用户:Sanmosa/Oshwah

CC BY-SA 4.0协议允许下，本页面部份使用en:User talk:Oshwah及／或其子页面的内容。
原始内容在en:User talk:Oshwah，编者列表。

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. :-)

以下为中文译文：

嗨，Sanmosa！对于迟了这么久才在这里回复你的问题，我深表歉意。我希望你过得很好，而你的生活也很顺利。 :-) 就文明与他们最近的行为（假设他们一直在作出不文明的回应和评论）而言，与维基百科上的某个人接触的最佳方式是以和平和鼓励的方式进行，并使用用户会理解为对他们的行为的友好和非正式的警告的用语，以及他们在有需要时的适切帮助。

在你决定与任何人就他们最近的不文明行为或对他人进行的人身攻击进行接触之前，你需要知道并理解一些非常重要的事情。首先，你需要了解这位用户可能会非常烦恼、非常沮丧，并且会表现出非常具对抗性和即时显现的情绪。正因如此，他们可能会误解你对他们使用的任何用语——甚至极有可能是消极、威胁或具对抗性的词语——而且他们很可能会以同样的方式回应你，反映他们认为你对他们造成的不愉快程度。这就是密切关注并极度谨慎地选择你在给他们的讯息中使用的用语的原因。清楚说明你接触他们的原因、你的感受、你想要做什么、你想要接近他们的结果以及你的期望。

另一件非常重要的事情要理解、预期会发生并做好准备的事情，就是你正在接近的用户很可能会对你的言论作出负面、不文明的回应，并且会以具对抗性和类似战斗的方式进行回应。如果发生这种情况，不要放在心上——他们只是对这种情况感到不安，而且他们对有人现在与他们谈论他们的行为一事感到不安。将此视为你与他们讨论的典型和预期结果，并在情感和心理上为此做好准备。发生这种情况时，不要对讨论做出任何进一步的回应或回复。离开并把事情当作已经结束就可以了；你已经告诉了他们他们的行为的不妥之处，并向他们提醒过相关的政策和指导方针，并且有礼地提出帮助他们的意愿。接近某人了解他们的行为的最重要目标是你已告知他们并警告过他们；如果有的话，他们现在已经明白他们违反了维基百科的一大支柱，他们以后不能再借口“我不知道”、“我没有被告知”或“我没有被警告”回避他们因多番的不文明表现而导致的制裁或编辑禁制。你的最终目标和期望的结果是从编辑那里得到一个不令人不快且并未充满不文明的人身攻击的回应。如果这种结果出现，请将其视为对你以及你与他们处理事情的方式的奖励和巨大胜利。我对这一段的最后一点是希望告诉你，你向他们传达有关他们的不文明行为的讯息通常会引来消极和不文明的回应。不要让它在情绪上影响到你，当这种情况发生时离开就可以了。你做了你应该要做的事情了。

（待翻译）