Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:14, 2 December 2015

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The initial Misplaced Pages:Civility essay was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by User:Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l. & (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy." Long before the creation of the formal policy, User:Jimbo Wales wrote his Statement of principles, wherein certain points echo the idea of civility. User:Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making more civil," , & (Nov. 2002) after reading User:The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Misplaced Pages" (Mar. 2002). User:Jimbo Wales picked up on Larry's point , and thereafter User:Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editor's thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009.

This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Incorrect revert

I consider Flyer22’s revert of an edit of mine (my edit 4August11:39, his revert 11:51) incorrect, because he does not give one argument as regards the content of the, motivated, edit. We have the right always to edit or ‘improve’ pages, motivatedly, and that’s what I did. If you disagree to the content, fine, but give arguments. The fact that I am (or was!) in any discussion anywhere does not deprive me of my rights to edit anywhere. There is no obligation to explicitly search consensus before editing, unless you can show me where that is written. Policy pages are no exceptions in that regard, unless you can tell me where that is written.
I wrote in my edit summary that I considered the edit to be in the spirit of ‘consensus’ on talk page, you may disagree to that, but it does not essentially matter, because there’s no rule that an edit should need consensus on beforehand. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I already addressed my revert of you in the #Proposed section: 'Offensive language' section above, and so did others. It wasn't an incorrect revert. Your rationale for adding that material was incorrect. Even though you cited consensus on the talk page for your addition, there was no WP:Consensus for that addition. And the top of this policy page states, "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question is diff which included text like "Debates are daily practice on Misplaced Pages". The addition should be in an essay, not in this policy. Reverts, particularly on a policy, are standard and are rarely "incorrect". Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Organising this policy page

I suppose that even a policy page should be organised logically? And that inconsistencies, redundancies and illogicalnesses may be repaired directly, just as they may be repaired directly on any ‘normal’ Misplaced Pages page?
Seeing that the page is titled ‘Civility’, I’d propose this logical outline:

1. What is civility.

2. What is incivility. (This section then ofcourse includes present §3 “identifying incivility”, because we identify anything, whether it is macaroni or Volvo or James Bond or incivility, by checking whether it fits the definition.)

3. Preventing our own incivility (Which then ofcourse includes what is now in §1.1, 1.2, and also §4.3 but much more condensed.)

4. Reacting on others’ incivility (Will contain the good rest of present §4.)

• Present §3.1 seems out of place on this policy page: ‘assume good faith’ is a separate, independent, Wiki policy. Just place a Wikilink on the term ‘assume good faith’ as soon as that term pops up—don’t try to repeat another policy page here. Keep things simple, concise, surveyable.
• §4.4 seems also out of place: ‘Blocking’ can be the consequence of what is said in §4.1: Dispute resolution→Arbitration Committee. It is enough to just add one line to that paragraph saying that ultimately the arbitrators can decide to a block.
• If ‘offensive language’ does not appear mentioned anywhere in the policy—as is now the case—it can’t appear in the nutshell, because that is then illogical and inconsistent.

Everyone is free, and invited, to react on these ideas. But having started this discussion section by no means deprives me of my right to directly repair gross or clear errors on this policy page, just as I’m entitled to repair obvious errors on any page, unless someone proves me wrong here. I also ofcourse have the right to directly include good ideas given here by others in any ‘improving’ edit of mine on the policy page—I don’t have to first ask their permission to use a good idea, and I also don’t have to first laboriously seek ‘consensus’ just to make an improving edit, on this page or or any Wiki page. If any (motivated) edit appears to be no improvement, anybody can remove it, with a good motivation ofcourse. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You might consider using a sandbox to prepare a draft. As I suggested elsewhere, people do not need precise definitions of civility and incivility—if a contributor does not have a pretty good idea of what those terms mean they should not be editing Misplaced Pages. Examples are good, but they should not attempt to be exhaustive and should not clutter the main points of the policy. This is not a legal document where terms have to be defined so courts of law can later decide whether to imprison an alleged offender—that's not how Misplaced Pages works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone will argue, incorrectly, that a block is equivalent to imprisonment. If I were to say that I didn't know that we didn't imprison people here, on the Internet, no one would know that I was being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs some details

Some editors may make disrespectful or rude comments at talk pages. Since a user is forbbiden to remove such comments, what should you do about it? And why not tell so on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am new to this forum. There are some interesting topics here. Nice to meet you guys. Hope everything of your goes ok.God blessed.http://shiragik.jp/cgi/diary03/data/view/sitemap.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by LomediaLomedia (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

'Offensive language'

There’s no consensus on “avoid offensive language” in this policy. It is a wish of only two editors: Reenem in 2010 and Johnuniq in 2015.

You can’t forbid, in a (compelling) code of conduct, the use of “offensive language”, if that concept is not clearly defined. Apparently, Johnuniq (9 August) agrees that the concept ‘offensive language’ is not clearly defined.

Yes we must try to avoid hurting others, but that is implicit in “participate in a respectful way”, in our policy (nutshell). Trying nevertheless to forbid, in a code like this, what is not (and can’t be) clearly defined, is totalitarianism, and reminds me of the style of some of the recent legislation in Russia.

You can shrug your shoulders now and think ‘yes, Corriebertus is right, but why should we bother about such silly things?’ But that is exactly how totalitarianism comes to thrive: people on the high ground, who know it is not right, but don’t care to bother, because they take for silliness what is deliberate contrivance.

If people feel hurt by language in Misplaced Pages, they should talk about it with the ‘offender’. If that doesn’t help, ask a third person to look into it. But not coarsely and lazily and condemningly point to a Misplaced Pages policy page and say (or suggest): you are being uncivil. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A more accurate way of presenting the diffs would be to say that Reenem added "and avoid profane and offensive language" in January 2010 (diff), and that wording was retained in the policy (see WP:SILENCE) with some modification until Corriebertus removed it in August 2015 (diff). Johnuniq reverted that removal, and the text has been retained until now. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Link to workplace bullying article

I added a link to workplace bullying, following the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Anti-bullying task force. I agree with SageRad's observation that workplace bullying is a more relevant article in the context of Misplaced Pages than bullying. We already have links to the encyclopedia articles on Harassment and Sexual Harassment, so why not bullying? EEng reverted the change with the comment, "Linked article makes significant implications which I don't believe apply here." What are they? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, "workplace" for one. But let's turn it around: what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy? EEng (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

yep, me too - you seem to be unilaterally declaring Misplaced Pages to be a "workplace" on the basis of one editor in that VP discussion offering their opinion that Misplaced Pages is "somewhat like a workplace".  pablo 09:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything remotely controversial about describing Misplaced Pages as a workplace. This policy promotes a "positive, productive working environment". Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific policy definition of "bullying". The link clarifies policy by providing a pointer to an encyclopaedic description. This may help people who wrongly believe that bullying is defined by the feelings of the victim, that confronting it means it wasn't bullying, or other misconceptions. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Misplaced Pages has some qualities of a workplace, many of which are relevant to the article workplace bullying. An actual Misplaced Pages essay is WP:BULLY, but i find that essay somewhat lacking and the workplace bullying article to have more nuance and relevant dynamics described. To answer the question asked by EEng above, "what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy?":

• "workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society" --> relevant in that it explains that bullying can use the rules of a place, like Misplaced Pages, and i have seen that so much here.
• "Bullying in the workplace is in the majority of cases reported as having been perpetrated by someone in authority over the target. However, bullies can also be peers, and occasionally can be subordinates." --> I've seen people with "authority" here such as admins wield their power (such as it is) with a bullying stance and attitude.
• "Bullying can be covert or overt. It may be missed by superiors or known by many throughout the organization." --> The point about covert bullying is important because it's a big aspect of much bullying on Misplaced Pages that it maintains generally plausible deniability such that it's fairly obvious to the recipient, and perhaps noticeable by observers who pay attention, and yet there is typically an easy way to deny it, just because one cannot get into another editor's head. It's a classic aspect of abusive relationships, generally, to maintain a level of deniability or covertness to bullying, except in the most extreme or reckless cases.
• Then there's the section on profiling, which recommends against profiling people as "bullies" thereby pathologizing it and labeling the person rather than the behavior as a "bully" rather than "bullying behavior".
• Then there's the section on organizational culture, which makes the point that "Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing, of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour." --> relevant at Misplaced Pages to the extent that much bullying behavior seems to have the green light or at least the "look the other way" response from admins and ArbCom, depending on who it is and what the content-related agenda may be and how it falls in relation to those with the power.
• There is the section on culture of fear, which could speak to some people's experience of a chilling effect by veiled threats of others being recognized as part of bullying.
• There's also a typology of bullying behaviors, and a list of tactics, and forms of bullying. All very helpful to someone who is in need of seeing these dynamics named and described, in order to combat the gaslighting and self-blaming aspect that can occur in a recipient of bullying behaviors.

In short, i clearly support its linking to the civility guidelines, and i thank Burninthruthesky for thinking of linking it. It would have helped me, had it been there a while back. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are three ways in which Misplaced Pages is clearly not a workplace:

• there's no contractual relationship between the "worker" and the "employer";
• none of the legal rights, obligations, and restrictions that apply in the workplace apply to Misplaced Pages;
• (most impotantly) no one's livelihood depends on editing.

I asked what in Workplace bullying help to clarify the Civility policy (from which you want to link it). SageRad's response tells us a lot of interesting stuff about typologies of bullying, but I still don't see anything about how the link makes the Civility policy clearer. If any link at all is needed, I think wiktionary:bullying#Noun says what needs to be said in 1/1000 the words. EEng (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a workplace in the sense that it's a place where people work together.

Specifically:

• There is an expectation of civility very much like most physical workplaces and other situations where people work together.
• There are ongoing relationships among people who rub shoulders and cooperate and sometimes get on each others' nerves.
• There are some power dynamics, as some are admins and some are arbitrators, who have more formal power as well as social status in some regards than "ordinary editors".

These are real way in which Misplaced Pages is like a more traditional "workplace". Also note that the concept of a "workplace" has never required it to be a single physical location, and this trend has expanded hugely since the age of telecommuting by Internet, so the "workplace" is a virtual concept as much as it is a "building where you go in the morning and leave at night". SageRad (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of a word isn't reliably arrived at by breaking it into pieces and giving uncontextualized definitions to the fragments. Highschool athletes may "work" together on the football field, but that doesn't make a football field a "workplace" (though no doubt bullying does go on there‍—‌just not workplace bullying).The entire Workplace bullying article makes it clear that it's about bullying on the job‍—‌or will you now claim that Misplaced Pages editing is a job?

And everything in your list applies to, say, a classroom as well. Is a classroom a workplace too? EEng (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether Misplaced Pages is a workplace (no) is irrelevant—what matters is that links added to an important policy must be helpful, but workplace bullying is not. We don't care what kind of bullying it is—it ain't allowed here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "bully" is mentioned twice in the policy, and there is no link, not even to WP:BULLY. Would you support a link to that essay? I think the policy would benefit from a link to a nuanced description of bullying behavior. SageRad (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to remove some of the links currently present. The line in question is:

• (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings

The two links are useful as they define terms as used at enwiki. However, we don't need to link "bullying" because anyone capable of reading the policy page knows what bullying is, and knows that it is regarded as "bad". If users A and B clash, A might take to using the thank function to let B know they are being watched. Someone could report that and describe it as "bullying", but no page we link to is going to say that thanking someone is bullying. More links = more confusion . Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Overlinking is bad in project space for the same reason it's bad in article space: low-value links water down and obscure those that actually assist the reader's understanding of the subject. Above I said, "If any link at all is needed, I think wiktionary:bullying#Noun says what needs to be said in 1/1000 the words", but I don't think anything is in fact needed, because as Johnu says, everyone already knows what bullying is. EEng (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the point that low-value links reduce readability. I oppose a link to wiktionary:bullying#Noun for several reasons:

• It doesn't give any examples of bullying behaviour.
• It gives an example of "in all schools" which may be misread to reinforce the misconception I have seen expressed on WP that bullying only occurs between children (as it used to imply in point 18 of this essay).
• It says "acts intended to...". Workplace bullying only mentions "attributed intent" and says the bully may be "laboring under the impression that this is the way to get things done".
• It doesn't mention "a bully’s mistakes are always concealed or blamed on underlings", which is something I see frequently on WP.

Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• The policy already has a lot of links. Links are ok. In fact, they're often useful and good.
• Not everyone knows what bullying is, and everyone can learn something more.
• Why is there such opposition to enriching the policy with a link that develops the concept of bullying more?

SageRad (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to the arguments raised above (examples: "define terms as used at enwiki", "water down and obscure"). And to repeat, how does the proposed addition help? Is it to convince readers of the evils of bullying? Anyone needing that is beyond contact, and all we can do is remove them from the project if they engage in bullying. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more to help a person who is recipient of uncivil behavior in understanding the characteristic dynamics of bullying, in order to be able to explain a behavior that feels uncivil, to understand and be able to apply the policy more fully. It's to help the Misplaced Pages community maintain civil behavior. As for the watering down, i don't think we're near link overload, and this one seems important to me. SageRad (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The effect would be to import into this policy very broad (and possibly conflicting -- Workplace bullying gives six) definitions of bullying that there's no indication the community endorses. EEng (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The policy already has a link to profanity to explain that word, and a wiktionary link for taunting and a link to an essay for baiting... in the same sense that the policy currently invokes profanity to explain that concept, i don't see how it would be bad to invoke an article on bullying to explain that by hyperlink. SageRad (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Links like that are what I was thinking of when writing "remove some of the links currently present" above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see taunt and profanity unlinked, but I'm unsure about baiting -- the linked essay gives worthwhile advice, and I think it's uncontroversial. EEng (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree—it's the attempted dictionary definitions which are pointless. The baiting link has useful advice for an editor, and a standard dictionary might not provide a useful definition of what is meant. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bullying is against the civility policy. Are there behaviours listed in workplace bullying that you believe are allowed by consensus on Misplaced Pages? What specifically is unhelpful about the article Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What specifically is unhelpful in the article? Well... "Bullying behaviors shows as an abuse of power between supervisors and subordinates in workplace. Supervisors release their own pressure to bully subordinates with their higher power due to workplace bullying. It is always related to management style of the supervisors. An authoritative management style is accompanied by a kind of bullying behaviors which can make subordinates fear so that supervisors can become authority themselves. On the other hand, some researchers agree that bullying behaviors is a positive performance in workplace. Workplace bullying can attribute to the organizational power and control. It is also a representative of power and control. if an organization want to improve this situation in workplace, strategies and policies must be improved. Lacking of policy in bullying like low-monitoring or no punishment will result in tolerating in organization. Bullying behaviors in workplace also exist among colleagues. They can be either the ‘target’ or perpetrator. If workplace bullying happens among the co-workers, witness will take side between target and perpetrator. Perpetrators always win, because witnesses do not want to be the next target. This way, it does encourage perpetrators to continue this behavior. In addition, the sense of the injustice by targets might become another perpetrator to bully other colleagues who have less power than them. Varitia who is a workplace bullying researcher investigate that 20% of interviewees who experienced workplace bullying thought the reason why they became a target is they are different from others. In a word, bullying can increase more bullying in workplace. The third relationship in workplace is between employees and customers. Although it takes a little part, it play a significant role about the efficiency of the organization. If an employee work with unhealthy emotion, it will affect the quality of the service seriously. This relationship is closely related to emotion label. Lots of examples can be listed from our daily life, like customers are ignored by shop assistants, patients are shouted by nurses in the hospital and so on. On the other hand, customers might despise the employees, especially blue-collar job, such as gas station assistants. Bullying behaviors in workplace can generate effect mutually between the employees and customers. The Fourth relationship in workplace is between organization or its institution or its system and the employees. In the article of Andreas Liefooghe (2012), it notes that a lot of employees describe their organization as bully. It is not environmental factors facilitating the bullying but it is the bullying itself. Tremendous power imbalance enables company to "legitimately exercise" their power in the way of monitoring and controlling as bullying. The terms of the bullying "traditionally" implies to interpersonal relationship. Talking about bullying in interpersonal level is legitimate, but talking about the exploitation, justice and subjugation as bullying of organization would be "relatively ridiculous" or not taken as serious. Bullying is sometimes more than purely interpersonal issue."

Editors shouldn't have to wade through 5000 words like that before realizing it has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. EEng (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Aside from needing some copy editing, I think this paragraph is useful and mostly very relevant to Misplaced Pages. I agree that "strategies and policies must be improved", which is precisely the purpose of this discussion. The fact a document is long does not mean it is poor.

If you are unwilling to give a substantive answer my question of what "significant implications" this link would have upon policy I will not attempt to engage with you any further in this discussion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Normal procedure is to explain how adding something such as a link is helpful. What at workplace bullying is helpful for someone trying to understand the CIVIL policy? Is anyone suggesting that a bully might click the link and be reformed because of what they read? Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See what above? EEng (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad's and my extensive replies to your (EEng and Johnuniq) questions, with which you appear to be unwilling to engage in a constructive manner. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you've "Unjustly discounted our thoughts or feelings" (Workplace_bullying#Tactics #3), "Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence" (#7), "Abused the evaluation process by lying about our performance" (#15) and "Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out" (#21). EEng (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)