is a near useless instrument and this incident has gotten far more attention then it deserves. In fact, lets run with that idea for a second because it demonstrates quickly some of the problems with this section. It produces little more than hurt feelings and battleground lines being drawn - the same thing it was doing here. Its useless at RfC/U, and its useless and out of place here. Civility discussions are always derailed by the personalities involved, and the veneer of neutrality created by making it a hypothetical makes it that much worse. In short, I think its a terrible idea.--Tznkai (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everybody is so hampered by your apparent need to present every civility debate as totally theoretical, and can properly distinguish between useful frames of reference, and needless personal drama-mongering. That is evidenced by the sheer amount of good faith contributions that you have just thrown away quite contemptuously. MickMacNee (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all a product of our penchant for trying to conduct deliberative process in groups that are known to be too large for it. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but democratic ideals underlie much of our process and procedures, we are, more accurately, two things: a community of people who communicate by various means, both here and elsewhere, and a web site with legal ownership and management, which is mostly hands-off. Classically, when democracies run into the problems of scale, they start delegating authority to smaller groups. When it's done well, the smaller groups are truly representative of the larger community, i.e., their decisions predict with some accuracy how the larger community would decide if it had the time to examine the evidence, develop and consider the arguments, and express a conclusion. We have paid very little attention to what is known about how to do this, we are mostly stuck between non-solutions where discussions are free-for-alls, with more heat than light, and a solution with a small and overworked elected body, ArbComm, using archaic forms that are, nevertheless, an improvement over nothing, but which remains cumbersome and slow. This is what I'll be discussing in the panel I signed up for at the New York meeting, I'll try to put something together as a brief summary. It's not easy, though, in the end, real solutions may be much simpler than we would expect. Our structure, as it is, produces and maintains the conflicts so many of us find frustrating. It can be fixed, but we have to be willing to examine it. The problem isn't exactly the existing structure, but a few missing elements that probably won't arise by chance. --Abd (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

@MacNee: So, I guess we're not using first names ;( No matter, mine's not really "Jack" anyway. So, anyway. *I* didn't remove the sections, it was Risker, an arb, who removed your section, Giano who re-removed it, Tznkai who cut the "zero thinking required" blocking criteria section, and Cas, also an arb and the initiator of this whole poll as well as someone known to have some serious insight on the subject matter, who boxed the above thread which you've rattled on about anyway. All serious people. Are you? And are you seriously suggesting that I have to select one of two options you present me? I don't. Your acceptance of my views is not required. The discussion is still there; it hasn't been dissappeared [sic]. Editors who don't see the temporal dimension of a wiki, do not understand wikis. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The only temporal difficulties occuring here Merridew is your recollection of who participated in that discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was commenting on the gravitas of the persons involved in the removal, not on those who opined or discussed. If you want to see who participated, you check the history or follow one of the oldid links (hint: temporal dimension). There were a number of participants (I didn't count them;) and that's to be expected when someone puts forward such a loaded question. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you need a hint on how to figure out whether, in all likelihood, your patronisation is necessary or not? MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free ;) fyi, you have new messages over on Risker's talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The subject is also being discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Blocks for admin abuse. Finell (Talk) 06:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New policy proposal - Rehabilitation of offenders

People involved in this discussion may be interested in a new policy I have just proposed: Wikipedia:Rehabilitation of offenders. --Tango (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Data on blocks for incivility

To see how often we actually do block "established" editors for incivility, I ran a query against the database to make a list. I selected all block log entries from 2009 that include the phrase "civil" and involve a user with more than 500 edits. I cleaned out the two false positives by hand.

The results are at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll/Data. Summary: I found 46 blocks, against 41 distinct users by 33 distinct admins. Of these, 13 had block messages that only referred to incivility, and another 9 mentioned disruptive editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My block should not count for data purposes, it was reversed well before expiry time by the blocking admin - who apologized - as it was a result of misunderstanding me referring to some sources as "sourcetards" ( a reference to the quailtards of Daily Show fame), instead of a person.

That said, that whole thread is an example on why civility should be rigorously pursued, but at the same time so should baiting. The fact is that Wikipedia today has a page for two extremely lesser known Japanese porn stars because some of us had short fuses.--Cerejota (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with Cerejota. We bumped heads through a misunderstanding and our blocks were lifted [6]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Carl - That's great data - is there anyway of filtering it to show the number of editors whose blocks were overturned before they expired? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That would require a new and much more complex query. I think blocks such as Cerjejota's are valid examples even if they were not valid blocks. I wanted to make a list of all blocks for incivility, good or bad, against established users, and this is the best list I have right now. (Actually it would not take very long to look at the 46 block logs and make a note of which editors were unblocked, if you wanted to make the list that way.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Its missing some blocks I'm certain - I know I sometimes block for civility related reasons, but not with that summary.--Tznkai (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What reason do you use? I think the main issue of disagreement are blocks that use the term "civility" rather than avoiding that term, and it wasn't clear to me how else one could word it. Blocks for trolling, personal attacks, etc., are not really "civility blocks" in the sense of this poll, IMHO. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Trolling and personal attacks are specific instances of violations of WP:CIVIL, as I understand the policy. Finell (Talk) 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there's a difference in perception. Trolling is disruptive editing, no personal attacks policy is specific, and WP:CIVIL covers a range of issues where, unless there's a pattern, many are best considered issues of ettiquette where blocks are less helpful, in my opinion. . . dave souza, talk 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What the results say to me is that 33 distinct administrators came to 46 blocking decisions. I see a couple of offenders on the results list that I KNOW were not uncivil. It is not in their makeup to be uncivil. My question is..."What if there was only one "Civility Administrator?". One abriter that we all trusted to be fair and impartial in cases of incivility. I think it would bring stability, legitimacy and clarity to an uncertain process.--Buster7 (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to close?

If the admins feel free to remove others's opinions to fit their vision then perhaps the whole poll is useless - "tell us what we like to hear" ? NVO (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not productive. This is not a genuine proposal to close, and closure is obviously premature. Finell (Talk) 08:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My idea was to gather a broad consensus, so hopefully >200 editors over two months or so, and not just a minority who might have a strong opinion and profess that their opinion holds true for the majority. Due to the size and breadth of the page, off-topic material needs to be removed to keep it readable. Also, specific rehashings of recent events are unhelpful. Other exchanges need removing as well, I just hadn't got round to doing it myself (and am most happy if others chip in). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What WP:CIVIL is not

Here's a thought. It's my impression that not everyone is walking around with the same idea of what our civility policy is. To some, it's what's written on the policy page. To some, it's what should be written on the policy page, but hasn't yet come to light. To some, it consists of strategies to apply to one's own behavior. To some, it consists of rules that you can zap people for breaking.

When people who have different ideas of what WP:CIVIL actually is, communication about the policy becomes very difficult. In the spirit of WP:NOT, and to an extent, WP:WIARM, I wonder if we could brainstorm up a list of things that WP:CIVIL is not, or should not be. I have no idea where this might go; I'll start below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CIVIL is not a weapon to gain the upper hand in a content dispute
• WP:CIVIL is not a list of "forbidden" words and phrases
• WP:CIVIL is not a requirement to avoid any possibility of offense; offense happens
• WP:CIVIL is not about protecting anyone's feelings

  WP:CIVIL already sez "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors." but unfortunately the impact of that wonderful sentence is softened by the qualifiers that immediately follow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  No, no, that's not how you play. Add things to the list. I'll do another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CIVIL is not about being blameless
• WP:CIVIL is not about lying

--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this; tidy and add to the policy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible question

A question has been churning around in my mind with regards to this poll. Should "Experts" be granted some extra leeway in civility?. I'm not talking about "Expert editors" (they should know what is and isn't acceptable), but rather those editors who can assist with things like Category:Articles needing expert attention. Those editors who have an area of expertise in a certain field, be it: musical, science, math, psychology, or whatever. In my opinion, all editors should be expected to adhere to the same rules and regulations, regardless of "real life" stature. However, in practice, I've seen a few people who are granted an extra little bit of leeway because of the content they could add. I'd be interested in opinions as to whether or not this would be too pointy a question to post on the poll. — Ched :  ?  01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one such "expert" (casting aside humility for the moment), no. Expert editors don't need special dispensation to be uncivil. What we do need, if I can presume to speak for experts generally, is community support in dealing with the constant drip-drip-drip of people who call us Nazis and the like for suggesting that just maybe it would be a good idea back up their small-minority viewpoints with credible citations. Dealing with stuff like that day after day, year after year is draining, and most of the time it seems like nobody else gives a damn.

Yeah, sometimes we get fed up and respond snarkily. I'm not going to excuse such behavior but guess what -- even Ph.D.s are human.

So come and hang out where the experts are even if you don't know the academic ins and outs. When you see someone acting like a jerk -- and yes, even an expert -- call them on it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this. Will expand on this later.--Tznkai (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue of who is an expert is a minefield. If we're basing our article content on reliable sources, then we all have the capacity to be experts on teh vast majority of subjects. Obviously there are some limits in specialty fields, and we have to understand what we're editing, and some good sense and judgment are required. But the bottom line is that while it's great to have speceialists with unique insights, we have lots of other people with valuable skills and basic understandings who can improve the language and image layout and content in lots of other ways. They can also highlight areas where content is not accessible to a general audience. Which is why I think collaboration is so important. And I think that's the point of with this civility nonsense. We don't want people to be impossible to work with whether they are POV pushing, self appointed "experts", or non-experts monkeying around. Civility is really about being willing to collaborate and being here to build a better encyclopedia cooperatively. Some people find being called an idiot a big impediment to that (so we have no personal attack policies) but I find the refusal of admins to weigh in on simple content issues uncivil. Help solve shit and let's move this thing along. No more policy and guidelines and essay pages please (Sorry Ched and GTB). And enough with the months long Arbcom silliness. Let's use the new article content board for content disputes instead of the behavior noticeboards and let's all get back to building articles. When someone acts like a jerk, don't punish the person who points it out, just mediate so the editing and content building process gets back on track. Help solve the dispute and figure out how it can be worked out and the content fixed up to meet NPOV and other core policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For better or for worse, I posted the question. — Ched :  ?  03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A point of consensus

I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the question on new users. Its a bit to early to do a full post mortem on the RfC, but the single point that seems to have the most unanimous and loudest support is that newbies are getting one of the worst welcomes to Wikipedia that they ever had. More than a few of us old and bickering fogies were welcomed with open arms, possibly by those we now line up against in civility discussions.

If Wikipedia is to survive, like pretty much anything else, it needs a large amount of fresh blood and an increase in the size of its userbase. Consensus seems to be, that we're not doing it. So what do we do?--Tznkai (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ask some new users. It's been years since I was a new user. Art LaPella (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I just believe that a WikiProject taking care of this issue would be a positive step forward. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be one along those lines? Esperanza (sp?) or something? I like the idea, and while I'm hardly an "old hat" at this, I'd certainly be willing to help where I could. — Ched :  ?  19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Esperanza was seen more a space for breaks and cool activities somehow unrelated to building the encyclopedia. I was one of the members and I really disagreed with the decision to kick it out. The WikiProject I am talking about would gather people who would push the points outlined by Tznkai a bit hard in a more formal way. Task forces can be created for specific tasks, etc... The Help Desk you are mentioning below is hard to find by newcomers and some of them would just leave before even contacting it. What I am suggesting is a proactive way to reach out newcomers and be ready to listen to their issues in a more professional and formal way. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think less "wikiproject" and more "task force" but I would be interested in putting something together with the survey below being our first project.--Tznkai (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a new project, somehow involving Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. as presumably the people involved there see a lot. I think watching articles on young fiction e.g. Twilight, and other TV and books is a good start. Vampire-related stuff on my watchlist often sees new names pop up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• though I've been lax in it lately, the help desk is always a good place to find, help, and encourage new users. I've turned a lot of redlink talk pages blue with a welcome message from there. — Ched :  ?  20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a watchlist noticed survey aimed especially at new users, asking for comments on their "new user experience?" Put together a basic survey, a few questions, ask for improvements, etc.--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea Tznkai, I'm in! — Ched :  ?  21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. An interesting sidebar. Ive had a few run-ins with a troublesome editor. I won't say who, but if I did you would all know him. Point is....he recruits new users. Kinda like a drug dealer recruiting his future lookouts. It is important that newbies get a good initial understanding of the lay of the land. ((There OWN lay of the land...not one designed by a less than favorable architect.)) And that not all editors are worthy of AGF.--Buster7 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Would something like this be what we are looking for? (questions at bottom of page) — Ched :  ?  19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. Good start.--Tznkai (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• There's a very interesting article Awadewit posted to the advisory council recently about research done that shows new editors experience the highest resistance to editing at wikipedia. Mostly off-topic for civility I'd guess, and probably a lot more to do with our ever expanding rule set, but civility is likely a part in our more contentious areas. I've mused that as well as a welcome patrol, and a buddy-up scheme for new users, what would be really useful is for some kind of mechanism that alerted us when an account has made say 100 edits - by that time, users are likely generally content with the wiki system and content to work with it, but might really appreciate someone to explain referencing, and some of the more difficult intricacies of mark-up. Pairing up fogies with new users of this sort of numbers might make better numerical sense (we might have enough fogies to deal with accounts with more than 100+ edits but probably not accounts with 10+ edits). Worth a thought or two that I think. Personally, {{helpme}} and {{admin-help}} was the best thing for me at that time. Aren't new users using it? Can we find out? I used admin-help just today.........--Joopercoopers (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets all pitch in on this, Ched's link up there might be a good place to start. Joopercoopers, could you bring some friends?--Tznkai (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not, we're all safely cocooned in ivory towers......I'll have a think about who.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's open to all. Edit it, change it, re-format it, move it to main space if you think that's better - doesn't matter to me, and I make no claims of ownership whatsoever. Those were just my thoughts on the matter - it's open to anyone who wants to chip in. — Ched :  ?  00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)