User:Sanmosa/Oshwah

CC BY-SA 4.0协议允許下，本頁面部份使用en:User talk:Oshwah及／或其子頁面的內容。
原始內容在en:User talk:Oshwah，編者列表。

Hi Sanmosa! I apologize for the delay responding to your questions here. I hope you're doing well and that life is treating you kindly. :-) The best way to approach someone on Wikipedia in regards to civility and their recent behavior (assuming that they've been responding and commenting uncivilly) is to do so in a peaceful and encouraging manner, and with words that the editor will interpret as being an attempt to provide them a friendly and informal warning about their behavior, and an offer to help them out if they need it.

There are a few very important things that you need to know and understand before you decide to approach anyone about their recent incivility or personal attacks made toward others. First and foremost, you need to understand that this editor will likely either be very upset, extremely frustrated, and in a very confrontational and in-your-face kind of mood. Because of that, they will likely mis-interpret any words that you use toward them - and that have even a tiny remote possibility of being negative, threatening, or confrontational - as being such, and they will very likely respond to you with the same level of unpleasantness that they believe that you made toward them. That's why it's important to pay very close attention and be very selective with the words that you use in your message to them. Be clear with your reason for reaching out to them, how you feel, what you're trying to do, your desired outcome from approaching them, and your expectations.

Another very important thing to understand, expect to have happen, and be prepared for is the fact that the user that you're approaching is very likely going to respond to your discussion negatively, uncivilly, and in a confrontational and battleground-like manner toward you in return. If this happens, don't take it personally - they're just upset with the situation, and they're upset that someone is now talking to them about their behavior. Consider this to be the typical and expected outcome of your discussion with them, and be prepared for this emotionally and psychologically. When this happens, don't make any further responses or replies to the discussion. Just walk away and consider the matter closed; you've told them about their behavior, pointed them toward relevant policies and guidelines, and were civil and offered to help them. The most important objective with approaching someone about their behavior is that you've informed them and that you've warned them; if anything, they now understand that they're violating one of Wikipedia's founding principles, and they can't come back to us later and use the "I didn't know" or the "I wasn't told" or "I wasn't warned" excuse if their repeated behavior results in sanctions or editing restrictions. Your ultimate goal and the desired outcome that you're aiming for is to receive a response from the editor that isn't unpleasant and full of uncivil personal attacks toward you. If that happens, consider it a bonus and a huge win towards you and how you handled things with them. My ultimate point with this paragraph is to tell you that a negative and uncivil response to your message to them about their incivility should be expected. Just don't let it get to you emotionally, and walk away when that happens. You did your job.

I typically approach others about civility with the role of a "concerned editor who just wants to help." That's given me the highest level of success when it comes to receiving civil replies in return (aside from having a highly respected standing and reputation with the community, but that's neither here nor there... lol). What exactly does that look like? "Hi [Username of editor]! I hope you're doing well and that your day has been pleasant. I just wanted to leave you a message in order to talk to you about some concerns that I have regarding some of your recent comments and responses toward other editors in some discussions. For example, the comment you made [here - provide a diff link pointing them toward their uncivil edits], and [here - list additional diffs as necessary]. These comments are [uncivil - provide a wiki link to WP:CIV], and they directly conflict with one of Wikipedia's [founding principles - provide a wiki link to WP:5P]. It's a real bummer to see a discussion turn into something like this, and I just don't want to see you get blocked or finding yourself in hot water with the community because of how you've recently behaved toward others here. I just want to quietly and informally give you a nudge on the shoulder about Wikipedia's [civility policy - provide a wiki link to WP:CIV] so that you can correct this behavior before it leads you into any trouble. If you need help with anything, have questions, or just need someone to talk to or to help you to calm any emotions down, please don't hesitate to reach out to me. I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. I wish you well, and I hope that you'll take this as an opportunity to self-evaluate how you respond and communicate with others, and that you'll do what you need to do in order to keep calm, remain civil, and keep discussions positive and focused toward our primary goal of building an encyclopedia. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. Best - [signature]." Leave a message similar to this with someone who needs to be talked to about their recent lack of civility, and I think it'll have a good chance of turning out well.

Now, onto your other question: "What is the true concept of consensus?" That's an excellent question to ask; many editors have, at best, a partial and basic understanding of what consensus is and how to determine whether or not consensus has been achieved. But let's not start by asking what consensus truly is... Let's start by asking how that we can achieve consensus, and what the goal should be next when that level of consensus cannot happen. First, let's start with the very basic level of consensus. Let's say that you hypothetically make an edit to an article, add some content, and save it. If nobody objects to your edit, reverts it, or starts a discussion to discuss, challenge, dispute, or voice their opposition to it - you've attained the most basic level (but the most complete level) of consensus. You made an edit that nobody objects to - in retrospect, this is known as presumed consensus. Now, let's say that someone revises your edit a few months later. Unless someone objects to, disputes, or reverts that edit - it is now considered to have presumed consensus. And the cycle continues and continues... this is how Wikipedia and the encyclopedia can grow and expand over time.

However, this obviously isn't always the resulting outcome, and other editors will certainly raise concerns, object to, challenge, dispute, and revert edits that are made. When this happens, Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol outlines exactly how to work things out - from the very beginning of an objection or content dispute, we are expected to start a discussion with the focus and objective toward achieving consensus. What does that look like typically? To give you a very basic example: If two people are discussing a content dispute with one another, it's ideally reached by proposing a change, addressing the concerns raised by those who are opposed to it, proposing another change with these concerns addressed and incorporated, and continuing this cycle until a proposed change is presented that everyone involved with can agree on. Consensus is now reached, and that proposed change can move forward. The typical way that consensus is achieved in this example is that the two users work toward a compromise that everyone involved agrees with. In these situations, editors should work toward a compromise rather than an "all or nothing" approach; that kind of strategy and approach is almost never met with consensus, and typically results in frustrations and tensions between those on the other side of the dispute. Seek compromise where possible.

When it becomes more complicated and as more editors get involved, we turn to different strategies for presenting arguments for or against a proposition or discussion and determining if consensus has been reached in a discussion. Consensus decisions (that's when someone closes a discussion and decides if consensus is reached, and if so, what the outcome is) are properly made by taking the quality of the arguments made, their origin and history, and community policies and guidelines into account. A determination of whether or not a consensus exists is typically measured by examining each side of the discussion or dispute, examining the quality of the arguments and reasoning provided by the participants on that side, and whether or not their arguments properly incorporate, respond to, and address all of the legitimate concerns and objections raised by the opposing side. If this is found to have been achieved by one side of the proposal, it will typically be determined that consensus has been reached, and proceed with the actions necessary with implementing the decision that was reached by consensus.

Depending on the discussion, the number of editors involved, and the complexity or size of the discussion, proposition, or dispute - closing a discussion and making a consensus decision and a ruling is not an easy task that can be performed properly if done with haste, without properly reading through the entire discussion and each argument that is provided by its participants, or if done with the mindset that this has to be closed and with a "ruling" by a certain time or that it must be done quickly. Unless the closing administrator (or editor) has been actively following the discussion from the start and as it grows and as more editors add their arguments, reading through an entire discussion and making a proper determination can take days to complete. The key here is patience, knowledge of policy, diligence, and completeness.

As you can obviously see with my response to your question, as the proposition or discussion grows, and as more participants provide their arguments, and as complex or in-depth the discussion or proposition becomes or aims to implement, "true determination of consensus" (which is what happens when everyone involved agrees with a certain outcome) shrinks to a near-zero probability. We of course seek to incorporate all of the legitimate concerns raised in a proposition, and then seek consensus by making additional propositions that compromise and address those concerns until a proposal is provided that everyone can agree on, but there are often propositions and discussions where this can't happen and where this isn't possible. For example, you can't take an editor's request for adminship at RFA and come up with "compromises" and modified proposals until everyone is happy. Either you're in support for the proposal or you're in opposition to it (or you can be neutral of course and provide legitimate input as well), and in those cases, I've explained how determining whether or not consensus has been reached in this response a few paragraphs above.

Whew! This has got to be one of the lengthiest replies that I've ever provided on my user talk page! I apologize if you find my response to be overly large in length and detail, but I wanted to fully answer your questions and explain everything to you in a way that I believe that you'll understand completely and easily. I hope that my response here is helpful to you, and that it fully answers all of your questions. If you still have any questions, please don't hesitate to respond and ask them, and I'll be more than happy to answer them and help you. I hope you have a great day, I wish you happy editing, and I apologize again for the delay with responding to you here. :-)

以下為中文譯文：

嗨，Sanmosa！對於遲了這麽久才在這裡回覆你的問題，我深表歉意。我希望你過得很好，而你的生活也很順利。 :-) 就文明與他們最近的行為（假設他們一直在作出不文明的回應和評論）而言，與維基百科上的某個人接觸的最佳方式是以和平和鼓勵的方式進行，並使用用戶會理解為對他們的行為的友好和非正式的警告的用語，以及他們在有需要時的適切幫助。

在你決定與任何人就他們最近的不文明行為或對他人進行的人身攻擊進行接觸之前，你需要知道並理解一些非常重要的事情。首先，你需要了解這位用戶可能會非常煩惱、非常沮喪，並且會表現出非常具對抗性和即時顯現的情緒。正因如此，他們可能會誤解你對他們使用的任何用語——甚至極有可能是消極、威脅或具對抗性的詞語——而且他們很可能會以同樣的方式回應你，反映他們認為你對他們造成的不愉快程度。這就是密切關注並極度謹慎地選擇你在給他們的訊息中使用的用語的原因。清楚說明你接觸他們的原因、你的感受、你想要做什麼、你想要接近他們的結果以及你的期望。

另一件非常重要的事情要理解、預期會發生並做好準備的事情，就是你正在接近的用戶很可能會對你的言論作出負面、不文明的回應，並且會以具對抗性和類似戰鬥的方式進行回應。如果發生這種情況，不要放在心上——他們只是對這種情況感到不安，而且他們對有人現在與他們談論他們的行為一事感到不安。將此視為你與他們討論的典型和預期結果，並在情感和心理上為此做好準備。發生這種情況時，不要對討論做出任何進一步的回應或回覆。離開並把事情當作已經結束就可以了；你已經告訴了他們他們的行為的不妥之處，並向他們提醒過相關的政策和指導方針，並且有禮地提出幫助他們的意願。接近某人了解他們的行為的最重要目標是你已告知他們並警告過他們；如果有的話，他們現在已經明白他們違反了維基百科的一大支柱，他們以後不能再藉口“我不知道”、“我沒有被告知”或“我沒有被警告”迴避他們因多番的不文明表現而導致的制裁或編輯禁制。你的最終目標和期望的結果是從編輯那裡得到一個不令人不快且並未充滿不文明的人身攻擊的回應。如果這種結果出現，請將其視為對你以及你與他們處理事情的方式的獎勵和巨大勝利。我對這一段的最後一點是希望告訴你，你向他們傳達有關他們的不文明行為的訊息通常會引來消極和不文明的回應。不要讓它在情緒上影響到你，當這種情況發生時離開就可以了。你做了你應該要做的事情了。

（待翻譯）