User:AP295
Most of my submissions on meta are comments in RfCs. A couple of suggestions (or perhaps a proposed addendum to site policy) for those who make RfCs or any request open to public comment.
1) RfCs are not RfACs (Requests for Assenting Comments).
2) If you reply to someone, they are entitled to reply back.
A sequence of such events is called a discussion. No kidding, you say? One might be surprised by how often one is cajoled, strongly advised, or forced to drop a discussion before it reaches its logical conclusion. A broad array of semantic stop-signs are at the disposal of the editor whose argument is not holding up under scrutiny. So stop beating a dead horse and bludgeoning the process. Just drop it, desist and mind your own business. Catch once, let it go and walk your dog. And remember, silence is golden.
Disturbing and Orwellian, no? I do chuckle a bit (or groan) when one of these quasi-policy essays is completely on-the-nose. For instance, w:WP:Desist begins "WP:Desist can be cited whenever there is a dispute on Wikipedia and you want to put an end to it." Reading through Wikipedia's essays on civility, one can see an aphorism for every occasion. There's even an essay entitled w:Wikipedia:Encourage full discussions, though I've never seen anyone cite it myself. Many of these essays can seem very reasonable at first glance, and a few even are. Yet in aggregate, one wonders why the encyclopedia that anyone can edit has such a profusion of semiofficial essays (or perhaps, rhetorical devices) for shutting down conversations.
In one of his letters, Christopher Hitchens remarked "In place of honest disputation we are offered platitudes about “healing.” The idea of “unity” is granted huge privileges over any notion of “division” or, worse, “divisiveness.” I cringe every time I hear denunciations of “the politics of division”—as if politics was not division by definition. Semi-educated people join cults whose whole purpose is to dull the pain of thought, or take medications that claim to abolish anxiety. Oriental religions, with their emphasis on Nirvana and fatalism, are repackaged for Westerners as therapy, and platitudes or tautologies masquerade as wisdom." He was speaking in a general sense, yet his observation applies here as well.
Consider, for example, w:Wikipedia:Divisiveness, which includes a short quote from Jimbo Whales: "Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities.", itself reminding me of another Hitchens letter; "Distrust any speaker who talks confidently about “we,” or speaks in the name of “us.” Distrust yourself if you hear these tones creeping into your own style. ", and later at the end " P.S. A note on language. Be even more suspicious than I was just telling you to be, of all those who employ the term “we” or “us” without your permission. This is another form of surreptitious conscription, designed to suggest that “we” are all agreed on “our” interests and identity. " Yet expressing suspicion can itself get one in trouble here, per w:WP:AGF, which, in very polite and seemingly reasonable terms, demands credulity from the editor. To be fair to Mr. Whales, the quote is out of its (somewhat amusing) context, but certainly the author of the essay uses it in the sense Hitchens cautions about. Interesting, though, how some editors seem to enjoy such broad lenience and patience while others are sharply sanctioned at the drop of a hat.
In The Prevention of Literature, Orwell wrote "The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background. " In this case, "discipline" has been rebranded and repackaged as "civility". Dispute is presumed to lead to uncivil behavior if allowed to continue long enough and thus treated as inherently "disruptive". This is the pretense that's usually applied when it's convenient to shut down a conversation. There are two obvious points which together refute this. First, a dispute does not always lead to incivility. Second, and perhaps more importantly, so what if it does? Sometimes that's unavoidable, and sometimes the dispute is still worthwhile.