Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/current discussions/equality in enforcement
Relevant reading materials edit
See also: Discussion on administrator's noticeboard and Discussion on David Condrey's talk page. Plus a very suss discussion on my talk and a random blocking.--Coin945 (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
They're separate but that's just an excuse to prevent anything being done about it edit
Somebody invited me to post something here because I have as of recently decided that contributing to Wikipedia may not be a good idea. On Wikipedia, at least this english Wikipedia that I am most active on, there are so many guidelines and policies about how people talk and treat each other, and what's considered appropriate content, what's not, what's a valid reason for blocking or tagging things, etc.. etc.. I always thought that while they may be separate projects, all the Wikipedia projects were still connected.
Recently I got an indefinite IP ban on Wikipedia Commons and won't go into the details of that again unless somebody asks because there have already been numerous conversations about it. But ultimately, I couldn't believe that 1) the ban remained.. and 2) nothing was ever done about the fact that I was obviously banned by an admin who was retaliating after having just been repremanded for having deleted several images without first reviewing them (images I'd nominated for discussion to be deleted). And accused of things without absolutely no merit for the accusation whatsoever. Had contributions deleted due to copyright issues even though I had proper valid copyright notices on them, and even was made fun of, and name called, and was directly insulted and badmouthed on more than 1 occasion by 1 editor in particular. But after I tried to get help, no one ever gave any response to these issues, or addressed them in any way.
Wikipedia has all these guidelines and policies but if they're not enforced then .. I walked away from the situation feeling as though apparently the people in charge must be completely immature children. Forget about the accusations made against me for just a minute.. I would love to debate with someone the merits of how and why I was accused to begin with, and the way I was treated when I tried to defend myself. But no one has even bothered to offer a response to those questions.. I think because they can't come up with a response.
And then there's the whole issue that started it in the first place. As Wikipedia continues to be a well known household name and heck, my sisters kids are taught to search Wikipedia in grade school.. editors of Wikipedia are amusing themselves by posting close-up pictures of their genitals while they jerk off. Give or take 1000 images of close-up penises. Even some animated gifs of hardons and video clips of guys jerking off. And trying to nominate them so people would discuss the merit of them being there was worthy of indefinite ban, libelous accusations, ridicule, and being ignored. If that's the mentality of the people running this boat, it's not a ship I want to get on.
Conveniently, the policies and guidelines and methods of dispute are significantly less than those of this english wikipedia. David Condrey (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Equality in Enforcement? edit
One issue that seems to come up with some regularity, and does resonate with me when I consider my participation here, is the question of equal enforcement of policy. The perception that admins (and possibly some established users and/or skilled newcomers who know how to work AGF) can "get away" with behavior that would see lesser contributors blocked or admonished is a powerful thing. Badgering seems to be more acceptable than standing up to those who badger, to give another possible example. I've been on the fringes of a couple those things, and seeing the level of passive-aggressive bullying that can slide under the radar is disappointing. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with this concern. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why 'possibly' some established users? There's no 'possibly', it happens. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Of course it does. I was trying to stick with DB's intent and avoid personalizing the discussion. And the same does happen with the perennial passive/aggressive POV pushers. In any case, no matter what group you look at, it tends to fall back on uneven enforcement. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why 'possibly' some established users? There's no 'possibly', it happens. Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll agree that there are some established users who frankly get away with murder in terms of incivility and "civil" pov-pushing (most of whom in my experience are not sysops but with a few notable exceptions) and as a sysop who takes WP:5 seriously I have found little support from fellow admins (and less from the "wiki-friends" of these established users, and less again from the "teh adminz on whatisitpedia are alz evilz" crowd) for rigorous & equally enforcement of WP:5. For sysops the problem is if we make enforcements against these users they WILL get over-turned and we'll be lashed for trying to enforce policy equally, and then we're likely to reflect on whether WP is worth it. I see a lot of good sysops who are burnt out by this. So I think Intothatdarkness is raising a good point. I honestly believe that a ban on ad hominem (and lying) would solve most of these problems on site but until the community gets on board with actually letting us enforce policy fully we can't--Cailil talk 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I seem to remember even some individual-user specific "G---- rules" regarding some editors who shall not be named, who are, or were, even supported by some individual arbitrators. Making a policy of excessive ad hominem and dishonesty would be great, but proving the latter is all but impossible in some cases, and drawing the line on the former is problematic. Maybe, if nothing else, a kind of extremely unofficial "Friends of G----'s targets" group, or group to help defend individuals who ask for help in such situations, to prevent such sometimes newer editors from getting disproportional sanctions to the other side, might be, at least in the short run, something that would keep some editors from leaving when they enter into such situations? John Carter (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is another side of that coin, that some people overenforce civility. I think you have to allow heat in discussions as long as it isn't personal attacks. There is a big different between "fuck that" and "fuck you", both of which may be offensive, but the first should be overlooked, and the second should draw a strong warning the first time and block on the second instance. I have noticed that the threshold for blocked users seems even lower, which is problematic as well. We can't force people to be nice or to not use the occasional foul or abrasive comment, and civility needs to focus on stopping those making actual personal attacks and deal with that fairly but swiftly. Some of the best editors are a little rude sometimes. I'm a little rude sometimes, we are all human, but it is the attacks that undermine the process, not a few swear words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- The odd swearword is not the problem; part of the problem is that some people see swearing to be almost the be-all and end-all of civility. I'd just as soon be called a f**king c*** as patronising, or condescending, or "an enabler", or "friend-of-Mr.X", or "civility police", or "do-gooder". It's the attitude which is the problem; yet it seems that only the calling of certain types of names is ever jumped on. It's the "You are a [insert phrase here]; therefore your input is worthless" thing; and many people are either clever or devious enough to get away with consistent name-calling simply by avoiding certain particular words. This is where we need equality. Pesky (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Adding: for example, it really riles me when I see someone being called "immature" on the same page (and often in the same sentence) as they are being harangued about incivility, and not an eyebrow being raised over it. Pesky (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- The odd swearword is not the problem; part of the problem is that some people see swearing to be almost the be-all and end-all of civility. I'd just as soon be called a f**king c*** as patronising, or condescending, or "an enabler", or "friend-of-Mr.X", or "civility police", or "do-gooder". It's the attitude which is the problem; yet it seems that only the calling of certain types of names is ever jumped on. It's the "You are a [insert phrase here]; therefore your input is worthless" thing; and many people are either clever or devious enough to get away with consistent name-calling simply by avoiding certain particular words. This is where we need equality. Pesky (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is another side of that coin, that some people overenforce civility. I think you have to allow heat in discussions as long as it isn't personal attacks. There is a big different between "fuck that" and "fuck you", both of which may be offensive, but the first should be overlooked, and the second should draw a strong warning the first time and block on the second instance. I have noticed that the threshold for blocked users seems even lower, which is problematic as well. We can't force people to be nice or to not use the occasional foul or abrasive comment, and civility needs to focus on stopping those making actual personal attacks and deal with that fairly but swiftly. Some of the best editors are a little rude sometimes. I'm a little rude sometimes, we are all human, but it is the attacks that undermine the process, not a few swear words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I seem to remember even some individual-user specific "G---- rules" regarding some editors who shall not be named, who are, or were, even supported by some individual arbitrators. Making a policy of excessive ad hominem and dishonesty would be great, but proving the latter is all but impossible in some cases, and drawing the line on the former is problematic. Maybe, if nothing else, a kind of extremely unofficial "Friends of G----'s targets" group, or group to help defend individuals who ask for help in such situations, to prevent such sometimes newer editors from getting disproportional sanctions to the other side, might be, at least in the short run, something that would keep some editors from leaving when they enter into such situations? John Carter (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll agree that there are some established users who frankly get away with murder in terms of incivility and "civil" pov-pushing (most of whom in my experience are not sysops but with a few notable exceptions) and as a sysop who takes WP:5 seriously I have found little support from fellow admins (and less from the "wiki-friends" of these established users, and less again from the "teh adminz on whatisitpedia are alz evilz" crowd) for rigorous & equally enforcement of WP:5. For sysops the problem is if we make enforcements against these users they WILL get over-turned and we'll be lashed for trying to enforce policy equally, and then we're likely to reflect on whether WP is worth it. I see a lot of good sysops who are burnt out by this. So I think Intothatdarkness is raising a good point. I honestly believe that a ban on ad hominem (and lying) would solve most of these problems on site but until the community gets on board with actually letting us enforce policy fully we can't--Cailil talk 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think Pesky hits the nail on the head, civility is not in fact about swearing (some people use swearing simply as an adjective/emphasiser, while not very nice that's not THE problem) it's about the targeted and nasty ad hominem designed to denigrate an "opponent". One can be perfectly polite and deeply incivil simultaneously, Pesky's example of the use of "immature" is a perfect example - as is the overly casual association of place of birth and some POV (that in fact is racism even if the community like to ignore that fact). These are snide battleground tactics, not debating devices and need to stopped.
We should be allowing heated discussion of content/policy but once it gets personal interventions need to be made, and if the point doesn't register after warnings it is time to block. The WP:CIVIL rules aren't there for people to like them, they're there to protect them - just like a speed limit on the roads--Cailil talk 15:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't claim to have mastered the art, but I have always tried to be very tolerant of heated discussion that is on topic and not personal attack. Some people get offended by "that is bullshit" type of comments, but I overlook them if it is on topic because that is just how some people communicate. Poorly, perhaps, but I'm not the grammar police either. I think one of the keys here is that in order to have equity in enforcement, it requires admins or neutral non-admins get involved earlier in these discussions, without choosing sides. Many times, I will flatly say "I don't have an opinion on which version is right, but we all need to just tone it back a little and keep it on topic, please. Lets not get distracted with personal comments." and leave them to discuss it. I think you have to make it clear that someone who doesn't have a stake in the outcome sees the heat and is only encouraging proper discourse, without taking sides or naming names. Then it can be said that they have been given fair warning that the discussion was getting too close to personal, if it were to degrade further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)