Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Continuing the re-write

Keeping the nutshell in mind

A The first sentence is the key statement.

B The second sentence here seems more an issue of "consensus", although there are obviously civility implications. There does not appear to be any particular text on the page currently addressing upon this presumably vital issue. Any comments?

C The third sentence also could be expanded upon usefully in the text.

/NewbyG (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced B belongs at all. As you say, there's no text on the page that addresses it; even worse, it can be used as an excuse for baiting and badgering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a reasonable statement, though more about consensus than civility. /NewbyG (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Do not belittle the positions and conclusions of others." Dlabtot (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What about bending over if front of a fan? What then. I can think of lots of ways to have the monkies pay for their wickedness. Ordinarily, I would say no. Come here and give me some of that, whacka-whacka. Know what I'm saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.182.3 (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mission creep?

“ This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians; and in the case of biographies of living persons about the subjects of articles. ”

Martinphi added the bolded text, in with various other changes that seem fine. If included, that text would put standards on BLPs not provided by WP:BLP: BLP prevents you from saying unproven slander, this seems like it would prevent simple criticism. E.g. saying that an AIDS denialist "was putting people in danger and, by his actions, may well be killing people" would presumably be forbidden. That's pretty major mission creep of CIVIL without discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility is about how we interact and develop content. BLP is about content itself (on any page), under certain circumstances. To impose a standard of our collaborative behavior, metacontent if you will, on article content itself, is a category error. The BLP language clearly is inappropriate here, as much as requiring reliably sourced citations would be to cite our own opinions on a talk page. And I can think of [[your least favorite politician here! | far worse examples]] of forbidden criticism than that one :) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Confusing CIVIL with BLP happens too often as is, to justify whitewashing articles or other NPOV violations. We need to be very careful that we don't suggest that CIVIL trumps other policies, especially NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Although, in fact, WP:Civility is a behavioural policy and NPOV is a content policy so in effect they are mutually exclusive. One can't trump the other.

For example, I've never seen anyone actually revert an NPOV edit or add POV to an article because the person who added POV or reverted POV was civil or uncivil? Nor should or would someone be considered uncvil because they added a POV edit.(olive (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Shoemaker, not at all. It prevents people from saying "This creep is evil, but of course we can't say that in the article so..." or whatever they might say. It doesn't say anything about criticism, which could be severe. Even to the extent of saying "IMO, he is completely incorrect in everything he says, and there is good evidence per the sources to think that he knows it and is merely out to make money." Big difference. This applies to talk pages, not article content, as does the entire CIV policy. If you want to make it more clear that this is about the way editors speak of the article's BLP subject on the talk page, well and good.

So no, it was never intended to be about articles, only about insulting BLP subjects on talk pages. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not buying the argument that every wrong that can be done in Wikipedia must be included here. Edit warring is incivil. Using sock puppets is incivil. All sorts of things violate community norms and show disrespect for others. These are all incivil, but we don't need to list them here. This page is for stuff that is incivil, and is not covered elsewhere. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Um. No. Edit warring is disruptive, but it is not inherently uncivil. Using sockpuppets is...well, according to our policy, only a problem if they are used in certain ways. Violating community norms is not necessarily uncivil; we do, after all, have a policy called Ignore all rules, which authorises editors to violate community norms if it is better for the encyclopedia and can be justified. Showing disrespect for certain ideas and proposed content is part of our five pillars - we actively discourage addition of content that is POV or original research, and write policies and guidelines that encourage disrespect by calling editors who fail to follow our content policies by names like WP:SPA and WP:TAG TEAM and WP:TROLL. Incivility, as defined in this page, cannot be an overarching policy, because about 50% of our existing policies contradict it. Risker (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Edir-warring is disruptive. Is Staying cool when the editing gets hot WP:CALM about editing or civility? /NewbyG (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats right. Please remember that this is about saying "don't insult the subject of a BLP." Lots of words going on, which seem to obscure that basic thing that I tried to put in. The subject of a BLP should be able to come to the talk page, and at least feel that the editors are not personally insulting him, even if they are saying things which basically demean his ideas or whatever. Hitler (HITLER CARD!!!!) should be able to come to the talk page and not see himself being called an evil prick. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It works out to a substantial new BLP-related policy, adding in all of WP:CIVIL to talk about BLPs. This cannot be done on a whim. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That it does not. It's already there, and my addition is only cross-referencing policy. Here is what it says: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)............ These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." [1] and "For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." [2]. Name for me an instance where there is a conflict between these higher standards and civility? CIV is a lower standard than this, but CIV is part of it. BLP, therefore, already has CIV in it, and a good deal more. It is only right that we should cross reference policy where relevant. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's NPOV and RS. That's not censorship of opinions, which adding Civility to the mix would make it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Incivility is perfectly acceptable in article content when properly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] An example may help: Saying that, say, "[Psychic detective #3] is a fraud who is preying on families' grief" is a notable view, is probably true, can almost certainly be sourced - but is NOT civil towards [Psychic detective #3]. Making it an issue of civility amounts to a violation of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored, and quite likely WP:NPOV, by making it impossible to criticise living people. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Let us not forget that WP:CIV is a behavioral policy that addresses how editors interact with one another. It has little to do with whether an editor is "civil" towards the subject of a BLP. That has to be governed by content policies such as WP:NPOV, and WP:VER. Sunray (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys aren't talking about the same thing. I said above, this isn't about article space. This isn't about article space. It's about talkspace and userspace. This isn't about article space. Nothing in CIV is about article space. This isn't about article space. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the way I put it in was not quite clear. It should be "and in the case of biographies of living persons, talk page discussions about the subjects of articles." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's already clearly stated in lead of WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In the lead? What exactly? But if that is true, then I think it very reasonable to refer to it here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm understanding this discussion:

• Civility is not about sourcing a negativity about a person as is acceptable on a BLP. This is descriptive of the person the Biography is about, and if needed in the article is acceptable.
• Civility refers to behaviour. There is no behaviour from one editor to another on any article page. On any user page, talk page incivilities are not optimum because they destroy the best collaborative environment.
• On the talk page of a BLP is it appropriate to comment about the person in the biography in a way that is defamatory. No its not. Why? Well, for starters, the person is still alive, and this then becomes an incivility because we are in fact addressing someone or commenting on someone who could actually be reading the discussion.
• But the fundamental question might be, why would any intelligent, mature editor/ writer think that it was intelligent or mature to use language that is less than dignified when talking about someone else especially in a public environment. This eats away the fabric of collaboration.
• I'm not sure its obvious to every editor that the talk page of a BLP is a place where defamation is a possibility. I assume Martin is suggesting that by adding such information to the Civ Policy editors are given notice of this fact. (olive (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, this is what I've been trying to say. And not just "given notice," but have the policies coordinate with one another. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we just drop it? It's not necessary, in any case, to summarise a content policy in a conduct policy, particularly where the interpretation of the content policy is contentious. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

We see it happen all the time (of course it's almost always someone else)...maybe, somewhere, we instruct the offended editor to be aware that there are multiple interpretations and to not immediately jump to "why you dirty rat.....". Also, many editors come from communities where caustic verbal attacks are commonplace and excepted..Eastern Bloc Countries, etc...they need to be convinced that there is a better way of communicating and working toward a mutually satisfactory goal.--Buster7 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much WP:AGF? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor is told to be more civil...he comes here, not to WP:AGF. We are explaining civil by what it is Not, rather than what it is. I have yet to see a clear description of Civil or Civility. And that may be the way to go..."the abscence of all these negatives is Civility."..I'm just adding my two-cents to what is a very important project. Incivilty is rampant. Maybe we need an umpire to call out ..."strike one" or ..'foul ball". Three strikes contrary to acceptable Civility codes and 'yer out!!!!--Buster7 (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point I thought Buster, and we just keep revising the same things over and over again .... we're dealing with tiny specifics to try and explain what we don't want because we have not established an overall overarching policy to define what it is we are dealing with and want.(olive (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

I support adding a summary of AGF to this page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation and other topics related to civility are listed in Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Buster, I had a positive definition of civility, the only one I have ever seen, with the only word I know of which has all the correct meanings. What do you think? [3] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

@Martinphi...I like it. I have included it in below (Coll. of Leads). I bring them together, here, as a reference place. I'm sure there are others which should be included. Please note that I did not include any editor reference as I collected them. No ownership!--Buster7 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I see you've discovered my Devil's Dictionary. Laughing at you without proposing an alternative could be considered unconstructive. You have collected similar comments such as User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame and User:ATren/Civility#A final note on enforcement. So although gathering a consensus seems unlikely, here is my proposed additional language:

"This shall not be construed to forbid criticism or sanctions against perceived misbehavior, provided:

• The criticism is limited to the perceived misbehavior. The offender's intelligence, for instance, is seldom relevant.
• The criticism is true, in the opinion of the criticizer.
• The criticism is proportionate to the offense, and doesn't exceed the incivility of that offense.
• That fight-provoking words are replaced with thought-provoking words, when that doesn't interfere with accurately describing the offense. For instance, "unaware" means about the same as "ignorant" but it isn't as insulting." Art LaPella (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I've heard of civil POV pushing, but I've never before heard of civil insult pushing =D

But anyway, we already have this proposal in practice as you are surely aware. So if you don't say it, it will remain in practice. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That dictionary of yours really deserves the WP namespace. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility — to avoid personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress, and which does not help build an encyclopedia. — Wikipedia:Civility old-style

Still laughing! The Devil's Dictionary entry on civility might need revising, humbly, it has become out-of-date. With respect, etc. --NewbyG (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I struck it out. Art LaPella (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can legislate common sense. I oppose adding the above language to the policy because it could lead to an increase in wikilawyering, at the expense of progress in building a quality encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice one!!! Let's translate:

Me: We already do this, stupid. So shut up about it or the infidels will try and legislate it out of existence. Kapish?

Jehochman: Only idiots use insults- the real idiots have seen to this. If this is made policy, the infidels -read, civil POV pushers- will try and screw with you by trying to say your insult was bigger than the other guy's insult, and your thought provoking words provoked to them to have a bad feeling (they being creatures of feeling and not thought) so you are to be BLOCKED. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't translate my comments. I write good English most of the time. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, after this encounter I didn't think Martinphi would be the one to argue that this problem is already being handled. Oh well, you guys follow these wars more than I do. Art LaPella (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I think you fixed it! Art LaPella (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And unfixed it. Oh well. Art LaPella (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks to all who helped revise this project page. It now is easier to understand, has less redundancy, and provides less room for gaming and rules lawyering. Could I encourage editors to next look at WP:SOCK? It is also suffering from bloat, redundancy and confusion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is now much better than it was either historically or recently.

This

Conduct policies such as Civility and Consensus do not overrule content policies, such as the Neutral Point of View policy, but instead give guidance on how to enforce them: Be polite, but firm. Patiently explain the relevant policies and guidelines. Seek help on the noticeboards, such as The Neutral Point of View Noticeboard or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or by way of a Request for Comment on the article if necessary.

is great.

I think with my clarification above we might say something about the relationship of CIV to BLPs. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a better formulation, please do so here and get a rough consensus first. What we have now is very good, and it will probably take a bit of time and effort to make it even better. Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Do people agree to get consensus here first before editing? I'm under the impression that editing is going pretty well just editing the policy. Still, if you think this is necessary it looks good to me. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We should try to phrase affirmatively, where possible. /NewbyG (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree...re;affirmative lingo and the way its being edited.--Buster7 (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit as you like, but if somebody objects (reverts), then discuss until the edit is agreed. Feel free to edit, and feel free to revert, but don't repeat the cycle without talking about it. Jehochman ^Talk 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

These are the Enforcing policies. That conflicts with the above text. --NewbyG (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok

Ok, so why'd you revert this? [4] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. I liked the prior formulation better. Let's use this page as a scratch pad, there is no rush, and see if we can come up with something even better. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't in fact demand that editors behave firmly. As a teacher sometimes firm works sometimes not. Its a judgment call which must take place in the moment and shouldn't be legislated. I have to go with Martin's version here.(olive (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I don't see how we can tell people to behave firmly- this is totally from the point of view of some really experienced editor with total assurance that they are right and the other guy is wrong. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 04:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool... I hope you're also happy with it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am. I just reverted another well-intentioned expansion of that paragraph. We need to emphasize the benefits of brevity. Users are more likely to read and understand something that is short and clear. Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that, and also the principle (though as you say, if this weren't the lead expanding it would be a good thing). Maybe it could be cut down further: "Behavioral policies like Civility and Consensus do not overrule content policies, such as Neutral Point of View, but explain how to apply content policies: Be polite and patient while explaining your views, and follow the dispute resolution process instead of being uncivil." But I'm not actually concerned about this myself, it's ok as it is. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, our community expects consideration and respect. Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming. --NewbyG (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEHAVE

Are there behavior policies other than civility and consensus? Better to name them and eliminate the need to use that category. —Kanodin (talk to me / slap me) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just discovered WP:BEHAVE, which lists fifteen different behavioural policies. We should just link there. I will! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Category:Wikipedia conduct policies --NewbyG (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and conduct

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Userspace vandalism	Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).
Abuse of tags	Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes removal of long-standing {{policy}} and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first.
Modifying users' comments	Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.
Discussion page vandalism	Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.

Although at times incorrectly referred to as such, the following things, which may or may not violate Wikipedia policies or guidelines, are not considered vandalism and are therefore treated differently:

Stubbornness	Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing
Harassment or personal attacks	We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently.
Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration	Editors are encouraged to be bold. Making edits to Wikipedia policy pages (such as this one), guideline pages, etc. does require some knowledge of the consensus on that issue. If people misjudge consensus, this is not vandalism. Rather, it's an opportunity to discuss with those people, and get them to understand the consensus.

If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

--NewbyG (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF

This rewrite went really well. May I suggest that we move on to WP:AGF? It's not as bad as this one was, but it needs a good copyedit to remove some confusing and (probably unintentionally) self-conflicting writing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we done? I don't think so. The lead still does not clearly define what civility is. We, here, all know, intrinsically, but not the editor that will come here to figure out what he/she did wrong. It needs the inclusion of its own definition not what it is not. Hey...The Golden Rule certainly fits...do unto others...be polite...be considerate...dont raise your voice...dont intimidate. But, lets not leave until we define civility in the first two sentences.--Buster7 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a numbered list of positive definitions of civility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Civility is behavior which helps to encourage the most collegial editing environment possible.
2. Civility is proper, civilized, behavior
3. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously

Very nice, Martin. Exact and to the point. Clear instuctions about how to behave in a civilized environment. I agree to include. If not in the Lead, at the very least, just following it--Buster7 (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't like them. The first one, particularly, which is both needlessly complex and a bit over the top ("most collegial editing environment possible"?!) at the same time. They set the wrong tone - it reads (unintentionally, of course) like smug propoganda for civility. It's rather... agressive. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(2) is a near-tautology, i.e., civility is being civilized. (3) focuses too much on superficial politeness (calmness and courtesy) and is far too vague: who's to say what is "reasonable"? I agree with your stated objections to (1) but I think it is actually rather good if expressed more directly and concisely: Civility is behavior that encourages a collegial editing environment. It expresses civility in terms of the goal we want to achieve. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Comrade Boris. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's collegial? Something to do with students or churches, is it? --NewbyG (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[5]

[6]

[7]

In this, all the meanings work, 1 and 2 combined with 3. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not mean that it is an appropriate word to use. Policy should be made as accessible as possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the only word, Shoemaker. Think of another then that means what we need here. There isn't one, as far as I can determine. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

@ Shoemaker---(1)..Incivility is unwanted aggression. It steals the time from article editing and wastes it in conduct training. Those that are "sent" here to evolve their editing patterns need to be told, in no uncertain tone, what WP is and why it requires civility ---(2)..then remove civility. Slim it down to...Civility is proper behavior or Civility is appropriate behavior or Civility is dignified behavior or Civility is correct behavior or Civility is proper, appropriate, dignified, correct behavior". I like Boris's abbreviated version.--Buster7 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

adsl

coperture adsl in italia citazione necessaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervo30 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

it:Wikipedia:Risoluzione dei conflitti Art LaPella (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The better way in order to resolve a conflict is to avoid it from the beginning. --NewbyG (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A Big Question: Does this page make sense?

I would like to ask a Big Question.

In this discussion as well as at the RfC, especially here, so many people express the view that this page in its current form is a total mess.

Can we afford to have a policy page (and a provision that users may be blocked or put on a parole on its basis) that no two arbitrators, let alone admins and especially regular editors, whose conduct this page is supposed to guide, interpret the same way?

These discussions about some narrow aspects of this page are akin to discussing a choice of tableware for the formal dinner when there is no food to serve in the first place. Even userspace essays on the civility such as User:Geogre/Civility, User:Giano/On civility and User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy are much more sensible.

I do not doubt that ideally this project could use a good civility policy but it is better to have no policy at all than to have this horrid messy page carrying a {{Policy}} label that gives it a clout of authority. I think that what we need is a much simpler and clear guidance (simple enough that it would meet consensus) and such page must be written from scratch, for example in Wikipedia:Civility/Rewrite, and replace this mess.

Is there anyone at all who thinks that this policy as is stands now is good? Because I am 100% sure that those who run around citing WP:CIV have not actually read this page any time recently. --Irpen 23:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Wikipedia:Be nice ... Wikipedia:Dispute resolution ...

Start with the basics. /NewbyG (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be no tolerance of foul language in postings, being directed towards other editors. That'd be a good core to any colaborative project. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An answer

Beginning 19 September, Wikipedia:Civility was given about a 70% re-write, [8] (236 intermediate revisions not shown). -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Improvements :) But it's still too long. The stuff on personal attacks should be discussed at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, the stuff on legal threats at Wikipedia:No legal threats, the stuff at harassment at Wikipedia:Harassment. We merely need to link to these other policies/guidelines, we don't need whole sections pointlessly duplicating their content. Making a threat is making a threat (ditto for a legal threat), harassing someone is harassing someone. These are very serious behaviours in their own right: the fact that they are also not civil is completely irrelevant.

While the end result needn't be quite as short as User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy, brevity is certainly a virtue. The more rambling crap that can be snipped here, the better. Moreschi (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Irpen 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[9]. This is something like the version from April this year. /NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing what's covered in WP:NLT

OK, as a next step, I am removing all the stuff that is redundant as being already covered by WP:NLT. Legal threats are not necessarily uncivil but we do not tolerate them here for completely different reasons outlined at WP:NLT. Editors who resort to legal threats should be block on the spot on the basis of WP:NLT alone and there is no need to for this page to be swollen by redundancies. --Irpen 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Irpen 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing what's covered in WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT

I marked sections redundant as being covered at WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT. Best would be to completely remove these redundant sections. --Irpen 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I pruned them, leaving a summary. The situation here is analogous to large articles that have daughter articles. We leave a summary in the main article, and link to the daughter. Jehochman ^Arrr! 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is better after you pruned them but still not good enough. WP:NPA and WP:HAR are fully self-contained policies rather than "daughter" policies of WP:CIV. Harassment and personal attacks are not tolerated not because they are "uncivil". --Irpen 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time. Perhaps you can delete the sections entirely, and reference those other policies in the See Also section. There is some rationale to keep a description of these other policies in this one. I think there is a benefit to providing visibility for related policies here. Jehochman ^Arrr! 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Links should certainly be maintained to all the key pages, such as WP:AGF and WP:BITE, WP:NPA ... These are best as inline cites, with appropriate summary text, or else they go in the See also section. /NewbyG (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time

For sake of comparison, this [10] revision of the Wikipedia:Civility/Workshop workshop retains the "stable" version of the project page, on 19 September before the copy-editing began. /NewbyG (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A diff with that can always be done. I don't think the live version should be set in stone and every change require long talk page discussion, but equally the rate of editing of a live policy like this should, as some have said, be a bit slower and the "workshop", advertise, approve, route is certainly one that should be done. Otherwise someone will turn up late to the disucssion, throw their hands up in horror, and revert everything. Unless the rewrite is so good that no-one complains! Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

More edits

[11] 60+ edits, in twenty hours. /NewbyG (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare the pair

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (Talk | contribs) at 02:03, 14 January 2008. [12] It begins...

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable.

/NewbyG (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning 19 September, Wikipedia:Civility was given about a 70% re-write, [13](236 intermediate revisions not shown). -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Collection of Leads

1. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and using Wikipedia as a battleground, is prohibited. Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.
2. Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

   Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. *Civility — to avoid personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress, and which does not help build an encyclopedia

3. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable.
4. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. These principles reflect the commonsense expectation of civility and apply to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with fellow Wikipedians
5. Civility is behavior which helps to encourage the most collegial editing environment possible. Incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere it creates is detrimental to the project, and is therefore to be avoided.
6. Civility is proper, civilized, behavior toward fellow editors.
7. Civility is necessary to provide ALL editors with a pleasant work environment. The Wikipedia Code of Conduct together with the principle that states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view are core mandates. The production of an Encyclopedia require(s) conditions that maintain order and calm.
8. Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles guide editors on how to edit articles, civility is a code of conduct setting out how editors should interact. Editors should always be civil to other Wikipedians. Remaining civil, even during heated debates, keeps the focus on improving the encyclopedia. (CURRENT ONE -- 06:55, 24 September 2008)

I've numbered them so we can refer to them. I don't know what the indented one after 2 is -- if it was part of something else, or if its last half after the asterisk is another point, or what.

Of these, I like 1 the best. 4 is okay. 6 is at least short and to the point. 5 rambles. 7 is unclear, as I've already mentioned. 2, 3 and 8 are hopelessly tautological and could be replaced with the two words "Be civil." without losing any communicative power. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I concurr, 1 is clear and thoroughly explains the idea of the policy. However, I'm not so sure we should over emphasize the way admins are supposed to be role models, to the point where it is bolded. I think maybe just leaving it at the end as an extra would suffice. Valtoras (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Useful links

I've added back in two links from "Useful Links". They contain bits of pithy information even if short, and don't hurt anything here at this point, so hopefully they can stay for now until we have a better method of connecting the policy page to the many essays on civility related topics.(olive (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Couldn't we merge them into, I don't know, WP:How to be civil or something? Anyway, they're still in the category that we link to, presumably =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have, however, removed Wikipedia:General sanctions, which was wildly off-topic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The essays that I removed - which haven't actually been re-added - I'm... not quite sure why, maybe I bungled the edit summaries somehow - are Wikipedia:Be reasonable and Wikipedia:Be nice

Their entire content is:

Be nice

Be nice to your fellow Wikipedians. They are people deserving of your respect and your very best conduct. Be nice. It's good for the project, and it is the right thing to do.

Be reasonable

In pursuit of the continuing effort to cut through red tape and bureaucracy, it is helpful to be reasonable and act reasonably in all issues. What is being reasonable?

• Being reasonable means not beating a point to death after you have made it.
• Being reasonable means not disrupting Wikipedia if something is not going your way.
• Being reasonable means assuming good faith and not making personal attacks.

There might be a point to adding Be reasonable back in, but I really don't see how WP:Be nice adds anything to the discussion but frustration on the part of anyone clicking. The long and the short of it is, this is a key policy page. The links should be high-quality. However, things we don't link, like User:GT/Civility are much higher quality and more persuasive than WP:Be nice and other such links - not a good situation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That the links to user essays are useful is a personal opinion; this policy is for the general information of all users, and not just for those with a personal stake in particular Arbcom cases. --NewbyG (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in the dark as to this comment. Any chance of an explanation.:)(olive (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Sorry if I'm treading in something I'm not familiar with. Forget the question above.(olive (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

I see your point but I rather like the simplicity of be nice. We can go on and on about civility here which ...hey, wait just a second, we have... but it can all come down to just be nice to other people and things will run more smoothly. However, I'm not attached. I am attached to collecting all of these essays though, and to a way of linking them somehow to this Civ. policy. Civility is such a comprehensive idea we need comprehensive material for its description. Leaving it in place now, may ensure the essay doesn't become misplaced.(olive (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Why not create a category? That's the usual way of lumping things, and we could add a link to the category into the list. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course we already have a category there .... essays on Civility. The trick will be in figuring out how to somehow centralize all of these essays ....Have to think a bit. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Good idea Shoemaker, that should do it. What to call the cat? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to keep it simple, such as Category:Wikipedia essays on civility. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Category:User essays on civility. --NewbyG (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Aye, but that seems only to include User-space ones. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I was assuming that all the Wikipedia civility essays were of high enough quality to link directly. I'd say either ask the creator to userfy (if not a great essay), or link directly, or go ahead and create another category for the Wikipedia essays (but remember to include links to both categories between each other if they are in different branches of the category tree). Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FayssaIF has created civility and etiquette pages [14] of which the User:Essay pages is a subset. Perhaps these essays could just be included in FayssaIF's pages, and then those pages linked from here. (olive (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

The user links like User:GT/Civility are enlightnening and expanding of the conversation "What is Civility". But...care must be taken. A novice editor (with a chip on his shoulder, lets say) can misconstrue their meaning and see them as permission to continue unfriendly behavior. Uncivility is easier to see in others. It takes awhile before we, good faith editors, begin to self-edit and monitor our own incivility. I go for CIVIL 101 as the lead page.--Buster7 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Lead is excellent. But...I would make one point. It still uses "civil" to define civil. ((editors should always be civil to each other)). Nice would work. Or courteous. What about "professional"??? Isn't that the environment that we and all wikieditors like to work in? (I would make the change myself but I don't want to seem uncivil)...:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for addition

I propose something be added in about how rude it is to plop a speedy tag on an article within minutes of it's creation. Recent change patrollers do this all the time and it's really nasty and unpleasent. Jtrainor (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's irritating. Usually the best way to deal with it, is to place a polite note on the patroller's talkpage, advising them to re-acquaint themselves with WP:CSD, particularly the top part that says, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete.". I also instruct such patrollers to not focus on the articles that have been created within the last 5 minutes, but perhaps articles which have been created within the last 24 hours, instead. In general, one polite "educating" note to a patroller's talkpage is all that's needed. If a patroller persisted with over-zealous tagging, then collect a few diffs, and notify an administrator to see if maybe they can better explain things. Speaking as an admin, if I went to a patroller's talkpage and saw multiple complaints that the patroller was antagonizing good editors, I would have no trouble taking action. But to be honest, it's usually not a problem. And on the flipside, there really is a lot of crap that's flowing in to Wikipedia very rapidly. Thousands of things get deleted every day. So some patrollers may get into a Charlie Chaplin Modern Times mentality where they may be hitting the "speedy" macro so often, they get a bit glassy-eyed. So please, if you see something tagged too quickly, don't take it personally. Instead, just recognize that someone who's fighting off the hordes, may have made a good faith mistake?  :) --Elonka 19:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree, entirely. Differences of opinion, even if expressed quickly, are not in and of themselves uncivil or rude. Forcing editors to wait some arbitrary period of time would achieve nothing but would increase the chances of a backlog building up. Dlabtot (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if a backlog builds up? We have no deadline here, and tagging an article within minutes of creation is rude at best and a violation of AGF at worst. Jtrainor (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if we don't care if a backlog builds up, let me change my comment from Differences of opinion, even if expressed quickly, are not in and of themselves uncivil or rude. Forcing editors to wait some arbitrary period of time would achieve nothing but would increase the chances of a backlog building up. to Differences of opinion, even if expressed quickly, are not in and of themselves uncivil or rude. Forcing editors to wait some arbitrary period of time would achieve nothing.

Sorry I accidentally obscured my actual point, which is that tagging an article within minutes of creation is not in any sense rude or a violation of AGF. Dlabtot (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Need mention of other editors colluding against other(s) on talk pages?

I found two editors on an article who disagree with a number of other editors on the article discussing on their talk pages whether to "inflame me" in some unnamed way and proposing "Going large" against me if I made certain proposed edits which they hadn't bothered to even comment on in my talk page proposals! Anyway, if this kind of thing is merely considered "uncivil" then maybe it could be put in the list. If it's considered something else, do tell. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say this is basically a case of unfairness. Unfortunately, the concept of fairness is currently reduced to the formulation referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked in the policy. I'm thinking along the lines of a supplemental essay similar to, but much wider in scope than WP:Honesty. A bullet under Engaging in incivility mentioning unfairness and linking to that essay would go a long way towards refining our concrete concept of civil vs uncivil behaviour and increasing the advisory usefulness of the page. I might actually write up a basic and informal version of that essay (maybe to be later moved to WP:Fair play, or WP:Play fair), because I think the working definition of civility vs incivility in the policy is sorely lacking in some respects, regarding some perhaps elusively obvious facts of life.

As to your own situation, depending on the urgency and severity and after having tried coming to terms with those editors (maybe seeking neutral input from a trusted and experienced user), you could post at a place (ideally not more than one) like WP:WQA or WP:ANI. If you decide to seek input from anyone unfamiliar with the situation, please include all relevant [[links]] and diffs. 78.34.160.197 (talk) (User:Everyme) 13:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking seriously concerns in general for the article and the reminder to me on mediation cabal which is mentioned in the article. Going to dispute first is probably the best thing to do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette

I am surprised that Wikipedia:Etiquette is not mentioned in this policy, and think it would be helpful for Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to be listed in the "See also" section. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Dispute Resolution section. Gerardw (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded"

From this article on newscientist.com:

Amichai-Hamburger speculates that rather than contributing altruistically, Wikipedians take part because they struggle to express themselves in real-world social situations. "They are compensating," he suggests. "It is their way to have a voice in this world."
This is consistent with previous research on online communication, says Scott Caplan of the University of Delaware in Newark, who suspects that heavy users of sites such as Digg and Twitter may have similar characteristics. "People who prefer online social behaviour tend to have higher levels of social anxiety and lower social skills," he says.
A recent study of YouTube users also suggested that contributors - people that upload videos - have egocentric rather than altruistic motives. Users whose postings received more hits were more likely to continue uploading videos.

- Face 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like he is projecting. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

it sounds to me that he's stating the obvious. There is of course a degree of difficulty in communicating and a level of social anxiety that can cause difficulties in both the RW and Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that's about what I said, but people were grumpy and closedminded about it. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

"Comment on content, not the contributor" - Where has this gone? Did I dream it up? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in WP:NPA. I think it should be addressed here as well, as well as in any article that addresses dispute resolution and de-escalation of tense situations. Discussions about editors (in inappropriate forums such as article talk pages) should usually be avoided even when the discussions are far from anything resembling personal attacks. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In particular, ascribing motivations should be avoided. Dlabtot (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. It's a very valuable sentence and would love to see it plastered more over the civility policies. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 05:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarity of purpose is difficult to maintain when our focus as editors is way-layed by revenge. I suppose it is a natural tendancy to want to "even the score", but there can be no doubt that retaliation gets in the way of article editing. Civility is a multi-layered stand that provides a base of operations for a good faith editing experience.

"Comment on content, not the contributor" is one of the most important suggestions one editor can give to another. It is a reminder to "stay on purpose, remember what's important, put down that rock, don't waste time chasing windmills, we are creating an encyclopedia, Good Faith Editing is the Standard, etc."

Personally, "Comment on content, not the contributor" is the reminder that works best when I'm lost in the muck of some tete-tete with another editor. It conveys alot in a simple, easy to consume form. I agree that it is a very valuable sentence and should be included here. --Buster7 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition to examples of incivility

Per this discussion, I have added a bit to the civility policy. Originally something like it was at WP:NOT where it became a subject of debate. Essentially, this is a civility issue rather than a site mission issue. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this addition. Might add ", whether explicit or implicit." Explicit example: "Joe, do this." Implicit example: Deleting a section of an article with a comment that says it doesn't meet standards and somebody should write a better one. RoyLeban (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the latter might not be incivility. In some cases that would be appropriate. When a section is written in childlike prose there might not be anything to salvage. What comes to mind is more along the lines of weak historic nominations at featured picture candidates where people post along the lines of Durova will restore this for you, implying backchannel agreement that hasn't happened. Usually that's occurred in good faith, but it still violates basic common sense and courtesy. More often than not the proposed alteration is technically impossible and the discussion wastes everybody's time. Other variations of this doubtless occur in different settings. Durova^Charge! 04:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote and I retract my suggestion above. To make my point better, making work for an unnamed person can also be uncivil. To me, this is civil: You upload a picture which could be cleaned up and note "sorry this picture isn't better", while this is uncivil: you upload a picture of 20 people and note "somebody should crop this so it should only show so-and-so". The second person could be civil by putting the same thing on the talk page and saying "I don't have time for this, could somebody do this so we can include it in the article?" Is this clearer? If there is consensus, should this be reflected? RoyLeban (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a tersely worded request is necessarily uncivil. It crosses the line to incivility when you presume to volunteer someone else's time. In other words, the request should not be directed at a specific person, either overtly or by implication. But it should be ok to say "this article needs cleanup" or "this picture needs a crop". It's a given that we create work for each other, and it's also a given no one is obligated to do any work! It's a good thing there's no deadline, eh? In short, I don't see any problem with Durova's addition. Fletcher (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you say thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.207.58 (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Drop this principle

This principle does no good, because it's trying to enforce an attitude through prohibiting behavior and that is simply not possible. WP:CIVIL does more harm than good, and probably contributes to more overall incivility because it removes the "safety valve" of lesser incivility. Have you ever wondered why so many seemingly reasonable people on WP suddenly lose their shit and post something horrible? It's because of WP:CIVIL. I'm all for genuine civility, but not the phony and detrimental kind produced by this principle. It encourages sarcasm and subtle jabs that drive honest people absolutely crazy. It encourages gaming of the system and wiki-lawyering and cries of "personal attack! personal attack!" as a means of putting down disagreement. It is destroying Wikipedia. A better principle would be "Be civil to others, and ignore incivility when you encounter it." --UC_Bill (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the concept of "treat each other with a minimum level of respect" really that impossible? Is it really that hard? I treat people with respect and this policy has never caused me a whit of grief, instead it has allowed me to have rational discussions with respectful people while the abusive people were kept away from me. It is a good thing.

If a good editor loses their cool we don't ban them from Wikipedia, we ask them to stop, we even block them for a duration if that is what is needed to protect people from abuse. After they regain their cool they are allowed to contribute again with respect to the people they deal with. Chillum 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that treating each other with respect is impossible, it's that WP:CIVIL doesn't help with that. Or maybe more accurately, blocks for incivility don't help, and in fact make things worse. I'm not saying people shouldn't be civil to each other, I'm saying that the way to deal with incivility is to ignore it, not to block people. The problem with wanting "the abusive people kept away from me" is that abuse is a matter of opinion, and blocks are typically done on the basis of the language used, rather than the intent (because the intent is too much up to interpretation.) With all due respect, you should have a thick enough skin that you could simply ignore the people you found to be abusive. --UC_Bill (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that prevented Wikipedia from going the way of Usenet is our civility policy. Courtesy costs nothing, even when deep down in one's heart one actually doesn't respect the other party. People who are habitually rude can maintain a civil demeanor when there are consequences for crudeness. Navies everywhere are full of people who love to swear, but who also know exactly when to turn off the sailor-speak. Durova^Charge! 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Empty civility doesn't count for much. (That's one reason this Yankee mistrusts Southerners.) If you don't respect somebody either don't deal with them at all, or else explain your problem and try to work it out. That said, there's no reason to use cusswords when more accurate and socially acceptable terminology is available. We are in a shared social space. Telling somebody exactly how you feel using the first words that come to mind could burn out the eyeballs of third parties. If the same point can be made using more genteel language, that is usually better. Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)FWIW, UC_Bill, you've written one of the most cogent, persuasive arguments against WP:CIV I've yet seen. That said, I don't think your plan can work for a lot of people. I believe that you can take some nastiness directed your way, I know I can (and have), and I'd even venture to say Durova can stand up to a lot of abuse. But a great number of contributors are really, really turned off by nastiness. Speaking for myself, I don't interpret WP:CIV as meaning we all have to pretend we're having tea with the Queen -- we're allowed to growl a bit, to occasionally blow off a bit of steam. But persistent nasty attacks and sour attitude drive many good contributors away. IronDuke 16:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Crude words tend to get the poster dismissed as a hothead. It's possible to say no, express negative views, etc. without actually being rude. In fact, doing so in civil language is often far more persuasive. It forces the person who's posting to express the cause of their objections. If the perspective makes sense, then it sways more people to a similar point of view. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, I agree that WP:CIV works for some people and in some cases, and that without incivility blocks we'd lose a number of sensitive Wikipedians. But WP:CIV doesn't work in all cases or for all people, and we also lose a number of uncompromisingly honest (and often usually polite) Wikipedians because of the enforced phoniness that WP:CIV produces. Durova, it's not a question of whether disagreement can be expressed in less-than-harsh ways, it's about what happens when you block people based primarily on the language they use. I value honesty far more than pleasing language, and if somebody makes a good point in exceedingly crude language — even if I completely disagree with the point — I'll have a lot more respect for that person than somebody who is good at couching their sarcasm in pleasing words. Yes, the ideal is for all of us to be nice to each other at all times. The question is how to get there. WP:CIV (as it is currently understood) is an obstacle in that regard, not an aid. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we will be removing any of the five pillars that hold this thing up. Certainly not our code of conduct. Dlabtot (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything here is subject to review. If people think it should go, it goes. It doesn't matter what the "founding principles" are, it doesn't matter what Jimbo or anyone else says, it only matters what the community does. Anyway, it's not really WP:CIV per se that I find problematic, upon further analysis, but a particular interpretation of it — and especially a certain way of "enforcing" it. Blocks for incivility should stop. Editors should feel free to write whatever they like without fear of consequence (other than those consequences brought about entirely by people reading what was written, of course!) Genuine civility presupposes honesty. Anything else is just being phony. --UC_Bill (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that last bit. I think it's possible, even advisable, to be civil with people you don't like. I think civility blocks do work, actually. Not so much on the people who get them, because (on average) they're more short-tempered than other users, and likelier to sin again, but for people who refrain from being incivil because they don't want to get blocked. IronDuke 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole problem is that incivility blocks cause people to refrain from certain behavior. It's the attitude we should care about, not the behavior. People who refrain from anti-social behavior because of external factors are not doing so for a sustainable or healthy reason, and they'll often find ways to circumvent the external enforcement. People who are shunned because of anti-social behavior are more likely to learn that such behavior is a bad thing.

I don't want to clog up this page (I know I write a lot) and if there's a better place to hold a discussion that's really more about incivility blocks than WP:CIV itself, let me know. Or, if you think this is a good place to have this discussion, and that it's worthwhile, let me know that too. I figured that it's the interpretation of WP:CIV that's the justification for incivility blocks, and so I started here... but I realize that the approach that makes sense to me might not be the one that makes sense to other people. --UC_Bill (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I don't care about people's attitudes, only their actions. Dlabtot (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not enforcing civility will damage the neutrality of our encyclopaedia. If someone can just blast away at person they disagree with then the people they are arguing with will just go somewhere else. We want decisions to be made based on our policies and reliable sources, not who can flames the best and who ends up leaving due to abuse. Chillum 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to chime in with Dlabot. I deal with people on a regular basis here who, I very much suspect, have attitudes that horrify me. There's nothing I can do about it: I can't shun them, unless I want to give up on working on articles I'm interested in and knowledgeable about. I can only be as polite (but as firm) as possible. As to your other question, yes, this is a perfect place for this discussion, IMO. IronDuke 19:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in with Chillum, I see that firsthand. As one of the site's more prominent female editors I've dealt with various kinds of gender bias. I couldn't care less what someone's private views about gender equality are, but when established editors take potshots at female colleagues simply because they're females then that sets a bad tone and matters get worse downstream. Other women have come to me as they opened police complaints regarding actionable harassment, then quit the site entirely. The end result of discarding civility as an enforceable policy is that the site loses good editors and a substantial part of its diversity. What's the upside: the latitude to recite George Carlin's list of seven dirty words without consequence? How many articles does that build? Durova^Charge! 20:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I find some of the opinions expressed here to be frightening and downright fascist. My point (which I think can be trivially verified — or refuted — by picking a good representative random sampling of incivility blocks and actually examining them closely) is that incivility blocks increase incivility, both in individual cases (blocking somebody who is already angry just makes them angrier) and in future precedent (it allows people who are quickest to claim "personal attack!" to silence opposition without having to be overtly abusive themselves.) You're all mostly arguing against incivility, which I agree with wholeheartedly. But you're also proposing that the correct way to deal with incivility is to punish (and that's what it is.. there's nothing "preventative" about incivility blocks, so don't fool yourself) the people who have lost their temper. I liken the situation to that of drug abuse.. prohibition (punishing behavior) does no good at all, and actually makes the problem worse by allowing some people (drug pushers) to exploit the situation set up by the rules. A better solution is to address the underlying causes of the behavior, which is what I mean when I say that civility is ultimate an issue of attitude rather than behavior. Now I'll agree that sometimes all we care about is behavior (I don't really care why somebody shoots me, only that they've shot me) but these are just words we're talking about. There is no behavior here except what people have written. And that's why the attitude is of the utmost importance. I can call all of you a bunch of flaming idiots if I want and (hopefully!) won't be blocked or even reprimanded, because the context makes it clear that I don't actually mean it. So it really is about the attitude, and not the behavior. We're just trying to use the behavior as a proxy for understanding the (inscrutable, in this medium) attitude or motivation — and that's a losing battle. --UC_Bill (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the best Wikipedia administrators I know has been spending the last week at the hospital bedside of a very close relative. As often happens in such situations, that means long hours waiting for a medical doctor while the family member sleeps. Many people would watch television or read a magazine during that time. He volunteers for a nonprofit website. He hasn't drawn attention to his situation onsite, hadn't burdened fellow editors with his own problems. Although I won't give his name, of course I have great respect, interest, and sympathy for his position. And none whatsoever for the people UC Bill describes. Only two words for that sort: grow up. Durova^Charge!

I don't believe there is any evidence that our enforcement mechanism of escalating blocks for misbehavior increases incivility. If you think this can be 'trivially verified' I'd encourage you to do so. Dlabtot (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I think it might help you to understand what I’m saying if you take all the questionable behavior you’re talking about and place it in the context of, say, an accounting firm. Let us say we both work there, and are peers. I show you a draft of report (that we are co-authoring), you read it, and say “IronDuke, this report is unacceptable, you did this poorly.” Well, that’s not quite friendly, is it? But that’d be okay. Suppose you said, “This report is idiotic.” That’s getting into a grey area – you should probably be thinking about pulling back a bit. Suppose you said, “IronDuke, you’re an idiot for writing this.” Well, that’s something one of our bosses, passing by, might stop and rebuke you for. Nothing major, probably, but you could get noticed. And if you said, “IronDuke, you’re a f*ucking idiot, you [racial/sexual/religious slur], you might get sacked on the spot. If not, you’d probably be headed for a trip upstairs to explain yourself, and you’d be asked to promise not to do it again. So imagine that we are all writing an encyclopedia – in the same, physical room. What kind of behavior can we reasonably expect?

As for civility blocks not working, I’m not sure that’s provable, or falsifiable. If someone can figure out a way to prove/disprove it, I’d be quite interested. IronDuke 22:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocks for uncivility are to protect those being abused. If the person learns from it great, if they get worse then we may need to protect people from them more. Civility blocks are not to teach you manners, that is your job. They are used to prevent the incivility not punish it. Chillum 22:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as pacifism concedes the world to those who use aggressive force, tolerating incivility would concede the wiki to the most rude and hostile people. My first internet discussions were on Usenet and I've seen how quickly conversation can go down the toilet when there is no social norm to prevent people from saying whatever dumbass remark first comes to mind. I see no evidence the policy is being enforced as strictly as UC Bill makes out. In fact, the policy is specifically worded to allow people to occasionally blow a fuse, focusing instead on people who show a pattern of uncivil behavior. It's possible admins are enforcing it more strictly than the wording suggests, but Bill will have to provide evidence to support that. Fletcher (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Several points:

• Regarding Durova's grow up: I might retort that I happen to believe it's the thin-skinned people, the ones who are so offended by crude language and name calling (I'm not talking about genuine — and legally actionable — threats, just stuff like "You're a f*ucking idiot, you 51st Stater") that they need to be "protected" from it, that need to do the growing up. I think they're a bunch of whiny crybabies.
• I think there are better ways of expressing that previous point, and while I would usually try to use less offensive language to make my case (and here's the important part) I shouldn't be punished for expressing the same sentiment ("grow up") that you did, but in coarser language.
• People from different backgrounds, cultures, levels of education, etc. use different language to express themselves, and sometimes it's offensive to other people. Deal with it. We can't cater to the most easily offended amongst us, lest we alienate the people who find such "enforced civility" too stuffy, phony and (at times) downright snobby and elitist.
• I think the idea of putting this to the test is a great one. Ideally we'd want a huge random sample of posts that contain keywords (George Carlin's words for starters) or something, and identify whether the incidence of inflammatory posts was higher or lower among the editors that escaped a block (for whatever reason) versus those that were blocked. That would be really hard, especially since there hasn't been a full (non-corrupt) database dump of Wikipedia in a long time. We could also just take a (much much smaller) random sample of actual blocks and look into the history (and eventual outcome) of all the associated disputes, and hope that the impact of the block(s) in each case is relatively obvious and something we mostly all agree on. I'd like some help with that (I mean, not that you wouldn't otherwise trust me to come to a completely unbiased opinion on the cases I examine all by myself, of course :)

--UC_Bill (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

random edit break

I don't think your ideas here are going to gain any ground in the way of consensus. Regarding the "thin skinned" theory, I think it is bad taste to blame the victims of incivility for not being "tuff enough". We are not here to demonstrate how well we can take a flame, we are here to make an encyclopedia. If someone's background prevents them from realizing they are uncivil then we certainly give them plenty of notification. Also incivility isn't dirty words. I can say the our civility policy is "fucking great" without being uncivil. By the same token one could also be very abusive using only "clean" language. For example your "whiny crybabies" comment above is abusive towards those who don't like to by insulted and uses no dirty words. Please don't name call.

The fact is that no part of building an encyclopedia requires abusive commentary, and abusive commentary certainly does harm our goal to build an encyclopedia by poisoning the atmosphere. We want our ideas to be based on who is most reasonable, not who can scare off all their opponents with nasty comments. Chillum 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

But Chillum, incivility blocks are also a way to discredit (or drive off) your opponents, if you know how to push the right buttons and can provoke the other person into making a blockable offense before you do. The "clean" insults you mention generally do not result in a block — and I'm basing that claim on anecdotal observations, though it could also be tested if you dispute it. I just don't buy that people who have nasty things written to (or about) them are really "victims" in any meaningful sense. I mean, they were insulted, who cares? Any reasonably intelligent person knows that it's the one doing the insulting that almost always ends up looking stupid, so public embarrassment isn't really a factor, I don't think. How is the "victim" hurt in any way? I tend to think the truly anti-social ones will resort to vandalism or actionable threats at some point, so they'll remove themselves from the community anyway when they get blocked/banned for that behavior. So I don't think that by dropping the practice of incivility blocks we'd be abandoning the project to the wolves. (And as for comparisons to Usenet.. I never had a problem there once I discovered killfiles... maybe we should get those for here? :) --UC_Bill (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Any policy can be gamed, that does not mean you throw away the policy. I find it very unlikely that blocks for egregious or ongoing incivility will stop. In my 3 or so years here I have seen it be very helpful and rarely gamed. If people are baiting you, just don't bite. If you see someone intentionally trying to incite uncivil behavior drop me a line and I will give them a talking to. Chillum 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're an admin? Maybe that explains how we could have come to such different opinions after years of experience here (I've been reading arguments here since long before I ever registered) — you're looking at a systematically biased sample. (My sample is surely biased as well, but since it mostly comes from looking for funny/interesting disputes on the talk pages of articles I've come across in research, I think it's less systematic.) You're not seeing as many of the disputes where none of the involved parties call in an admin — and there are a lot of those. You're mostly seeing cases where somebody has brought in an admin. Now, as to whether those cases are mostly egregious cases of verbal abuse, people trying to game the system, otherwise reasonable people losing it for unknown reasons, or what, I think you're definitely more an expert than me, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on the breakdown, or how we might measure it. However, I contend that the majority of cases of otherwise blockable language go unnoticed by admins because the other participants (for whatever reason) don't bother reporting it. I'm also contending that my bald-faced guess is better than your bald-faced guess, because my sample is more random. So we'd better figure out a way to bring some actual data into this, and soon. :) --UC_Bill (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that reporting and blocking people for incivility is a pretty poor way to promote the atmosphere we're after. When an editor approaches me asking me to block some racist, POV-pushing, freedom-hating, so-and-so - I've got the button, so it happens - I tend to suggest that they try countering incivility by using professionalism, civility, and discussion-widening. This often nonpluses them at first, but many warm to it before long. YMMV.

At any rate, telling someone that they've violated "dubya-pee-civil" is probably one of the worst possible responses to incivility, and this page should say as much, clearly and distinctly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My only comment on all the above is that if we dropped this principle, the message would be "It's perfectly acceptable to be as incivil as you like". That would lead to a far worse and far more immediate outcome than anything you fear is already happening, UC Bill. In no time we'd be indistinguishable from any number of places where incivility is the order of the day - and most of them go nowhere fast. If we want to be around forever, and I certainly believe we do, we have to have different and more exacting standards in some respects from your average amateur website. Not just about the quality of the material that gets put into articles, but also about how we interact with each other as editors. As above, so below. As within, so without. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack puts it well. IronDuke 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Replying some to GTBacchus, some to upthread...

I think that merely saying "You violated WP:CIVIL - stop it or you will be blocked" would be an inappropriate response. It's terse and in its own way rude to someone, as are many uses of warning templates etc.

But I disagree that a civility warning is a wrong response. I have been leaving a fair number of them recently - and they mostly work. They're not short or terse - I try to explain that rudeness drives people away and degrades the quality of communications among those that stay, usually in several paragraphs of explanation, and talk about what they did. But I do it. And it generally works.

People will sometimes react to the warnings by getting angrier and more in people's faces. Unfortunately - we face a rather hard problem. If someone is going to be that hostile, they're destroying parts of the community around them. The Arbcom noticeboard discussion and off-wiki discussions concluded that the damage done is excessive, and that asking some contributors to leave results in less damage (they don't contribute anymore) than letting them stay (multiple other people leave, the quality of communications around the abusive user drops, abuse spreads out to other users etc).

Simply booting people is a rude response. Making it clear to them what the policy is, and that ultimately they have to chose whether to abide by it or leave, is not. The policy says that the community here has a standard of using adult, collegial discussion. Lots of people bend that. Those who break it are causing a real problem.

I disagree completely with UC Bill's thesis that telling people to ignore rude behavior is a better choice. Normal people are somewhat thin skinned, and are a majority of those out there - when they encounter hostile working environments, they leave. Wikipedia became one. Lots of people left. This was not ok.

Enforcing the policy in a polite but firm manner gives people the choice to reform, or leave on reasonably good terms. It ends the abuse. That it's not coddling some of the people who have been abusive is unfortunate - I would rather not drive them away, either - but if the choice is between a hostile environment and one less abusive editor, I chose one less.

We expect people to act like adults. We tell them so. If they fail, they can participate elsewhere on the Internet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GWH, thank you for your thoughtful response. I basically agree with everything you say here. I've also seen your civility "warnings," which go far beyond "stop, or you will be blocked." If most civility warnings exemplified civility and reasoned discourse in the way that yours do, I would have nothing to complain about.

What I object to is the lawyerly attitude, in which people inform other editors that they have "violated WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:NPA and WP:TROLL and possibly WP:STALK. Cease and desist immediately, or you will be blocked for your continued WP:VANDALISM." I think that our civility policy ought to make it very clear that such an attitude is the opposite of what we're suggesting here, and indeed contributes to a poisonous atmosphere. People should be warned, and eventually blocked, for that kind of verbal diarrhoea. I think it's a real problem.

When you, George, leave someone a civility warning, you have clearly dignified them as a human being, by trusting that they can understand and apply standards that are truly noble and which get after the ideal we're pursuing here - namely, the belief that every human on Earth is worthy of being given the sum of human knowledge. That's what this page should more explicitly encourage, which discouraging the officious practice of using "dubya-pee-civil" as a cudgel to get one's way in a dispute. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When I read this, I instantly thought of your comment. Dlabtot (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility at Wikipedia is no more a mystery than proper civil behavior in any social setting is a mystery. We deal with the written word, not the spoken word. The Editor has time to think, to use his social radar to make decisions. Writing is only a loose parallel to verbal speech. Lacking qualifiers, writing is a less effective transmission of what we mean. We don't blurt out writing like in a pool hall. We have time to think, to decide, to weight the result. We make use of words to convey what we mean in spite of the limitations. Rudeness, vulgarity, disrespect, etc. toward another editor should be rare in this environment. We don't except grafitti on the garage door. Is incivility really any different? Editors should be persuaded that defamatory actions don't work. They may achieve Momentary Power but it's just a waste of time.--Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the policy already does discourage using it as a cudgel:

"This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated."

Any stronger language than that could be interpreted as forbidding one to use the policy at all, which would defeat the purpose of having it. Fletcher (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If it already says as much, then good. I try not to read policy pages. Its being written hasn't translated into universal behavior yet, but we'll keep after it. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

we need rather to make the language stronger, not weaker. Isolated minor eruptions are one thing. But in practice we tolerate repeated major ones, as long as it's an established editor. Online forums, and particularly the usenet and MMORG forums where many of us come from, were known for behavior that would not be tolerated in person in almost any setting, because of the physical harm that would result, humans being as they are. WP is not a semi-private game world, where one can safely behave as badly as one likes if one is strong enough. WP is a major very public, very widely used part of the actual world, and everyone here is on public exhibit. We need to get people used to behaving cooperatively, and this may have to be done slowly, but we have been very much too slow. DGG (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Essay on best practices

I would like language that specifically says that being established or very helpful does not allow for incivility, and that the same standard of respect is expected from all Wikipedians new and old. Perhaps it is just a crazy dream of mine. Chillum 13:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a crazy dream to put that language into policy, it may slightly mad to think it would do anything. "Vested" contributors, or those with a lot of friends, get to bend rules to the breaking point and beyond -- rarely are there consequences. If you can fix that problem, I will give you the first barnstar of my wiki career. IronDuke 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

an early step in fixing the situation is having clear language to refer to. There should be no problem finding appropriate language in arb com decisions, especially the ones that mention that admins are expected to be exemplary in their behavior, not just meet minimum standards. As for further action, the more polite protests the better, preferably in situation where the complaining party is not the one primarily at fault. Retaliation is no excuse for someone being impolite, but taunting or initiating trouble tends to decrease the likelihood that people will be willing to help DGG (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to cry out for an essay on good civility warnings, to capture best practice and set a bar for expectations on how to engage with people. As GTBacchus indicated above that I seem to be doing an ok job on civility warnings now, I can try to summarize what I've been doing as a trial balloon essay tonight sometime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a very good idea, Georgewilliamherbert. Please let me know when you have a draft ready. Best, Durova^Charge! 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I would love to participate. Please post a link to your draft here. Chillum 01:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's in good hands. I hope I can add to "The New Conversation" about what we are creating.--Buster7 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• However, let's not go overboard on the notion of civility. It is increasingly being used as a political instrument to intimidate experienced users who make relatively innocuous statements that someone doesn't like. And I've seen admins abuse it too, to block at a whim. Many WPs are ill-at-ease at the harping on civility as an all-embracing code. And on the other side, some users have learned to include the word "Please" to enable the expression of what are basically uncivil statements or blunt orders without accusations of incivility. No one wants a decent into uncontrolled rudeness, but at the same time, there needs to be a recognition that in some disputes, opposing parties are vulnerable to feelings of passion and anger. This needs to be treated sensitively. Above all, we are adults and not made of crystal. Individual instances of mild incivility can be blown out of proportion. Tony (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is increasingly being used as a political instrument to intimidate experienced users who make relatively innocuous statements that someone doesn't like. I don't believe this statement is an accurate characterization of reality. Further, such gaming is specifically and explicitly prohibited by this very policy. To address your second point, uncivil comments don't become civil by simply adding magic words like 'please', and I don't believe admins are so naive as to be fooled by such practices. Dlabtot (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony, the whole point of the essay would be to cover these intricacies. Chillum 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this. But I sense that civility is becoming an obsession for some people. I'm surprised, for example, to be suddenly accused of "gaming", and the preposterous threat by that person to accuse me of incivility for discussing the policy is just ... bizarre. Tony (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not see any accusation against you by Dlabtot. The comment about gaming seemed to be a general comment about behavior that is already ruled out by the policy, not an allegation that you are guilty of it. Fletcher (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] PS I mistook Dlabtot's comments in one respect (gaming); sorry for that. To address more fully, this use of accusations of incivility occurs all the time, I'm afraid, particularly by some individuals in some situations. I can supply diffs if you want of examples of such. The notion that this is gaming is hard to pin down, and even if it were pinned down, would be hard to take action against. That is partly why it is increasingly used. Tony (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have diffs of that kind of behavior, you should post them to the appropriate noticeboards. Since this behavior is already specifically disallowed by this policy, users engaging in it need to be sanctioned, and admins will be able to apply this policy as written in order to do so. Dlabtot (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Tony: It is increasingly being used as a political instrument to intimidate experienced users who make relatively innocuous statements that someone doesn't like. Perhaps you haven’t seen it yourself, Dlabtot, but I absolutely know that this goes on. It’s just wikilawyering to get one's way. And there are experienced editors who certainly have refined the art of suggesting that other editors go do something to themselves which isn’t considered to be physically possible simply by appending the prefix “Please” to the request. It’s high time that Wikipedia’s policies on civility become extremely clear on the matter and “get real”.

  Right now, an editor can write “You know that’s not true and you’re just trying to pull the wool over our eyes” and the other editor can now whine about “That… that’s WP:UNCIVIL and a personal attack because you are failing to assume WP:GOODFAITH. I am sooooo offended (more sea of blue, WP:ANI / WP:WQA time, ad nauseam)”. If we keep up this politically correct tendency towards kindergarden class, before long, a voice will intone over the loudspeaker “That will be 15 demerit points Sgt. John Spartan” after I write something like “Wikipedia’s policy on civility is a steaming pile of BS because it’s being misused by whiney-ass babies.”

  P.S. I’ve had a WQA lodged against me and one of the cited bits of *evidence* was “Who are you trying to kid?” Not that the WQA went anywhere; the consensus was that it was ultimately just a content dispute and Wikilawyering. It is, however, a colossal waste of time responding to such tactics. In the end, the policy I was opposing—our crazy use of “Mebibyte (MiB)” v.s. “Megabyte (MB)” like what the rest of the real world actually uses on this pale blue dot—got reversed and several of those editors threw themselves onto their swords and quit Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, not before they used every wikilawywering stunt available in this universe and several parallel universes. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I have said before, if you find someone gaming this policy then drop me a message on my talk page and I will look into it. Gaming any policy is not allowed. Chillum 18:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Assuming that you have to sleep and eat like other life forms on earth, you wouldn’t have the time (nor patience) to look at all the instances where this occurs. Greg L (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I have said before... anyways instead of repeating myself again I will just say that there really is no way to prevent people from playing politics when they should be doing academic debate. We still need to enforce a certain level of mutual respect. I think the abuse of the civility policy is an exaggeration, a tempest in a teapot. Chillum 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think the abuse of the civility policy is an exaggeration, a tempest in a teapot.: You are entitled to your opinion. As for We still need to enforce a certain level of mutual respect, it’s an imprecise gray-scale and the standard has to match the circumstances. For instance, some well-meaning newcomer certainly shouldn’t be jumped on with “What the hell do you know?” But there are other editors who are fond of quoting “you aren’t assuming good faith” when they have already proven through their actions that they were lying and weren’t acting in good faith. Perhaps it isn’t WP:Civility that is broken, but the WP:ANI and WP:WQA processes (where WP:CIVIL is oft-quoted) that need more substantial improvement so they can better deal with what the real world calls “assholes”. Greg L (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Chillum was suggesting that he has the capacity move mountains, but simply that he is willing to move one stone at a time. And by doing so, we may find out that the mountain was actually a molehill. Dlabtot (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Dlabtot; your take on the facts may be most accurate of all. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

• Thinking about this… Perhaps, to help guide WP:ANI and WP:WQA towards becoming more effective and less wasteful with wikilawyering, WP:Civil could be tweaked with a clearer acknowledgment that ‘civility’ is not a “one shoe fits all” blanket tone; that editors who have exhibited a long and clear pattern of “dishing it out” and/or have proven through their actions that they have not acted in good faith, may be dealt with more directly than others. Greg L (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I must completely disagree with this suggestion. Change the policy to say that it is sometimes ok to uncivil? No. I do think it should be noted that you are currently a party to an active arbitration case that includes extensive allegations of breaches of this policy. I don't have any comment on the case, which I have not examined, nor do I mean that allegations be treated as anything but allegations. I just make note of it for the edification of other commentators who may not have been aware of it. Dlabtot (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Change the policy to say that it is sometimes ok to uncivil? No, that is not what I was saying. I was suggesting we acknowledge reality. There is some conduct that will always be uncivil, no matter where you are on Wikipedia. But with regard to dealing with problem editors who already know how to dish it out, what passes for the finer points of civility varies depending on the venue and the participants. Just what I flat wrote above: ‘civility’ is not a “one shoe fits all” blanket tone; that editors who have exhibited a long and clear pattern of “dishing it out” and/or have proven through their actions that they have not acted in good faith, may be dealt with more directly than others. I wrote nowhere in that, nor did I mean to imply, that one can go over that “bright line” of what is considered as always uncivil under any circumstances; just that editors aren’t expected to sound like damned kindergarden teachers when dealing with drunken sailors. Greg L (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone has proven through their actions that they have not acted in good faith then they should be sanctioned for those actions. But their poor behavior should not be used to excuse the poor behavior of others. I think that's what our policies say right now and I think we've gotten it right. Dlabtot (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I’m done here. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Civility policy is always going to be problematic, because there is no hard-and-fast boundary between what is and isn't civil. It's like having a policy that WP article will be written "to professional standard". One person's standard is not another's, and it's heavily context-dependent. A policy that can lead to punishment, which is currently the case, is thus vulnerable to abuse through personal interpretation. If you do not see this, your eyes are closed. I will be interested to see how this issue pans out in the essay. Tony (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility is not so complicated that it needs guide staying X is civil, Y is not. We all learned this stuff growing up. Basically if multiple people are telling you that you are acting uncivil there is a good chance you are. If the people telling you that you are uncivil are involved in a dispute with you and you think they are wrong, then simply seek an outside opinion. Drawing a bright line will only invite gaming. Many of our policies require a judgment call, but we have no issue with using common sense when figuring these things out. Chillum 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be insistent; perhaps I'm a pessimist, or perhaps a realist in my natural caution. "Common sense" itself is a vague notion that can be used whichever way a "gamer" wants, as for "judgement call". This is why I'm very uneasy at any move to strengthen the ambit of "civility", since I do see it misused so often. When I have time, I'll find a few examples for you, and would be interested in your opinion. It may be that the notion of civility, in this essay, needs to be hedged against a set of contextual considerations. Not easy to do; maybe not impossible. Tell me, were you planning on using examples (mocked up for the purpose) in the essay? I think that would be very useful. The examples in the civility policy are most unsatisfactory because they do not depict the context with sufficient detail. It's the cases that are closer to the boundary between civil and not civil that need the examples, don't you think? Tony (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You really do need to show some incidents where this policy was 'misused'. This is a constant refrain around here, but no one ever seems to be able to provide any diffs that illustrate the supposed problem. Dlabtot (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No I think examples should avoid the boundry. That is when human reaction needs to take over for the written word. Like I said if we draw a bright line it will encourage gaming. When people are so close to the line we generally don't block anyways, but attempt to discuss the matter. Chillum 14:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I had some computer problems on Friday and Saturday - I saved a half draft of what I had before those at Wikipedia:Civility warnings - but it's only half done. Comments welcome, but please keep in mind that it's only half done. Computer's working ok today so I hope to get it finished sometime today... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued to add material yesterday - Comments welcome on the talk page there. Wikipedia talk:Civility warnings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have serious misgivings about this "essay". See here. Tony (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lovely essay. A lot of thought must have gone into that. Perhaps a few minor stylistic tweaks would improve it even more. But basically very solid stuff. Kudos. :) Durova^Charge! 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentally flawed. Are you looking at the right essay, Durova? Now, I have a question: is the following edit summary a breach of civility policy?

Undid revision [number] by [Username] nonsense

This is not a loaded question: I want to establish where the boundary lies, and people here surely have greater expertise than I do in this area. It's an example of an edit summary I saw today. Tony (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS The same user then directed this edit summary at another user:

no there is nothing to work towards, and i'm sorry that you are retarded

I'd have thought the first was on the boundary and the second was over it. Do people agree? Does the context in which such edit summaries occur matter? Tony (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Without diffs there is no way to address your questions. However, I will say, there is not and never will be a defined 'boundary'. Editors and administrators must exercise judgment when applying this or any policy. Dlabtot (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is really not "is this a breach of the policy?" The question is "what can I do to use civility to improve the situation?" Civility isn't a law, it's a very good idea, because incivility doesn't work. It alienates people and makes them turn against you. Calling someone else's edit "nonsense" is not very friendly, and you'll reap what you sow. People who habitually do that will find their success sharply limited; fact of life. This policy just points out that fact. The more we can refrain from interpreting it as a statute, the better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Soooo ... perhaps a practical solution—at least a partial solution—might be added to the picture. Your comments are welcome here. Tony (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Editors who pretend to not understand the difference between civil and uncivil behavior - or who truly do not understand this simple principle of human interaction - should be quickly and permanently banned from WP. They aren't helping the project, rather, they are wasting everyone's time. Dlabtot (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No respect of rights

Mr TastyCakes attacked me in my page with a racist "invitation" and he offended me.He was supported by Arnoutf.There's like a web of people that criticizing,offending and also with racist acting, try to stop you.Their opinions are always accepted by Wikipedia controller,but who stopped Mr tastyCakes when attacked me with racism? I indicate him to Police (and this shows his guilt action)but Wikipedia did nothing.I'm banned from english Wikipedia but while he writes in Wikipedia English ,he is banned from all over EU. Not a good image of Wikipedia level for civil rights...then all this guys talk of civil behaviour...but if they don't know the basis of civil world...

In EU, Wikipedia has already and but will have but me a very bad publicity in many places...this isn't a menace but a sure thing .I do what i promise. Please ban immediately Mr TasyCakes and warns mr Arnoutf,then i can have the normal behaviour so mentioned.It's a problem of honesty and civil rights (racism of TastyCakes).If you don't change don't worry i go straight ahead by my way...this shows very well that the head of Wikipedia is in Usa (Florida) and should be named Ameripedia (there's a lot of Usa Propaganda).Mr TastyCakes would be better to stay out of EU and when i meet american people (not a lot now in EU because they've no money)i'll send them ALWAYS in troubles.Don't worry abot me ,i live in the best place of the world :EU.Bye!EU 100% (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about an editor you should file it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This talk page is about improving the text of the policy. Arnoutf (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this sounds prima facie like a case that needs to be aired officially. Tony (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been pointed out that this may not be what it seems. I probably shouldn't have commented. Tony (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The sad thing is, I'm not even American, but Canadian with EU (British) citizenship. This guys is either nuts, an idiot, or deliberately trying to be obnoxious. But he's gone now and with this kind of rhetoric isn't coming back, so there we go. For those that are curious, my "racist ranting" can be viewed at his talk page. TastyCakes (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I am from the EU (Netherlands) and proud to be from the EU. That does not mean I have to agree with something who is only ranting about something he does not know much about. Anyway, EU100% has been blocked for sockpuppeteering. Arnoutf (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages that inherently violate the core principle of civility

If "civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles", how is it that some pages that inherently violate this principle are allowed to continue? People may differ in their opinions of which pages fall into this category, but I would suggest that if identified with some consensus, deleting such pages (even if it means overcoming the resistance of a group of defenders who think the page is "funny") would be the appropriate course of action.

One candidate has certainly got to be Don't be a dick. Why is it acceptable to use a demeaning and highly offensive sexual reference to characterize someone's overall editing style? A civil response would be to explain to an editor specifically what it is that is bothering you. This has never been used against me, but I can hardly think of anything more offensive or more lacking in civility.

Another page which is routinely used in an offensive way is Wikipedia:TROUT. The page indicates that someone should be hit with a wet trout if they say something regarded as clueless. Personally, I find this significantly more offensive than simply calling someone "clueless" in a more straightforward manner, which would certainly be a violation of WP:Civil. I know of one editor who makes liberal use of WP:TROUT as a way to criticize various editors. He probably thinks it's funny. But it seems thoroughly undignified and childish to me to have a page devoted to the idea that editors can be told "you're so clueless you need to be slapped in the face with a wet fish" with a measure of apparent endorsement by Wikipedia.

My guess is that editors shy away from arguing for the deletion of such pages because they are squeamish about people saying they have no sense of humor or are being too sensitive.

I'm sure there are other pages that may be considered by many editors as inherently offensive and violating the core principle of civility. I'd invite anyone to mention them here and discuss the issues involved. -Exucmember (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and etc. :) The fact that something is (or may be regarded as) undignified and childish is not a civility concern; both essays are only uncivil if used in an uncivil manner. Many Wikipedians openly invite "trout slapping" as a light-hearted way of saying, "You messed up": Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_trout_slapping, Category:Wikipedians_open_to_trout_slapping. Trout slapping them is obviously not in any way going to violate "civil." The "dick" essay self-acknowledges that the label is uncivil: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move - especially if it's true. It upsets the other person and it reduces the chance that they'll listen to what you say." This is a recent alteration of language which generally seems good to me (although "especially if it's true" makes no sense; it's not less a "dick-move", to borrow their vernacular, to label somebody a "dick" if they aren't one), but even prior to this change caution was advised with the term and the essay explicitly acknowledged that its use could be a personal attack. In my opinion, the heart of this policy is found in these words: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Neither of those pages inherently violates that. It all comes down to how they're used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that it is not uncivil to "whack someone with a trout" who has already indicated an openness to it. Perhaps something could be added to the page urging editors to be cautious when using it for those who have not done so, since the page says it is equivalent to calling them clueless.

How does one refer to someone with the highly offensive adjective "dick" in a civil manner? -Exucmember (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't. The purpose of that page is for each of us to apply it to ourselves, and to strive not to "be a dick". Applying that page to another editor is certainly not civil. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The page itself implies that "dick" may be applied to an editor in the natural course of events: "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true." This can even be read as an endorsement of telling someone they're a "dick" if they "truly" are. The sentence is certainly complicit in the highly uncivil behavior of calling someone a "dick". It would be less so if the adjective were a lighthearted or even silly one, rather than a highly offensive sexual reference. -Exucmember (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly am not claiming that the page is well-written. I would support editing it to make it clear that it's not a label to apply to others. On the other hand, we can't avoid the reality that people will call each other names, or accuse each other of rudeness, and it seems reasonable to write down some advice about a constructive way to respond to such an accusation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that you might consider contributing to the essay to indicate that it isn't meant to endorse calling someone a "dick" or noting those concerns at the essay's talk. As an aside, though, perhaps the degree to which "dick" is offensive is cultural? From my chair, it seems mostly juvenile: crude and silly—maybe because the word does all sorts of extra duty in referring to detectives and persons named Richard as well as indicating a state of just general indolence ("dicking around"). Except in the "persons named Richard" category and in the popular sports chain store, it's not part of my vocabulary, but I don't find it highly offensive. That said, I'd rather somebody say to me, "I think that was rude," than "Stop being a jerk," no matter what synonym for "jerk" they might choose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on category listings below

Rudeness and insults are more general behaviours, and perhaps should be in the heading: Direct rudeness and Insults, but then in the list following they shouldn't be listed. First, because they are larger generalizations which the other behaviours are more specific examples of, and second, because they are already named in the heading...one thought.

Name calling is quite non specific as well. Name calling might be something as mild as, silly ass... or then again could be much worse. Racial slurs could also be name calling...

I wonder if the heading should be something like: Personally directed rudeness, insults, and name calling...Another thought.(olive (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

An absurd policy

Since "civility" is subjective, this policy serves merely as a weapon in the administrative arsenal for blocking editors who refuse to be intimidated by threats from the cabal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Heck, if that were true then ArbCom would've sitebanned me ages ago. Durova^Charge! 06:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with the last part of the sentence there, but it is subjective and it is pointless. CIV should be marked historical and a focus put on project-wide understanding of WP:NPA. لennavecia 01:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the communities' consenus on it. Disliking it is fine - but you have to change the community mind to get rid of it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By "Community", we mean the small group of editors who watch and edit WP:Civility. But, yes, you need to change their mind to get rid of it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just treat each other with a bare minimum of respect and you will do just fine by this policy. Chillum 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Noo, you've got it all wrong. All you have to do is join the cabal. The trick is to find out which ones even exist. I started a cabal, but I'm getting really tired of dealing with its membership of one. ;) Franamax (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Chillum 03:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No cabal, but there is the continual temptation to frame "civility" and "disruption" for political purposes. Anon, log in or I can't take your posts seriously ... Tony (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that and that anon's last rant is the hallmark of a cussing, whining editor who is not too happy that his rantings are not taken seriously. Do you really need to drop F-bombs to make a point? --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

as I see it, CIV is the best protection that WP has against the sometimes outrageous behavior of WPedians who have been long-established here, behavior that would not be tolerated from others. What the policy needs is a clearer expression that nobody is exempt. DGG (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom and community enforcement actions have been experience-blind of late - people who "got away with it" for years have been slapped pretty hard for continuing after multiple warnings recently.

A year ago, it was unclear if we needed some stronger policy statement to enable that. Now, I think we're where we need to be. Nobody is afraid to call admins on the carpet if they're seriously rude or abusive, and long term users with long term problems are getting focused attention as well.

Your opinion may vary, but I think we're roughly ok now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a true enough statement as far as it goes (and the changes are beneficial), but I'm not so sure that equivalent progress has been made in addressing the other side of the coin, civil but toxic behaviours which sometimes provoke experienced editors into explosions of incivility. Habitual nastiness should always be called out. Constant patrolling to punish the use of "poopoohead", just because it's easy to identify? Not so sure on that. (And yes, it's always wrong to call someone a poopoohead, but is the equivalent effort put into discerning why a long-time editor would use the term? ) Franamax (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some editors have perfected the application of the "civil but toxic" behaviour Franamax refers to: occasionally our experienced editors get wound up by it—it's hard not to be roped into that scenario if you are passionate and dynamic, and operate in contentious areas. The current failure to treat experienced editors differently when they occasionally cross the line is very damaging to the community. The instant block, such as might be appropriate for the vandal or the anon. or the extremely abusive, is often applied in circumstances where an option to apologise and strike through the offending comment promptly would provide—in some cases—the possibility of healing. Blocking rarely changes anyone's behaviour: surely we realise that by now. It often builds resentment and makes repeat offences more likely. Tony (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not in an okay place with this policy now, in my opinion. As long as admins are still handing out stupid CIV blocks to long-established editors for comments they deem uncivil or, in some cases, personal attacks when the comments are not directed at anyone specific, we continue to have a problem. The fact that civility is subjective and too many people on this project confuse offensive remarks with incivility, leaves this policy impossible to fairly enforce unless it becomes mandated that all civility blocks must gain community consensus before they are issued. But really, the whole thing is pointless, because by the time you gain consensus to block, whatever the uncivil party had their panties in a bunch about is most likely over, rendering a block punitive. All civility blocks are essentially cool down blocks anyway, with some exceptions. So as long as we're keeping up with the lie that we don't issue punitive or cool down blocks, we really shouldn't be doing civility blocks. That said, and as I said a couple days ago, a better practice would be to mark this page as historical, everyone suck it up a bit, embrace WP:DGAF, and gather some clue about what constitutes personal attacks. Violations of NPA should surely result in blocks. Blocking long-established content creators because they get angry and upset someone's delicate sensibilities is just ridiculous. لennavecia 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of this problem? I keep hearing people say that admins are doing bad civility blocks, but I never get pointed to any examples. I disagree that civility blocks are cool-down blocks, when I issue then it is to protect the editors who are being abused, not to cool down the person doing the abusing. Wikipedian's have a reasonable expectation to edit here without being subject to abuse, blocking abusive people is how we ensure that. I also think the trivializing the victim by labeling them with "delicate sensibilities" is not productive. We don't want only thick skinned editors, we also want productive editors who just don't like being treated poorly. I would trade 5 abusive editors for 1 thin skinned productive member of the team. Chillum 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility/Poll

Right, let's see where the community stands on civility - mainly on how it is applied and enforced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

List of incivility categories scrambled in terms of intensity

It's kind of hard to read through and think about clearly when the bullets seem to be disordered, shunting from the seemingly bad to the mild and back to the bad. Some could be conflated for easier understanding. Here it is as now:

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
• Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform.

Could we have consensus on re-ordering this list so that it (A) moves from the worst to the mildest (or at least does this a little better than it currently does); (B) conflates similar points; and (C) groups the points into their two logical categories—direct rudeness, and strategies—numbering the points for easier reference by admins and other editors, when the policy needs to be referred to? In particular, "Using derogatory language towards other contributors" seemed to be a repetition of the first point, and the racial, religious thing was doubled up. I conflated the "edit summary" and "talk page" examples (a substantive but slight change in meaning that I think will raise no objection). From 2b I removed "from a discussion page", because such lies can occur in edit summaries and editorial comments within article text too.

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions, directed at another contributor;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and references to groups such as social classes or nationalities in a derogatory manner;
• (c) Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• (d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");
• (e) Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice.

2. Other behaviours

• (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• (b) Harassment;
• (c) Lying to mislead one or more editors, including deliberately asserting false information;
• (d) Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;
• (e) Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform;
• (f) Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb").

Tony (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The second arrangement certainly seems to be clearer than the first. Chillum 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I too like the revision, more structure and easier to read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

an extremely good step. We should take care though not to suggest that the listing covers all the possibilities, and to emphasize that gross pursuit of lower level incivility can be as damaging as occasional outrages. DGG (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I believe your first concern (not all the possibilities) is covered in the lead ("can all contribute to"), which is non-exclusive. I would support your point about the undesirability of pursuing lower-level incivility (it partly depends on context, yes?), but I feel that should be treated in a separate discussion and a different section in the policy. Olive (section above), I take your point about the potential generality and specificity of terms such as "rudeness", but I think it is probably best that it appear on two levels (heading and first point). I think no editor will cite the whole of Section 1. "Direct rudeness" in support of a request that another editor "cool it" (more likely to nail it with a specific 1a, 1b, etc), but it's a useful structural distinction, contrasting with less direct linguistic behaviours. I'll leave it another few days before implementing this, to see if anyone else comments. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the reorganization of the list a lot. However, I have a question about one example: "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform;". How can this be considered "incivility", even if indirect? It's unethical, no doubt, but to say uncivil... Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment (though I like the above list), I'm wondering how genuine criticism can be made under the constraints given above. It is possible that genuine criticism can be twisted into being depicted as incivil, and thus criticism would be restricted to those who can dress it up in carefully chosen words (which would disenfranchise those who are more blunt, sometimes by choice, sometimes by not being as wordy in their language skills). Some examples:

• "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" - belittling is not good, but sometimes issues like this can impede discussions, and there needs to be a way to point such things out without being accused of being incivil. Ironically, saying that someone is incivil becase they were blunt and used a particular word, instead of a flowery sentence to say the same thing, is itself incivil under this definition.
• "calling someone a liar" - not nice, but sometimes the alternative (of ignoring what looks like a lie) is worse. The way this should be presented is "If you think someone is lying, what are the right and wrong ways to deal with it?".
• "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform" - technically, using {{sofixit}} might breach this, as would grumpily saying "well, do it yourself then!". Or is this referring to humorous comments like "Great idea! Glad to see you are volunteering to do this! :-)". But maybe I'm missing the point and this refers to something else entirely, such as actually listing someone as doing something, but listing them without their knowledge.
• "Feigned incomprehension" - at the risk of being ironic, I don't have a clue what point is being made here. Sometimes people are genuinely puzzled, and a little explanation, while taking time, can help move things forward. Quite where you get from that to "feigned incomprehension", I'm not sure. This "obstructionist strategy" is certainly something I haven't encountered often, but then I generally just explain things when asked.

Apologies if the above points have been covered before. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one - Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27, as far as the last one goes - a link'd be good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone feigning stupidity. A more common way of not getting the point is by ignoring stronger points of an argument and only responding and refuting less important parts of a posting. It is disrespectful to not pay sufficient attention to what other people post, and I find it equally frustrating when no effort is put into expressing oneself clearly and succinctly. I had added the latter point to the policy page, but I believe it should be merged with this "refusal to get it", because the common theme is to respect the time that other people volunteer to this project. Vesal (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is forbidden?

Re this edit - could you please show where there is consensus that sarcasm is now forbidden? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The passage you removed did not say sarcasm was forbidden. It said the use of sarcasm to belittle the opinions of other editors is uncivil. I think we can agree to that. Chillum 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like wikilawyering, presumably anything other than fulsome agreement belittles the opinions of other editors. . dave souza, talk 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really true. People do in fact belittle others around here. Pretty much anything can be lawyered, that does not mean the underlying problem does not exist. Chillum 23:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sarcasm" and "irony" are specifically mentioned. Specific mention of these two suggests that there is something especially wrong with their use. Any sarcasm can be interpreted as "belittling" if you choose to take it that way. So re-wording the policy in this way amounts to a ban on irony and sarcasm - not because it's intended, but because people will wikilawyer it into a ban on sarcasm.

We are under no obligation to "make serious criticisms" of every idea that's put forward by the proponent of some fringe theory. When someone says that the moon landing was "lies to fool black people" we can't be expected to "make serious criticisms" of their beliefs. We're free to say "no, you're wrong, and there's a wealth of evidence to explain why you're wrong". It's belittling to have some "teenager on the internet" tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. But it isn't uncivil. Raul's laws can be terribly belittling, especially to someone shouting about censorship. But they aren't necessarily uncivil.

As I said, specific examples are mentioned. All I'm asking for is some evidence that the changes to this policy document reflect consensus. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of sarcasm from Google:

• "witty language used to convey insults or scorn"
• "A form of verbal irony, expressing sneering, personal disapproval in the guise of praise."
• "a type of irony in which a person appears to be praising something but is actually insulting it. Its purpose is to injure or to hurt."

Saying ""no, you're wrong, and there's a wealth of evidence to explain why you're wrong," has nothing to do with sarcasm, and seems entirely appropriate. I don't know of any situation on the wiki that can be improved by means of "insults", "scorn", "sneering", or language whose "purpose is to injure or to hurt or scorn." -User:hobodan^(talk) 3:54am, 8th July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page seen as being about "forbidden" things? Have we all agreed to throw away IAR and to submit to a rules-based system? When did this happen? Where was the poll on this?

Belittling others is obviously a bad idea. Anyone doing that is not helping the project. Our only policy is: "Help the project". If you're wasting your time with sarcastic remarks instead, then please stop. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Aww, man! There goes the most effective utility in my toolkit. Amerique^dialectics 06:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm should be included. I've been looking at a talk page where an editor is continually saying 'thanks for...' various things when he is clearly being uncivil towards other editors. An intelligent editor (or probably even our average editor) can use sarcasm and irony in ways that are clearly personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with listing forms of incivility is that those lists are inevitably interpreted as statutory law by a lot of editors, and we end up with endless accusations of sarcasm distracting everyone, all the time. It's a problem... -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A big problem with identifying sarcasm at all, is that it generally requires tone, facial expression, and sometimes other body language to be interpreted.We don't have those markers here so, interpretation is even more subjective than other forms of incivility.(olive (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

That is only true sometimes. Other times context and pattern of use make it pretty clear what is going on. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Guettarda says: When someone says that the moon landing was "lies to fool black people" we can't be expected to "make serious criticisms" of their beliefs. We're free to say "no, you're wrong, and there's a wealth of evidence to explain why you're wrong". I should regard that as definitely a serious criticism. This is to be contrasted with "What a moron you must be, to write such drivel", which would be uncivil, and would not be a serious criticism.

• dave souza says: presumably anything other than fulsome agreement belittles the opinions of other editors. No, I can disagree with you without belittling your opinion.

• Guettarda says that someone telling you that you don't know what you're talking about isn't uncivil. We shall simply have to differ. As far as I'm concerned "you don't know what you're talking about" is certainly uncivil: one civil way of conveying the same opinion would be "I think you are mistaken".

• The essential point of the edit to which Guettarda has taken exception was Ridiculing comments from other editors, ..., and the sentence about sarcasm and irony was merely a gloss. Nobody in the comments above has defended ridiculing others' opinions. The fuller version of that quote is Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them. It is true that Guettarda has suggested that "serious criticism" is not needed, but, as I have indicated above, the example given of an acceptable alternative is, in my opinion, an example of serious criticism, so the difference is merely one of interpretation of the wording, rather than a disagreement about the substance of the remark. If there is a consensus in favour of Guettarda's interpretation of the wording then maybe someone can suggest a different form of words which will convey the intended meaning.

• GTBacchus has said "The trouble with listing forms of incivility is that those lists are inevitably interpreted as statutory law by a lot of editors..." I totally agree. This applies not just to lists of types of incivility, but to so many things on Wikipedia. It is interesting to look at the versions of some policies and guidelines from 4 or 5 years ago, and compare them with their current versions: there has been a continuous creeping increase in the tendency to attempt to define and list every detail, rather than to simply outline basic principals, and in my opinion Wikipedia is so much the worse for it. In my opinion the best thing we could do with this list would be to delete it, but in the present climate of opinion there is little chance of getting a consensus for that. Another problem with having lists is if anything is not on the list, that is likely to interpreted by the rule-fanatics as meaning that it is alright, and not covered by incivility. That being so, I think there should be a statement that ridiculing the opinions of other editors is uncivil. Nobody has so far opposed that view in the discussion above. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

After 4 more days still nobody has opposed the view that ridiculing the opinions of others should be proscribed, and there has been some expression of support, so there seems to be a consensus in favour. As for the inclusion of specific reference to sarcasm and irony to belittle the opinions of other editors, there has been some support, but one person has strongly opposed it. For now I shall leave that out. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is encouraged

I'm tired of seeing the main section name in my contributions list. I would say that, if you know how to use sarcasm to more effectively edit the encyclopedia than you could wth or without it , then we encourage you to do so. Having done that, please document how it works, for the benefit of others. That's how we get new guidelines.

Recently, there have been a lot of questions raised about the extent to which civility or incivility affects the project. There are people trying to establish that incivility doesn't work. That's different from forbidding it. Forbidding things is very foolish, in my opinion. We should rewrite the policy so that its central thesis is "Incivility doesn't work" - assuming that's true.

For those who have some kind of insight about how incivility is useful and good, this is a great time to start explaining that, or else the silly civility police will lock everyone down, and rob us of important and effective tools such as sarcasm.

I know this post probably comes across as ironic, and I hear and enjoy that, but I also mean what I'm saying. If incivility is useful, then I'm all for it. No joke. I've used cursing in real-world contexts where it worked very well. I just don't think that Wikipedia is one of those contexts. I'm open to being shown otherwise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles need help

Before we try to rewrite this policy, maybe we should work on our articles about rudeness, politeness and civility; they are of unassessed quality. I think it would be easier to write policy if we had a better understanding of these topics. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I woulda thought transwikiing rudeness (and maybe the others) to wiktionary - is there anything to add to it that is not a ditcionary definition? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Entire books have been written on these subjects. What are the different types of rudeness? What is considered rude in different cultures? How has rudeness been dealt with through the ages? Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC about policy template

Fresh eyes would be appreciated at Template talk:Policy#RfC: Changes made should reflect consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility Poll results

A Civility Poll has been undertaken. The nutshell results:

This indicates that on the whole people feel the current policy is not working effectively, so it would be appropriate to consider what changes need to take place. SilkTork *^YES! 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd contest the first sentence of that, because the "too lenient" and "unenforceable" camps don't kind of mix. I'd say that "The results of the poll are that a strong majority of people feel the current civility policy is problematic, in that it is either too lenient or inconsistently applied and uneforceable." Sceptre ^(talk) 14:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion: I'd like to add calling people "crazy" (in various ways) to the list of things that are considered uncivil. I used to think that that was covered sufficiently by "insults", but recently in RFAs, RFBs, and at ANI, I got the sense that some participants thought that accusing people of personality disorders wasn't a civility problem, perhaps because it was couched in scientific language. - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but one thing that I don't see in there is how to deal with editors that are routinely uncivil (as defined by the consensus in the poll) that also have large amounts of content contributions. One of my pet peeves about Wikipedia is that people who are blocked for civility hide behind their content contributions, and they are unblocked (resulting in drama). I guess it's too late to deal with that now, but it's something to consider while we're on the subject. (X! · talk)  · @206  ·  03:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that issue several times over the course of reading the poll and the linked essays on civility. I don't have links, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see them now, but I was talking about a more formalized discussion. (X! · talk)  · @296  ·  06:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, we could start with the more unequivocal results - i.e. be nicer to new editors. That really stuck out for me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. I am appalled when I see how new users are treated, as I remember how long it took me to realize the basics about Wikipedia. We must understand how much a new user must absorb, and be more tolerant of the learning curve. —mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

and the second thing that struck me is gthe need for experienced users to follow the rules also--the more experienced, the more carefully they should be expected to follow them. a little strong language from a newcomer can be passed over--from a long term admin, it can not be. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Established users can take being called "crazy" (if you call me crazy, I'll quit ;-)). If we can figure out how to be nice to new editors, this thing can be called a success, in my opinion. I don't think we can change our editors attitudes, so some magical solution involving templates and bots may be in order. Brainstorming: a bot notices that someones first edit has been reverted within, say 5 minutes. It places some sort of template on their talk page (creating the orange notice dealy) with links to the reverters talk page, and says something magical that makes it all better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What you said about users that are incivil, but well-establishedusers that are incivil, but well-established, I think we should add to the policy that a key principle is absolute neutrality towards application. A three-strikes your out should apply, with the blocks increasing in length for each offense (3 days, week, two weeks, month, three months, year, indef). We should clearly state that civility blocks are allowed, as the issue whether they are allowed is a main point of contention. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming specific editors is inappropriate (or do I mean incivil?). I suggest you remove the link. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I recently observed what I perceived to be incivility towards a newcomer. After failing to make make any progress using the User’s talk page I posted a report on WP:Wikiquette alerts. Eventually an administrator resolved the situation in favor of the newcomer and I was satisfied. A small number of other non-administrators contributed to the debate but I was surprised that none of these non-administrators displayed any great sympathy for the newcomer or any great commitment to civility. I felt I was fighting a losing battle so I was pleased when the administrator decided in favor of civility.

At WP:Wikiquette alerts there is the advice Please help to respond to Wikiquette alerts. This page is run by regular editors just like you, and needs more editors to help with the alerts. Anyone is welcome to help out … I see a lot of benefit for people suffering attacks of incivility if more Users who are committed to civility participate in the debates on WP:Wikiquette alerts. To do so, you don’t have to be an administrator.

Further information on how to participate in these debates is available at Instructions for editors responding to alerts. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki

Does this at all cover civility issues made outside of enwiki (mailing lists, IRC...)? If it doesn't, then can't people deliberately exploit the fact and game the system? -- Mentifisto 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement Should Be Aligned with Policy

These rules simply aren't enforced. The following comment, made to me, was widely regarded as civil by the folks at the Administrators' noticeboard: "I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about." If that's civil, then it is plain misleading to tell people that these are examples of incivility:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

This page doesn't describe any policy as it is actually enforced. Let's make it describe the reality of Wikipedia, as upheld by the administrators. Noloop (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to give a link to where you the incident you refer to took place. However, assuming you are referring to Wikipedia:ANI#WebHamster.2C_Anti-americanism, I have read the whole discussion. Numerous people took place in the discussion. One of them said that this was not uncivil; a couple said it was uncivil; most did not comment on that question, probably because, as was pointed out, ANI was not the right place to have the incident dealt with. Neither is this. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. This isn't the place to have the incident dealt with, which is why I didn't provide an ANI link or ask anyone to deal with it. I gave the incident as an example. The point is that these rules on civility are not the rules that admins enforce. If the admin community doesn't consider "I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you.... stop fucking about." uncivil, it is certainly not going to consider "Judgemental tone in edit summaries" as uncivil. So, this page misrepresents the actual, practiced standards. Let's stop misrepresenting the truth. Noloop (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I will just say this once more and then drop the matter. It is not true that the community did not consider this to be uncivil: only one individual, quite out of line with everyone else who commented thought it was not civil; and the admins did not "enforce" this rule because the ANI board was not the place to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, only one person said it was uncivil. Everybody else who expressed an opinion said it was acceptable. The rule is not supposed to be enforced on or at the ANI board; it is enforced in the place it occurs. The end result was that the rule wasn't enforced, and no avenue of enforcement was offered. (There were suggestions for resolving the content dispute, but that's a different matter.) Continuing the point with the same example, the user (WebHamster) is currently making these comments...

• "...you have the choice of no expectation of civility or fucking off..."
• "Go fuck yourself. .... Now as a time-served regular I suggest you stay away from ANI until you know what the fuck you are doing. I don't know how you expect to "build an encyclopaedia" but I do it by typing into article edit forms. Not by fucking around with things that don't concern me. You're not an admin..."

No block, no enforcement. He did get a "warning." So, after telling a variety of people to basically fuck off (in various ways), repeatedly, in less than a week, one can expect a "warning." This page conveys a different impression. Let's edit it to convey what is actually practiced.

Proposal:

Civility on Wikipedia is loose and generally left to the personal standards of each editor. Personal abuse may result in a mild warning if it is repeated, or it may be ignored.

I believe this more accurately reflects observable practice. Thoughts? Noloop (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my proposed edit? If so, are they based on the belief that rules against "Judgemental tone" and "feigned incomprehension" are consistently enforced? Noloop (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nloop. Sympathise with you and think that Hamster should be dealt with. Understand your frustration, it is shocking that this type of behviour is not taken more seriously. However, amending policy to reflect practice in this case would be against WP:POINT, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also sympathize. However - editors need to be aware that enforcement of all our policies is necessarily on a as-observed and time-available basis, usually focused on the worst issues or those that particular admins come across and react to individually.

The policy says "We want to be here, at this level." It, and the other policies, cannot automatically enforce themselves. Enforcement will always be inconsistent because no two situations are identical and the enforcing administrators see things differently.

Please do not seek to change policy just because policy cannot be strictly and universally applied. It can't, we know it, we tell that to people, and unfortunately we all have to live with that. Policy says what we want it to be and what we're prepared to enforce, whether we actually do every time or not. People are prepared to warn and block for incivility (myself, many other administrators). There's a poll active right now defining experienced user and admin consensus on various aspects of the civility policy, as we think it's being done and would like it to be done. You might want to give input there.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"policy cannot be strictly and universally applied." I'd settle for "somewhat consistently" but since this is my first encounter at this level, I think I'll step and watch for a bit. Noloop (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We try to be somewhat consistent. But we're not as consistent as we'd like. You were not wrong to bring the issue forwards, but I think your expectations were high in terms of how serious it was and how strongly it would end up being enforced. What we usually do for an apparently minor incident is usually ignore it, or leave a polite warning. It would be good if we could consistently get admins to give everyone warnings, and give everyone filing a complaint good feedback on it, but we're typically pretty busy.

With all of that said, we really do not want to have people going around doing things like that all the time, if you see it happen a bunch more please bring it up on ANI again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• policy isn't law, and even law is applied in manifold ways. There is so much dimension embedded in the phrase "don't be a dick" that we can't possibly write a single text to proscribe a set of actions perfectly. That assumes we would even want to convert what is effectively an exhortation into a set of rules and guidelines from which there can be no deviation. I don't think that this is a particularly helpful diversion, though I do understand the frustration behind it. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Noloop's idea of civility:

Very first statement to another editor on his talk page: "Consensus only matters among those making an effort to work toward it. Your only contribution to the discussion so far has been to contradict, and distort the actual points."

The targeted editor explains himself, suggests conducting an RfC to get consensus, but Noloop continues to push and push even after it's clear his comments aren't helpful and are causing disruption.

Several editors take up his cause, requesting civility in response to his aggressive pushing for his position, but Noloop can't leave well enough alone, says: "An edit comment like "Please be civil" won't do much for a character like this... I vote for a block."

And continues posting and posting where he's not welcome making comments that have nothing to do with article content including the statement that, "You have to enjoy his Nero complex."

• The lesson here is that if you go posting aggressive and antagonistic comments on another editor's talk page and pushing them after they've already explained their position repeatedly, don't expect to be welcomed with glee. Next time follow the dispute resolution process (which I'm the first to admit pretty much sucks) instead of continuing to post after on anoher editor's page after they've clearly had enough. Your behavior was uncivil. I encourage you to apologize. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed at the tone and direction of this discussion! First, sidetracking the discussion by highlighting Noloop's own faults is just that: sidetracking. Even if Noloop were the rudest person in WP the raising of that issue derails the conversation. This WAS a discussion about the inconsist application of policy. SO... REFOCUSING on the topic of concern -- inconsistency -- I am still amazed that some of the editors here are taking the view that the "fuck off" talk used in Noloop's examples is somehow acceptable if it only happens once or twice. WP:CIVILITY clearly says; "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." and based on that very clear statement the "fuck off" talk is grounds for automatic declaration of incivility. How can anyone, especially an admin, read this any other way or fail to enforce this as soon as it is raised? Low Sea (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope we're not going down the route of specifying words and phrases that are uncivil and not uncivil: it will always depend on the context. Being a social construction, civility is hard to legislate on out of context. We need guidelines, yes, and I'd have thought the current definitions of incivility were OK in specificity and tone, although they do need copy-editing and properly codifying. The policy should never be an excuse for admins to shoot-first, ask-questions-later, without either encouraging calm, apology, and the striking through of offensive text, or locating an admin who will do this. Tony (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Use "tact" with newcomers.

The dictionary lists tact as a related word to civility and defines it as follows:

1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

I propose that any new civility policy, at least for dealing with newcomers, include something of this definition of "tact" within it. Low Sea (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the application of different standards to different classes of user: Mr Wales made the error, in the view of many people, of publicly expressing his expectation of higher standards from admins than non-admins ... why? the question is. The upshot is that non-admins might be ruder than admins and get away with it. The same goes for treating newbies, experts and others differently: it's a hornets' nest. The community has enough trouble in applying the policy without complicating matters, and one rule for all WRT how they treat all seems like the best, simplest solution. It forestalls political, social and moral issues that we just don't need. Tony (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Highly subjective, non collaborative position

"Welcome other people to edit the pieces but do discourage any unnecessary edits."

This may have been discussed and some kind of agreement reached. If so I apologize. I haven't been keeping up with this page recently. This line though seems to be a recipe for disaster as part of a policy recommendation, because it depends on highly subjective judgment. Do we have the right to discourage other editor's edits because we think an edit is unnecessary. Such a statement does not foster collaboration seems to me, and opens the door for some serious problems especially on contentious articles. Any one else have concerns with this statement.(olive (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

"all Users should feel ..."

First, I'm doing something different with the monthly WP:Update, I'm selecting a reasonable-looking version rather than automatically using the last version of the month, and this is a lot more work so I'm starting early. I've got a quick question about this edit, which was the first edit of the month, so I'm going on the assumption that everyone is happy with it, and I believe that it's an accepted and important idea that no Wikipedian editor is of a lower "rank" than any other (I can't think of a link off to a previous discussion off the top of my head, but if this is challenged, I should be able to find one by asking around). For the second sentence, I like the sentiment, but we might have trouble defending those exact words; we don't really have any control over how users feel, and it kind of gets sticky trying to define what "equal" means. Would it work to shorten it to "... all users should be treated with respect at all times"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dank posted a brief message on my User talk page to alert me to this Talk topic. I have written my thoughts, but they turned out to be rather lengthy so rather than post them here I have posted them on my User talk page. See HERE. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Essays template and 'see also' section

While visiting an essay linked from this page, I found Template:Civility. Started in May 2009, that looks to me like a good collection of essays. Should it be included on the main civility page or not? I made the following change to the "see also" section. Please feel free to revert and discuss here, or change further if there is a better way to do this. One disadvantage is that edit wars over what to include on that template won't be visible here, which is why I've only linked, not transcluded, for now. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Updated: 09:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that Ethic of reciprocity (an article) is included in the 'see also' section under "essays and other information". It is a useful link, but should it be there or should this principle be espoused in the main policy and linked from there instead? I looked for wording that was similar to "do unto others what you would have done unto you", but couldn't find anything. There should really be something about this, as well as the principle of empathy, which asks people to try and see things from the other person's point of view, or at least try and understand what others might be feeling or thinking. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I like what Carcharoth is saying and feel he raises a very important issue. We could use an overarching, general, ideal position on how the editor should see himself/herself on Wikipedia in terms of others . Right now the policy is for the most part rules/ regulations/ advice. Of course the list is inexhaustible , discussion on what to include will be exhaustible too, and the application highly subjective in how each editor applies it. The ethic of reciprocity-do unto others... establishes a general conduct for behaviour, and for editors who really want to create a good working environment may short circuit a lot of behaviour concerns. I would support the policy page having some kind of very short general statement to begin with based on the stanse "do unto others" , and then the more specific aspects of the policy following. The ethic of reciprocity could link right from there. Starting with the general and then moving into the specifics of that general statement makes sense to me in terms of organization. (olive (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Just realized I've moved the discussion on to something else . Maybe a point for a later date.(olive (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Back to the proposal for recodifying incivility

Dear colleagues

In June I proposed that it was high time the current list (in the yellow box below) be better organised (blue box below); people were generally supportive, although a few issues were raised. The proposal was overtaken by the Civility RfC and was archived without resolution. I have included the archived discussion in a click-and-show banner below, and under it I respond to the salient issues raised in that discussion. Tony (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
• Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform.

The proposal below (A) moves from the worst to the mildest (or at least does this a little better than it currently does); (B) conflates similar points; and (C) groups the points into their two logical categories—direct rudeness, and strategies—numbering the points for easier reference by admins and other editors. The wordings currently at issue are underlined.

It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as (i) the intensity of the language/behavior; (ii) whether the behavior is one-off, occasional, or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behavior, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behavior has been provoked; and (v) where the behavior is repeatedly directed at the same editor(s), the extent to which the behavior of others, and issues of content, need to be treated at the same time.

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions, directed at another contributor;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and references to groups such as social classes or nationalities in a derogatory manner;
• (c) Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing them of slander or libel;
• (d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");
• (e) Belittling a contributor because of their language skills or word choice.

2. Other uncivil behaviors

• (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• (b) Harassment;
• (c) Lying to mislead one or more editors, including deliberately asserting false information;
• (d) Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;
• (e) Publicly volunteering another person's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform;
• (f) Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb").

Responses by Tony1 to the previous discussion, stored below:

• (1c) Carcharoth wondered whether, on occasion, calling someone a liar is better than ignoring what looks like a lie. In my view, calling someone a liar is a regrettable personalising that is likely to alienate; far better to question the statement rather than the person. But removing "calling someone a liar" (and for that matter "accusing them of slander or libel" from 1c would be no big deal, since "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" covers this, and retains the "ill-considered" more strongly.
• (1e) "Belittling a contributor because of their language skills or word choice."—People are not happy with this, seeing it as inhibiting free discussion about language. IMO, the critical bit is "belittling", so why not retain that alone? "Belittling a contributor." (i.e., for any reason).
• (2e) Dabomb queried how publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform is "uncivil": I have no problem in removing this, since there's benefit in shortening the list, and surely it's covered by 2c. Carcharoth was concerned that "technically, using {{sofixit}} might breach this, as would grumpily saying "well, do it yourself then!""—I think there's concern in this regard, since those examples are of directly asking or telling someone to perform a task rather than volunteering their time (including behind their back). As irritating as this might be to some rviewers at FAC, there's nothing one can do about it except to say "no thanks, I review".
• (2f) Carcharoth called into question what it means, and the difficulty of distinguishing genuine puzzlement / lack of understanding, from fakery. Vesal had concerns about this too. I must say that I agree with these concerns, and would be happy to see 2f go. Casliber linked to the relevant part of the Disruptive editing guideline; the issue, I think, is whether this bit needs to be expressed at policy level, or is good enough in that guideline alone.

Archived discussion of the blue proposal

The second arrangement certainly seems to be clearer than the first. Chillum 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I too like the revision, more structure and easier to read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

an extremely good step. We should take care though not to suggest that the listing covers all the possibilities, and to emphasize that gross pursuit of lower level incivility can be as damaging as occasional outrages. DGG (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I believe your first concern (not all the possibilities) is covered in the lead ("can all contribute to"), which is non-exclusive. I would support your point about the undesirability of pursuing lower-level incivility (it partly depends on context, yes?), but I feel that should be treated in a separate discussion and a different section in the policy. Olive (section above), I take your point about the potential generality and specificity of terms such as "rudeness", but I think it is probably best that it appear on two levels (heading and first point). I think no editor will cite the whole of Section 1. "Direct rudeness" in support of a request that another editor "cool it" (more likely to nail it with a specific 1a, 1b, etc), but it's a useful structural distinction, contrasting with less direct linguistic behaviours. I'll leave it another few days before implementing this, to see if anyone else comments. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the reorganization of the list a lot. However, I have a question about one example: "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform;". How can this be considered "incivility", even if indirect? It's unethical, no doubt, but to say uncivil... Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment (though I like the above list), I'm wondering how genuine criticism can be made under the constraints given above. It is possible that genuine criticism can be twisted into being depicted as incivil, and thus criticism would be restricted to those who can dress it up in carefully chosen words (which would disenfranchise those who are more blunt, sometimes by choice, sometimes by not being as wordy in their language skills). Some examples:

• "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" - belittling is not good, but sometimes issues like this can impede discussions, and there needs to be a way to point such things out without being accused of being incivil. Ironically, saying that someone is incivil becase they were blunt and used a particular word, instead of a flowery sentence to say the same thing, is itself incivil under this definition.
• "calling someone a liar" - not nice, but sometimes the alternative (of ignoring what looks like a lie) is worse. The way this should be presented is "If you think someone is lying, what are the right and wrong ways to deal with it?".
• "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform" - technically, using {{sofixit}} might breach this, as would grumpily saying "well, do it yourself then!". Or is this referring to humorous comments like "Great idea! Glad to see you are volunteering to do this! :-)". But maybe I'm missing the point and this refers to something else entirely, such as actually listing someone as doing something, but listing them without their knowledge.
• "Feigned incomprehension" - at the risk of being ironic, I don't have a clue what point is being made here. Sometimes people are genuinely puzzled, and a little explanation, while taking time, can help move things forward. Quite where you get from that to "feigned incomprehension", I'm not sure. This "obstructionist strategy" is certainly something I haven't encountered often, but then I generally just explain things when asked.

Apologies if the above points have been covered before. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one - Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27, as far as the last one goes - a link'd be good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone feigning stupidity. A more common way of not getting the point is by ignoring stronger points of an argument and only responding and refuting less important parts of a posting. It is disrespectful to not pay sufficient attention to what other people post, and I find it equally frustrating when no effort is put into expressing oneself clearly and succinctly. I had added the latter point to the policy page, but I believe it should be merged with this "refusal to get it", because the common theme is to respect the time that other people volunteer to this project. Vesal (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Renewed discussion

Please contribute: Tony (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tweak "Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb")." to something more along the lines of "Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb") or selectively ignoring key points in others' comments", and link to Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27, as they are similar phenomena.

I do not have a problem with "Belittling" as the verb carries a connotation of snidness, ridicule or patronising tone within it. Trying to comment constructively on someone's habits and offering a solution is inherently different.

Ultimately I support substituting the newer and easier to read version. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier comments about 2e and 2f. 2e is minor impoliteness at worst (e.g. SOFIXIT as a response--but perhaps you have something more serious in mind? and 2f is very hard to tell from a genuine incomprehension--it's sort of a variant of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I think this is getting overspecific. I'm not comfortable with 2d--using someone's quotes out of context is sometimes a very borderline sort of thing and I think it too should not go on the policy page. But I'm still concerning with the "it's not on the list " sort of response. It would be necessary to say over and over again that the list is not exhaustive. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WRT 2e, I agree with DGG; it's not proper Wikiquette, but hardly blatantly disruptive or uncivil. Other than that, I like the revised list. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I too support the new list format, based on its improved organization and economy of words. I think item 2e can be safely omitted, as noted above, it's a subset of 2c and perhaps overly specific. Item 2f though should be kept and perhaps generalized to advise against any form of sarcastic commentary that could be misunderstood or contain partially-hidden insults. Regarding the note above that there may be a problem with 2f due to "difficulty of distinguishing genuine puzzlement / lack of understanding, from fakery. ", I think that is why 2f is needed. If someone expresses puzzlement, the reader should not be expected to figure out if the person is faking or not. Expression of genuine puzzlement is of course not uncivil.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments. First, the current policy appears to be written in American-English (behavior), but the new version mixes both American and British English; is there a reason why this was done? Second, can we find a better name for the second category, "Other X" feels like too vague a formulation. MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, can't turn off that automatised spelling in my brain: I hope "behaviour" was the only glitch. I've made it "Other uncivil behaviours". Any way of improving on that? Tony (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about (d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");, even though I agree with the main thrust. I frequently will delete material with an edit summary of "gibberish", which I suspect many people would think meets this criteria. The most recent example would be removing the sentence "The 2nd Single was also created as a doll" from an article. That certainly passed judgment on the text, and described it accurately: I couldn't repair the text because there was no way to even figure out what the editor was attempting to convey. I don't think it qualifies as being uncivil, though. We need language that distinguishes being judgmental towards an editor as opposed to having passed judgment on a piece of text. The first is off-limits, the second may or may not be reasonable.

On a more minor issue: despite having been raised in America, "behavior" still looks silly to me. I note that Tony still couldn't make himself type it in his comment above.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would remove 2e and 2f as not really uncivil (and also somewhat redundant). However, I would include a warning that the list is not exhaustive. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have one further comment, which I hope will show how difficult it is to interpret guidelines and policies about behaviour and conduct. Has anyone here (including Tony1, who wrote the original list) been accused of being incivil, and have you ever written anything that could, according to this list, be interpreted as incivil? If you have, do you agree that you were incivil or not? If you were, then what would you consider an appropriate response to what you said, both for a one-off incident and for repeated incidents showing a pattern? Rather than point at others (which might lead to incivilities), it would be best if people pointed at examples from their own editing history. I have been intemperate at times, but I hope I haven't been truly incivil. It does show, though, how things are in the eye of the beholder. I can guarantee that nearly everyone who has been accused of incivility has had a less rigid view of their own conduct than others have had of that same conduct. And vice-versa. In other words, it is very very difficult to be objective enough to say someone else is being incivil, and to then without bias apply the same standard to yourself. My view is that there should be a scale of incivil behaviours (maybe even one of those compass/square distributions to allow an orthogonal scale for how brief or chronic the problem is), rather than a single word "incivil" which is overused and overloaded with different meanings. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume that your point is that the interpretation of any guideline on civility—current or new—requires a number of factors to be weighed up; you mention one-off versus a continuing pattern; the intensity of the language. I wonder whether you are suggesting that this very point might appear in the lead to this codification. If so, I believe it's an additional, or at least a separable issue, that may well be decided on now. But a scale of uncivil behaviours seems to be getting into very complex territory for a written policy; do you have any suggestions? Tony (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A scale might well be unworkable, but the alternatives are a set of bright-line rules and grey areas where admins and others have to use their judgment on how to handle things. Stuff on a scale could include (in no particular order): gross profanity, intemperate remarks, chronic behaviour over weeks, months and years, one-off incidents rarely repeated (on a scale of years), low-frequency repetition (outbursts every few months), repeated incivility after earlier (not recent) requests to stop being incivil, outbursts on a user's own talk pages after being blocked or provoked, repeated incivility towards the same person. And those alleging such behaviour should clearly distinguish such types and provide diffs and context (though this is usually left out because it would implicate them as well). Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things people should consider when looking at incivility: (1) What caused it? Ask the person what caused them to say that and find out what the context was. That should always be the first step. Don't assume you know everything. Trouble with this approach is that in fast-moving or widespread and escalating disputes, sometimes action is needed to stop things spreading further. (2) If there are problems other than civility, don't ignore those or concentrate on civility to the exclusion of everything else. In particular underlying content disputes need to be resolved. (3) If there is personal animosity between two users, they need to be called out on it and told to calm down or avoid each other, use dispute resolution or mediation, or talk things over (off-wiki if needed) and sort out any bad blood between them. (4) If there has been provocation or baiting or gaming of the civility policy, that should be dealt with as well. There's probably more, but I would hope that those dealing with civility complaints are aware of all the above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you think a substantial lead to this recodification is in order, setting out these matters that might weight on the interpretaiton of incivility in relation to it? If so, I suppose I could have a go at drafting it for the blue box above. I think it would serve a good purpose as guidance for admins in particular. Often, the administration of WP policies comes down to the balancing of several issues, and perhaps this should be given more official recognition. Tony (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Carcharoth's concerns, I have bravely drafted a lead (blue box above) that attempts to outline the main judgemental parameters without getting into details that might be problematic in this overarching section. I think this makes the proposal more of a substantial change than the precision re-write it has been until now—please provide opinions. Tony (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, net positive I guess. If it serves a purpose in making someone stop and think a bit about some context before branding a behaviour as incivil or otherwise then it has done its job. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording of point (v) could be improved, as the point about considering content issues applies everywhere, not just for point (v). I'm also (pedant mode here) wondering what the difference is between incivil, uncivil and non-civil? I also thought incivil was a word and uncivil wasn't, but maybe it has caught on? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. Incivility is a word; incivil is not a word. One can commit incivility by being uncivil, or by behaving uncivilly, but there's no such thing as "uncivility" or being "incivil." Woonpton (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Looks like you are right. Of course, a better source would be good as well, but I've learnt something there, or I'm unlearning a bad habit I got from cries of "X is being incivil" on Wikipedia... See also incivil, uncivil, and incivility. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe both "uncivil" and "invcivil" are acceptable, whereas the "in" must beused for "incivility". If we're down to spelling, the proposal must be nearly ready!

Point (v): it would be nice to simplify it, and the run-on from the lead clause is a little clunky. The first phrase and the bit about content could simply be excised. How is this?

"and (v) where the behavior is repeatedly directed at the same editor(s), the extent to which the behavior of others, and issues of content, need to be treated at the same time."

The extent to which other people's behaviour needs to considered appears to accound for the direcdting of incivility to the same editor, and as Casliber says, by default involves a look at content. Tony (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• To me, the blue box is looking good now. I've attempted to integrate the comments of participants in this discussion, and I note that these editors are very experienced in dealing with civility issues at a high level. I hope no one minds if I implement the blue proposal late today; if there are problems, perhaps they can be sorted out subsequently; it's likely, I think, that there won't be problems. Tony (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend proceeding with the new version. There may be room for further improvement, but it's superior to the current version so there's no reason to wait longer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about " Ill considered accusations of impropriety" which seems vague and maybe old fashioned, but I think this is a big improvement and would say go ahead. Is one-off meant to be one-of. Thanks Tony. Nice work leading this change.(olive (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. "One-off" is standard and formal English, I hope. If not, it could be changed to "a single occurrence". "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety" could be reworded as "Accusations of impropriety without proper foundation." What u think? Tony (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen "one -off" used anywhere ... my problem... so I will certainly take your word for it. Also maybe "accusations of improper behaviour without proper foundation". I'm not attached to any version but probably like the "proper foundation" better than ill-considered as more accessible to understanding for more readers. Personally I like ill-considered better but it may be a little stilted. Anyway, your choice, and thanks for considering my comments.(olive (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Probably too many "propers" in my example so why not ignore my comments and continue with "ill-considered".(olive (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Looking at the page for the first time (attention directed here from AN), my first reaction is that accusations of impropriety don't belong here, unless they are deliberately false. Most accusations of impropriety are made in good faith even when erroneous, and responding to one with a counter-accusation of incivility will just lead to a death spiral. For example, the current wording makes a complaint about deletion of warnings from a user's talk page into incivility -- it is only uncivil if the complainer knows that such deletions are permitted by policy. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And concerning "one-off", I'll second Olive's point: this is a wording that Americans never use and won't understand except by deduction. For Americans, "one-time" would work better. Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not something I've heard often, but I know very well what it means (I'm American, since it seems relevant here). Granted that I might be an exception. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this debate: "one-off" is a normal part of my vocabulary, and I was raised in the states (and the preceding five or six generations were born there). Perhaps it's a regionalism? I also wish that someone would take my complaint about 1(d) seriously: making judgments about text is part of an editor's job, and it's unreasonable to say that it shouldn't show up in an edit summary. Only acting judgmental towards another editor should be considered a problem.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, "one-off" has been replaced, since people did raise concerns about it. The policy needs to be an easy read. Kww, making judgments about text is sometimes hard to tease apart from the personal. If someone called my text "rambling crap", I'd find it a little painful personally, and I take encourage of my text. I don't think this interferes with normal criticism of text. It just needs to avoid extreme language and to take a "kinder" tone where possible. Tony (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pruning and tweaking needed

• I think a good pruning is needed. I trimmed extraneous wording by striking through (except in a couple cases where i messed up. Not sure how to make this proposal in any other way I also added some comments on areas that are in need of expansion or clarification:

(a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions, directed at another contributor

(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and (insert: "derogatory") references to groups such as social classes or nationalities in a derogatory manner;

(c) Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

(d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

(e) Belittling a contributor (combine with d)

• 2. Other uncivil behaviors

(a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves

(b) Harassment; (needs clarification. I think this is a key point actually as, for example, the incessant posting of unwelcome comments and notices on an editor's talk page and in other discussions where they are involved is a common strategy to game the system, taunt, bait, and harass. The filing of numerous frivolous reports to hound an editor and to constantly keep them on the defensive and to smear them is also a common strategy deployed by abusive editors)

(c) (trimmed a bit in front. I meant to strike it) Misleading one or more editors, including deliberately asserting false information;

(d) Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them; (I would add to misrepresent what they've said here. this is another common approach to go after editors. You take something they said out of context, perhaps a joke to a friend, and pretend it has insidious meaning and significance) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps suggestions on how to avoid doing these things would also be helpful. For instance suggesting saying a statement doesn't comply with a guideline or contradicts something istead of saying it's a lie or a misrepresentation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, CoM—I've removed the struck-through bits you suggest, except for 2a "even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" (seems to add important context), and 1c "ill-considered" (open to suggestions on that one, of course). Thank you. Tony (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I remain concerned that a civility policy will always be open to interpretation, selective enforcement and gaming. But if we're going to have one it should at least be tight.

What does it mean that ill-considered accusations are uncivil? As long as editors are careful about thinking them through they're allowed? :) Maybe that one should just be dropped all together?

I think the mainfocus should be on making sure we focus on content rather than contributors, and that we encourage and demonstrate courteous, collegial, and respectful treatment of one another. There are just too many ways to say and do mean things to people without using any inappropriate language. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly where to put this, so I'll drop it clumsily at the bottom, here. :) When I first read the "New codification of incivility" heading at WP:AN, I'm sorry to say that my gut feeling was a little less than hopeful, but looking at the two page versions, I'd like very much to applaud the effort -- the new version seems more accessible by far, to me. On the subject of 1c, it felt to me like "for instance, calling some a liar [or vandal]" was missing from that, but it's probably not required. Distinguishing "ill-considered" accusations strikes me as helpful; where accusations can be justified with evidence, I'd rather people didn't hold back legitimate claims of abuse. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)