Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Needs some details

Some editors may make disrespectful or rude comments at talk pages. Since a user is forbbiden to remove such comments, what should you do about it? And why not tell so on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am new to this forum. There are some interesting topics here. Nice to meet you guys. Hope everything of your goes ok.God blessed.http://shiragik.jp/cgi/diary03/data/view/sitemap.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by LomediaLomedia (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

'Offensive language'

There’s no consensus on “avoid offensive language” in this policy. It is a wish of only two editors: Reenem in 2010 and Johnuniq in 2015.

You can’t forbid, in a (compelling) code of conduct, the use of “offensive language”, if that concept is not clearly defined. Apparently, Johnuniq (9 August) agrees that the concept ‘offensive language’ is not clearly defined.

Yes we must try to avoid hurting others, but that is implicit in “participate in a respectful way”, in our policy (nutshell). Trying nevertheless to forbid, in a code like this, what is not (and can’t be) clearly defined, is totalitarianism, and reminds me of the style of some of the recent legislation in Russia.

You can shrug your shoulders now and think ‘yes, Corriebertus is right, but why should we bother about such silly things?’ But that is exactly how totalitarianism comes to thrive: people on the high ground, who know it is not right, but don’t care to bother, because they take for silliness what is deliberate contrivance.

If people feel hurt by language in Wikipedia, they should talk about it with the ‘offender’. If that doesn’t help, ask a third person to look into it. But not coarsely and lazily and condemningly point to a Wikipedia policy page and say (or suggest): you are being uncivil. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A more accurate way of presenting the diffs would be to say that Reenem added "and avoid profane and offensive language" in January 2010 (diff), and that wording was retained in the policy (see WP:SILENCE) with some modification until Corriebertus removed it in August 2015 (diff). Johnuniq reverted that removal, and the text has been retained until now. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Organising this policy page

I suppose that even a policy page should be organised logically? And that inconsistencies, redundancies and illogicalnesses may be repaired directly, just as they may be repaired directly on any ‘normal’ Wikipedia page?
Seeing that the page is titled ‘Civility’, I’d propose this logical outline:

1. What is civility.

2. What is incivility. (This section then ofcourse includes present §3 “identifying incivility”, because we identify anything, whether it is macaroni or Volvo or James Bond or incivility, by checking whether it fits the definition.)

3. Preventing our own incivility (Which then ofcourse includes what is now in §1.1, 1.2, and also §4.3 but much more condensed.)

4. Reacting on others’ incivility (Will contain the good rest of present §4.)

• Present §3.1 seems out of place on this policy page: ‘assume good faith’ is a separate, independent, Wiki policy. Just place a Wikilink on the term ‘assume good faith’ as soon as that term pops up—don’t try to repeat another policy page here. Keep things simple, concise, surveyable.
• §4.4 seems also out of place: ‘Blocking’ can be the consequence of what is said in §4.1: Dispute resolution→Arbitration Committee. It is enough to just add one line to that paragraph saying that ultimately the arbitrators can decide to a block.
• If ‘offensive language’ does not appear mentioned anywhere in the policy—as is now the case—it can’t appear in the nutshell, because that is then illogical and inconsistent.

Everyone is free, and invited, to react on these ideas. But having started this discussion section by no means deprives me of my right to directly repair gross or clear errors on this policy page, just as I’m entitled to repair obvious errors on any page, unless someone proves me wrong here. I also ofcourse have the right to directly include good ideas given here by others in any ‘improving’ edit of mine on the policy page—I don’t have to first ask their permission to use a good idea, and I also don’t have to first laboriously seek ‘consensus’ just to make an improving edit, on this page or or any Wiki page. If any (motivated) edit appears to be no improvement, anybody can remove it, with a good motivation ofcourse. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You might consider using a sandbox to prepare a draft. As I suggested elsewhere, people do not need precise definitions of civility and incivility—if a contributor does not have a pretty good idea of what those terms mean they should not be editing Wikipedia. Examples are good, but they should not attempt to be exhaustive and should not clutter the main points of the policy. This is not a legal document where terms have to be defined so courts of law can later decide whether to imprison an alleged offender—that's not how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone will argue, incorrectly, that a block is equivalent to imprisonment. If I were to say that I didn't know that we didn't imprison people here, on the Internet, no one would know that I was being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia doesn't imprison people, but it does matter. A block is a serious thing, and i support defining as well as possible what is civility and what is incivility. It does matter when someone is blocked, both for the editor who is blocked, and to the world who then does not get the benefit of the editor's input. The less well defined the policy is, then then more discretion is left up to others to either persecute someone or let things slide, based on favoritism or agenda, as well. That's not how we want Wikipedia to work. We want it to be more objective, i believe, more predictable. SageRad (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Link to workplace bullying article

I added a link to workplace bullying, following the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 19#Anti-bullying task force. I agree with SageRad's observation that workplace bullying is a more relevant article in the context of Wikipedia than bullying. We already have links to the encyclopedia articles on Harassment and Sexual Harassment, so why not bullying? EEng reverted the change with the comment, "Linked article makes significant implications which I don't believe apply here." What are they? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC); edited 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, "workplace" for one. But let's turn it around: what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy? EEng (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

yep, me too - you seem to be unilaterally declaring Wikipedia to be a "workplace" on the basis of one editor in that VP discussion offering their opinion that Wikipedia is "somewhat like a workplace".  pablo 09:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything remotely controversial about describing Wikipedia as a workplace. This policy promotes a "positive, productive working environment". Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific policy definition of "bullying". The link clarifies policy by providing a pointer to an encyclopaedic description. This may help people who wrongly believe that bullying is defined by the feelings of the victim, that confronting it means it wasn't bullying, or other misconceptions. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Wikipedia has some qualities of a workplace, many of which are relevant to the article workplace bullying. An actual Wikipedia essay is WP:BULLY, but i find that essay somewhat lacking and the workplace bullying article to have more nuance and relevant dynamics described. To answer the question asked by EEng above, "what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy?":

• "workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society" --> relevant in that it explains that bullying can use the rules of a place, like Wikipedia, and i have seen that so much here.
• "Bullying in the workplace is in the majority of cases reported as having been perpetrated by someone in authority over the target. However, bullies can also be peers, and occasionally can be subordinates." --> I've seen people with "authority" here such as admins wield their power (such as it is) with a bullying stance and attitude.
• "Bullying can be covert or overt. It may be missed by superiors or known by many throughout the organization." --> The point about covert bullying is important because it's a big aspect of much bullying on Wikipedia that it maintains generally plausible deniability such that it's fairly obvious to the recipient, and perhaps noticeable by observers who pay attention, and yet there is typically an easy way to deny it, just because one cannot get into another editor's head. It's a classic aspect of abusive relationships, generally, to maintain a level of deniability or covertness to bullying, except in the most extreme or reckless cases.
• Then there's the section on profiling, which recommends against profiling people as "bullies" thereby pathologizing it and labeling the person rather than the behavior as a "bully" rather than "bullying behavior".
• Then there's the section on organizational culture, which makes the point that "Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing, of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour." --> relevant at Wikipedia to the extent that much bullying behavior seems to have the green light or at least the "look the other way" response from admins and ArbCom, depending on who it is and what the content-related agenda may be and how it falls in relation to those with the power.
• There is the section on culture of fear, which could speak to some people's experience of a chilling effect by veiled threats of others being recognized as part of bullying.
• There's also a typology of bullying behaviors, and a list of tactics, and forms of bullying. All very helpful to someone who is in need of seeing these dynamics named and described, in order to combat the gaslighting and self-blaming aspect that can occur in a recipient of bullying behaviors.

In short, i clearly support its linking to the civility guidelines, and i thank Burninthruthesky for thinking of linking it. It would have helped me, had it been there a while back. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are three ways in which Wikipedia is clearly not a workplace:

• there's no contractual relationship between the "worker" and the "employer";
• none of the legal rights, obligations, and restrictions that apply in the workplace apply to Wikipedia;
• (most impotantly) no one's livelihood depends on editing.

I asked what in Workplace bullying help to clarify the Civility policy (from which you want to link it). SageRad's response tells us a lot of interesting stuff about typologies of bullying, but I still don't see anything about how the link makes the Civility policy clearer. If any link at all is needed, I think wiktionary:bullying#Noun says what needs to be said in 1/1000 the words. EEng (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a workplace in the sense that it's a place where people work together.

Specifically:

• There is an expectation of civility very much like most physical workplaces and other situations where people work together.
• There are ongoing relationships among people who rub shoulders and cooperate and sometimes get on each others' nerves.
• There are some power dynamics, as some are admins and some are arbitrators, who have more formal power as well as social status in some regards than "ordinary editors".

These are real way in which Wikipedia is like a more traditional "workplace". Also note that the concept of a "workplace" has never required it to be a single physical location, and this trend has expanded hugely since the age of telecommuting by Internet, so the "workplace" is a virtual concept as much as it is a "building where you go in the morning and leave at night". SageRad (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of a word isn't reliably arrived at by breaking it into pieces and giving uncontextualized definitions to the fragments. Highschool athletes may "work" together on the football field, but that doesn't make a football field a "workplace" (though no doubt bullying does go on there‍—‌just not workplace bullying).The entire Workplace bullying article makes it clear that it's about bullying on the job‍—‌or will you now claim that Wikipedia editing is a job?

And everything in your list applies to, say, a classroom as well. Is a classroom a workplace too? EEng (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia is a workplace (no) is irrelevant—what matters is that links added to an important policy must be helpful, but workplace bullying is not. We don't care what kind of bullying it is—it ain't allowed here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "bully" is mentioned twice in the policy, and there is no link, not even to WP:BULLY. Would you support a link to that essay? I think the policy would benefit from a link to a nuanced description of bullying behavior. SageRad (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to remove some of the links currently present. The line in question is:

• (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings

The two links are useful as they define terms as used at enwiki. However, we don't need to link "bullying" because anyone capable of reading the policy page knows what bullying is, and knows that it is regarded as "bad". If users A and B clash, A might take to using the thank function to let B know they are being watched. Someone could report that and describe it as "bullying", but no page we link to is going to say that thanking someone is bullying. More links = more confusion [do I have to read the linked page to understand WP:CIVIL?]. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Overlinking is bad in project space for the same reason it's bad in article space: low-value links water down and obscure those that actually assist the reader's understanding of the subject. Above I said, "If any link at all is needed, I think wiktionary:bullying#Noun says what needs to be said in 1/1000 the words", but I don't think anything is in fact needed, because as Johnu says, everyone already knows what bullying is. EEng (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the point that low-value links reduce readability. I oppose a link to wiktionary:bullying#Noun for several reasons:

• It doesn't give any examples of bullying behaviour.
• It gives an example of "in all schools" which may be misread to reinforce the misconception I have seen expressed on WP that bullying only occurs between children (as it used to imply in point 18 of this essay).
• It says "acts intended to...". Workplace bullying only mentions "attributed intent" and says the bully may be "laboring under the impression that this is the way to get things done".
• It doesn't mention "a bully’s mistakes are always concealed or blamed on underlings", which is something I see frequently on WP.

Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• The policy already has a lot of links. Links are ok. In fact, they're often useful and good.
• Not everyone knows what bullying is, and everyone can learn something more.
• Why is there such opposition to enriching the policy with a link that develops the concept of bullying more?

SageRad (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to the arguments raised above (examples: "define terms as used at enwiki", "water down and obscure"). And to repeat, how does the proposed addition help? Is it to convince readers of the evils of bullying? Anyone needing that is beyond contact, and all we can do is remove them from the project if they engage in bullying. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more to help a person who is recipient of uncivil behavior in understanding the characteristic dynamics of bullying, in order to be able to explain a behavior that feels uncivil, to understand and be able to apply the policy more fully. It's to help the Wikipedia community maintain civil behavior. As for the watering down, i don't think we're near link overload, and this one seems important to me. SageRad (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The effect would be to import into this policy very broad (and possibly conflicting -- Workplace bullying gives six) definitions of bullying that there's no indication the community endorses. EEng (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The policy already has a link to profanity to explain that word, and a wiktionary link for taunting and a link to an essay for baiting... in the same sense that the policy currently invokes profanity to explain that concept, i don't see how it would be bad to invoke an article on bullying to explain that by hyperlink. SageRad (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Links like that are what I was thinking of when writing "remove some of the links currently present" above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see taunt and profanity unlinked, but I'm unsure about baiting -- the linked essay gives worthwhile advice, and I think it's uncontroversial. EEng (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree—it's the attempted dictionary definitions which are pointless. The baiting link has useful advice for an editor, and a standard dictionary might not provide a useful definition of what is meant. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bullying is against the civility policy. Are there behaviours listed in workplace bullying that you believe are allowed by consensus on Wikipedia? What specifically is unhelpful about the article Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What specifically is unhelpful in the article? Well... "Bullying behaviors shows as an abuse of power between supervisors and subordinates in workplace. Supervisors release their own pressure to bully subordinates with their higher power due to workplace bullying. It is always related to management style of the supervisors. An authoritative management style is accompanied by a kind of bullying behaviors which can make subordinates fear so that supervisors can become authority themselves. On the other hand, some researchers agree that bullying behaviors is a positive performance in workplace. Workplace bullying can attribute to the organizational power and control. It is also a representative of power and control. if an organization want to improve this situation in workplace, strategies and policies must be improved. Lacking of policy in bullying like low-monitoring or no punishment will result in tolerating in organization. Bullying behaviors in workplace also exist among colleagues. They can be either the ‘target’ or perpetrator. If workplace bullying happens among the co-workers, witness will take side between target and perpetrator. Perpetrators always win, because witnesses do not want to be the next target. This way, it does encourage perpetrators to continue this behavior. In addition, the sense of the injustice by targets might become another perpetrator to bully other colleagues who have less power than them. Varitia who is a workplace bullying researcher investigate that 20% of interviewees who experienced workplace bullying thought the reason why they became a target is they are different from others.[31] In a word, bullying can increase more bullying in workplace. The third relationship in workplace is between employees and customers. Although it takes a little part, it play a significant role about the efficiency of the organization. If an employee work with unhealthy emotion, it will affect the quality of the service seriously. This relationship is closely related to emotion label. Lots of examples can be listed from our daily life, like customers are ignored by shop assistants, patients are shouted by nurses in the hospital and so on. On the other hand, customers might despise the employees, especially blue-collar job, such as gas station assistants. Bullying behaviors in workplace can generate effect mutually between the employees and customers. The Fourth relationship in workplace is between organization or its institution or its system and the employees. In the article of Andreas Liefooghe (2012), it notes that a lot of employees describe their organization as bully. It is not environmental factors facilitating the bullying but it is the bullying itself. Tremendous power imbalance enables company to "legitimately exercise" their power in the way of monitoring and controlling as bullying. The terms of the bullying "traditionally" implies to interpersonal relationship. Talking about bullying in interpersonal level is legitimate, but talking about the exploitation, justice and subjugation as bullying of organization would be "relatively ridiculous" or not taken as serious. Bullying is sometimes more than purely interpersonal issue."

Editors shouldn't have to wade through 5000 words like that before realizing it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Aside from needing some copy editing, I think this paragraph is useful and mostly very relevant to Wikipedia. I agree that "strategies and policies must be improved", which is precisely the purpose of this discussion. The fact a document is long does not mean it is poor.

If you are unwilling to give a substantive answer my question of what "significant implications" this link would have upon policy I will not attempt to engage with you any further in this discussion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Normal procedure is to explain how adding something such as a link is helpful. What at workplace bullying is helpful for someone trying to understand the CIVIL policy? Is anyone suggesting that a bully might click the link and be reformed because of what they read? Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See what above? EEng (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad's and my extensive replies to your (EEng and Johnuniq) questions, with which you appear to be unwilling to engage in a constructive manner. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you've "Unjustly discounted our thoughts or feelings" (Workplace_bullying#Tactics #3), "Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence" (#7), "Abused the evaluation process by lying about our performance" (#15) and "Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out" (#21). EEng (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I have asked you to clarify a comment of yours. This is not the place for a conduct dispute. I would prefer to have a constructive discussion about this minor change to the policy document, which I believe is an improvement. I must finish up for today (UK time), but I hope we can make some progress when I return. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

<rolls eyes> I think it's better if we wait and to hear other editors' opinions on the usefulness of the link you wish to add. EEng (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironically for this page, the dialog appears to be becoming uncivil, disruptive, a bit of IDHT. Let's turn this around.

• I am open to hearing about how including the link to workplace bullying in the policy would lead to false conclusions about bullying behaviors by Wikipedians, or about how it might "water down" the policy with too many links. This would be a copyediting question. Editors who come to WP:CIVILITY in hopes of finding a remedy for bullying when it's happening to them would benefit from having a suggested article to read more about the texture of bullying, to help them recognize and name it. That's my position. I'm open to hearing about why you think this is not true, or other factors outweigh it. SageRad (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See above. But really, let's await others' comments. EEng (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I too would be interested to know if anybody sees a legitimate concern against adding this link. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A link to workplace bullying should not be added as, despite any number of similarities that may exist, Wikipedia is not a workplace for the vast majority of those who choose to contribute to it. It could be argued that including such a link may in fact foster confusion amongst new (or perhaps even not-so-new) editors as to any agreement that they enter into by choosing to contribute to this project. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: Thank you for highlighting the contractual relationship between editors and the WMF. The Wikimedia:Terms of Use say, "You are welcome to join these teams and work with them to improve these Projects." So Wikipedia is a place where people work. I don't believe the link implies joining the project is entering an employment relationship, although that is the situation discussed in the article. However, I will suggest something else. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

As a compromise I propose instead to link bullying. This article also gives an informative description of the topic, and contains links to more detailed articles on several types of bullying. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That article opens:

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict.

"Force, threat, or coercion"? "an imbalance of social or physical power"? I'm sorry, but the problems of "low-value links" (implying the reader should plow through something that really has almost nothing to do with Wikipedia), and implicitly importing ideas into the policy that really aren't part of it, remains. (And later we've got, "Bullying may also result from a genetic predisposition or a brain abnormality in the bully" -- can't wait for those ANI threads. Maybe we'll start giving checkusers access to editor's MRIs.)

In contrast, Harrassment and wikihounding are linked to other WP policies. EEng (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You see, that's why the workplace bullying article is more appropriate and more useful. The "bullying" article needs work to cover bullying that is more psychological and emotional rather than physical.

But, bullying behavior has a lot to do with Wikipedia, and there are indeed imbalances of social power on Wikipedia. There is bullying going on, and it is useful for people to have more knowledge about this. Your eye-rolling does not make it go away and your perspective is not the only one here. Your sarcasm is not helpful in my opinion, either. It's a real problem and real editors are here saying that it would be useful to include. So, please make your arguments succinctly and directly as to why the policy on civility should not provide any links to any material about bullying that would be relevant to Wikipedia and the experience of editors who have experienced bullying dynamics here. You cannot simply deny that these dynamics exist, can you? Do you? Are you denying there is bullying behavior on Wikipedia? SageRad (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything except that neither article helps editors understand what's expected of them here. As before, let's wait to here what other editors think. And the next time either of you says I'm "unwilling to engage in a constructive manner", yeah, I'll make fun of that, 'cause it's silly and meaningless. EEng (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: The whole idea that we have some "vested contributors" who have social power because they are valued by the community and can get away with treating people however they like is a recurrent theme, if you look at the drama boards. I do agree with your implicit point that accusing someone of having a "brain abnormality" would not be an acceptable form of complaint (no matter how strong the evidence). Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you improve the essays at WP:VESTED and/or WP:UNBLOCKABLE? You guys are so fixated on this word bullying, and it's working against you. EEng (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I could equally say that you seem "fixated on" blocking this proposal... the whole phrase "fixated on" is a sort of slight. It's not useful and it's not about content. So, in terms of the content, you claim that "neither article helps editors understand what's expected of them here" whereas i and the other editor here apparently do think that the articles, especially workplace bullying definitely does help readers of the policy understand what is expected of them here, and would also help readers to identify certain dynamics and behaviors as bullying, moreso than if the link were not present. We've made a pretty clear case, i believe, to that effect. Please don't suggest that we both stop wanting to include that link because you want us to stop wanting to include it. You're not in charge here. We are here to discuss the content of the policy page. Two editors here have given reasoned arguments as to why a link would be useful. Please do not hold yourself in judgment in the way that the phrase "it's working against you" does position yourself. Please engage in the question of the content itself, or hold your peace. Please also do not be obstructionist. We're not in an urgent hurry, but speaking for myself, i'm also not willing to wait forever. Sure, i hope that others will weigh in their opinions, as well. Let that happen, if it does. Meanwhile, we're in a dialogue here to discuss this content. Now, do you think that including the link is harmful to the policy page? Do you think it misleads people? Do you think it's not going to be helpful to anyone and therefore it's just extraneous? Please explain your objections. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything's been explained several times. Until there's a genuine consensus for a change to this policy page it's not going to happen. I suspect you will call that bullying, but it's the way things work here. EEng (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there some form of WP:DR that doesn't involve wearing down opponents? Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not being worn down. Are you? EEng (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd call this getting uncivil and disruptive and yes, kind of bullying. SageRad (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And they say there's no such thing as clairvoyance! EEng (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't welcome your attitude. I find you to be being obstructionist with delight.

Anyway, why don't we call an RfC? Get a random sampling of editors eyes on the question. I would suggest we frame it as a few options: (1) link to workplace bullying (2) link to WP:BULLY, (3) describe the concept and dynamic of bullying within the WP:CIVILITY guideline itself, or (4) make no changes. SageRad (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm using humor to highlight the absurdity of your seeing everything as bullying, which your talk page shows is a longstanding habit with you. I thought we were going to wait to see what other editors think -- now suddenly you want an RfC? EEng (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see everything as bullying. I see bullying as bullying. Yes, i suggested an RfC as you're seeming to be obstructionist to me. SageRad (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

QED. EEng (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Stonewalling tactics certainly are disruptive (and you might say, bullying). I think an RFC would be premature at this stage. What we need is a substantive explanation for this revert. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: If you don't wish to defend your revert, you may of course re-revert yourself. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary is self-explanatory and its prediction that disagreement (and not just by me, BTW) would be characterized as bullying has proven prescient. EEng (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Broader participation and a higher level of consensus are required for a contentious change affecting how (in)civility is defined on Wikipedia. An RfC would be an appropriate way of achieving such consensus. --Boson (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested compromise (2)

The reason I added this page to my watchlist was to try and understand why WP:CIVIL was used so often as a weapon in the nastiest disputes on WP. I don't normally comment on CIVIL ,as I find the tactics used here to belittle non members of the 'in-crowd' amount to besevere workplace bullying, if you accept the premise that for some editors, WP has all the characteristics of workplace. We would be making a giant leap forward if we deleted the section WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL and replaced it lock, stock and barrel with Workplace bullying#Tactics. Of the twenty five examples given I have seen twenty being used in the last two years (and I expect that five will be used against me for making this comment). WP has 5 million edits, for anyone who has made more edits than me and has not been frightened off WP is an online workplace, in the same way as any volunteer charity. Until we have taken on-board the needed changes to WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, put the wlink in a prominent place. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Many thanks for speaking up. I know just how intimidating it can be here. I think your suggestion of a prominent link is very useful, and mitigates to some extent the complaint that we are seeking to redefine either the "workplace" or "bullying". As a step in that direction, we could add

See also: Workplace bullying § Tactics

to the start of the IUC section (cf. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information). Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Clem Rutter says: "Until we have taken on-board the needed changes to WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, put the wlink [i.e. Workplace bullying#Tactics] in a prominent place". Why not just propose that certain things listed at Workplace bullying#Tactics be imported into WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL? EEng (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that because the community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively. To me, the See also link seems to be the best compromise for the time being. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you propose that certain things listed at Workplace bullying#Tactics be slowly and conservatively imported into WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL? Linking to this article seems like a backdoor way to imply its content informs this policy, for fear the community won't approve the actual, explicit addition of that content to this policy. EEng (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Because I see at least two of us that would like a link to further information on the topic, for the benefit of users involved with bullying on WP. Importing some of the information would not achieve this. This policy already has a link to a paper book about workplace bullying, but an encyclopaedic link would be more accessible.

Bullying is against policy. I do not appreciate your suggestion that I am trying to change policy in an underhand manner. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's true, as you say, that "Importing some of the information would not achieve this", this being "a link to further information on the topic". But it would achieve actually giving such further information, directly in this policy, that the community agrees the reader should receive. It would also mean that changes to the article, which isn't a project page, wouldn't silently change the implications of this guideline.

I actually think the external links should be removed, because this policy isn't a self-help guide. And while underhanded is a very strong word, I think the effect of what you're asking is to bring something in by the back door, whether you realize that or not.

My skepticism about the wisdom of trying to delimit the bounds of civility every more elaborately, and I suspect that of many other editors, is well expressed by the words of the great John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, Chapter II, "On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"):

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.

EEng (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to like the fact there are external links in the policy. There are also several links to essays (one of which is in user space). I see the article on the book I mentioned includes a link to workplace bullying, so my proposed change is even more minor than even I thought it was. In fact it brings the article from 2 clicks away to 1 click away. I don't agree this would be bringing in anything "by the back door".

If you think policy forbids freedom of expression of opinion, you are mistaken. It is possible to disagree with others without insulting or abusing them. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me I don't have to like the external links, but I wasn't expressing a dislike, but an opinion that they should be removed because (as I said) the policy page shouldn't attempt to be a self-help guide.

Essays are explicitly marked at the very top, "These are just some editors' opinions‍—‌buyer beware!" (or whatever), so I'm less concerned about inappropriate implications with them. The fact that the article on the book has a link to what you want to link directly to from here (man, this is getting complicated) is irrelevant‍—‌so some editor (of some article on a book that someone linked from a policy) added a link five years ago [1], that means its a no-brainer to add it directly as a link from that policy?

I don't "think policy forbids freedom of expression"‍—‌that would be ridiculous as stated. I (or actually Mill) is saying that it's almost impossible to set firm rules on what's OK and what's not, plus that people have a strong tendency to cry foul when in fact all that's happened is that they've run into someone who strongly, and effectively, opposes them.

EEng (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You miss my point. This discussion is not about removing all external links from this policy. If you propose to change that, you may do so elsewhere.

Your assertion that "the policy page shouldn't attempt to be a self-help guide" is addressed eloquently in the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY. Any therapeutic effects derived from working here are a bonus, not the primary intention. I believe adding the suggested link can help users from all perspectives:

• The target can find information on how to cope with the situation (see also Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment).
• Administrators can learn how to better identify and prevent abuse.
• The perpetrator may be able to identify what is wrong with their behaviour and learn to do better in future.

I agree that it's almost impossible to set firm rules on what's ok. The devious can always find a way to couch their attacks in suggestion and vagueness, in a way that gives them plausible deniability. In that case it takes time and patience to find the pattern in their behaviour. However, there are some forms of behaviour that are clearly not ok. See also the article on Verbal abuse which is already linked from this policy. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The devious can always find a way to couch their attacks in suggestion and vagueness". No doubt. And those with fragile, easily bruised egos will always find ways to call vigorous, skillful, effective disagreement "bullying".
• "This discussion is not about removing all external links from this policy. If you propose to change that, you may do so elsewhere." You're bullying me by making up rules (Tactic #6): there's no rule that a discussion can't cover multiple ideas for changes, nor that new ideas cannot develop during a discussion of some other idea or proposal. Please do not further bully me by "Falsely accusing me of 'errors' not actually made" (Tactic #1). See how easy it is?
• "However, there are some forms of behaviour that are clearly not ok." Yes, and maybe we should list such behaviors in this policy instead of linking to a long, long article of questionable applicability. However, if these behaviors are clearly not OK, I wonder how necessary it is to list them.

EEng (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng:I have been attempting to discuss this edit that I made, and you reverted. I have suggested several possible compromises. Your proposing further changes which remove even more external links from this policy is not working towards compromise, it is the exact opposite. I am not willing to continue discussion in this vein. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, gut feeling time. those with fragile, easily bruised egos will always find ways to call vigorous, skillful, effective disagreement "bullying" gives me a sense of denying that bullying is a serious problem, and of blaming the victim. Will someone ever make claims that bullying is happening, will anyone ever be overly sensitive? Probably. Is that a reason to not define bullying behavior in the policy? No. Mocking of the concept of bullying is not amusing. The comment above by Burninthruthesky resonates with me and the response by EEng feels hostile, mocking, and tending toward obstructionist. SageRad (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't mocking the concept of bullying; I was pointing out that inappropriate behaviors can run in both directions. Will you please get on with actually proposing something [2] instead of this interminable dissection of who said what? EEng (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• EEng, i can see your point about links to other articles implying that the other articles define the policy and thereby when the other articles are changed, it sort of changes the implied policy. I think that's a fair point.
• I also think that importing some material into the policy itself would be a good step -- or adapting or writing afresh content to define bullying.
• On what bullying is, i think it should not at all limit freedom of expression unless the purpose of an expression is to emotionally attack or undermine the other person, in which case i think we do want to curtail that kind of expression. There is not a guarantee of freedom of speech within Wikipedia, as it is a place of work, a place where people come together for a purpose of writing an encyclopedia. There is a basic agreement that if you wish to work here, you must be civil, and part of being civil is not just to refrain from "naughty words" like "fuck" but more to the point, that a person's intentions are to communicate but not to emotionally attack or demean others into submission.
• Reason and evidence are the currencies on Wikipedia -- sourcing and knitting together content from those sources. Things can get contentious. There is a lot at stake. But people should be able to take part with respect and be given respect in return. The reason for including more on bullying here would be to focus more on actions -- including subtle long-term patterns directed at specific users -- that are intended to knock the other into submission by emotionally hurting them or by otherwise making them back off for reasons other than seeing that their point is incorrect. That is a judgement that takes discernment, nuance, subtlety. And of course nobody has a window into another person's mind transparently and so there is always a layer of judging the motivations of another, and that is very tricky and must be limited in some way. There is often plausible deniability (a bully can say "I meant no harm" and it can't be completely refuted) but we are humans and must use human senses, with a lot of leeway and margins, to make these calls, and the alternative of letting people just bully their points into articles is not good for either the articles or the humans involved in the work.
• I respect blunt expressions, and i don't mind curse words, fuck it, i don't care about a curse word as long as it's not meant in a mean way. I care more about when an editor hurts another editor without curse words, by being condescending or mocking or bullying in some other ways that may occur over days or weeks even, on occasion. We must use our human senses and i think it would be helpul to somehow encode something about this into the policy to make it more useful to people. SageRad (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems we agree that proposing changes directly to this policy would be more appropriate and productive. I'll tell you in advance, however, that I'm skeptical of anything but a very boiled-down version of the kind of list in Workplace bullying will be accepted. It just seems too much like an attempt to give a statutory definition of bullying, instead of (what I really think we are trying to do) help people whose naivete is being exploited see that what they think privately may be happening is really happening. EEng (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Using a recent example as a guide to bullying

Not a productive approach for this venue: not relevant to question of linking or not linking, we're not going to call out specific people in the guidance, etc. If you feel the need to address the comment, take it to ANI rather than here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To use a recent example by one of the participants in this discussion, is User:EEng asking another editor "Can you fucking learn to indent your post like everyone else" an example of bullying, harassment or just ordinary incivility? What's the best way to learn from this example as part of this discussion? Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Poor Alansohn -- still following me around like a lost puppy. My comment was directed toward another editor who had persistently refused to simply indent his discussion posts in the normal way. He'd been asked repeatedly by other editors to stop making them to reformat his posts, and increasingly forceful means of bringing the matter to his attention seemed appropriate. I might note that it had the desired effect i.e. the errant editor was inspired to sit up and fly right (see [3], including the posts just above the one highlighted in that diff). There's nothing here to apologize for (not me, anyway). EEng (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I don't believe being condescending helpful either. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC) This is one of our most prominent forums discussing one of our most critical and fundamental principles. The shamelessly uncivil personal attack from an editor would be bad enough, but there seems to be something disturbingly ironic that this incivility is coming from an editor who has been intimately involved in discussions here about the true nature of civility. The minor issue of indentation failure hardly seems to justify this cardinal example of incivility and the failure to recognize this as incivility and the statement that "There's nothing here to apologize for" demonstrates a true lack of understanding of what civility means. Before we decide how to best reword our policies on civility, we ought to take a look at those who are crafting it and considering how we treat those "errant editors". Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding in about no third-party threats

There was a recent ANI/AE situation (which otherwise resulted in no actions, but only concern on the fundamentals of behavior raised) where a user claimed to want to go to the press to alert them to a situation on WP with the intent to enact change this way. It was generally agreed this was not a legal threat, but it was worrisome to some that this was a chilling effect to try to swing discussion and should not have been used.

While threatening to go to a third party is not as disruptive as issuing a personal or legal threat, it still falls into the same concern that the current section on "no personal threats" covers. I think it might be appropriate to add language that threatening, in the course of discussion, to engage a third party by any means to influence change on WP is something that should be strongly discouraged in behavior, though cannot be enforced as punitively as we do for legal threats. This would include going to the press, going to an external forum, or threatening to bring in meatpuppets. It should be noted that we can't stop people from actually following on this, and the net result may not even be disruptive, but its the weight of saying that "if you don't do X, I will go to this group to tell them..." that needs to be strongly discouraged. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

We're setting the wrong bar for incivility

We seem to require incivility to be severe and disruptive before we are willing to take it seriously. I think we need to consider an ongoing low-level of incivility as just as disruptive as an acute incident. A pattern of low-level incivility from multiple editors across many article talk pages is what makes WP feel hostile and chases away editors who might otherwise stay to build. I believe it contributes extremely strongly to the gender gap. I think we need to consider an incivility noticeboard. Incidents of incivility at ANI don't seem to get much traction; even the most insincere apology will get them closed, so taking an incident to ANI pretty much guarantees that the most that will happen is less than a slap on the wrist, which makes it not worth the trouble, which means we're basically encouraging low-level incivility. If we want to make WP more civil, we need to take seriously even minor incidents when they form a pattern of behavior. valereee (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps something analogous to WP:3RN, where four or more relatively recent cases of incivility coupled with at least one warning for such could be considered blockable? I'm not advocating for this, merely offering a possible course. DonIago (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. I'm not advocating overreacting to minor isolated incidents of incivility. I'm advocating that we treat some nth incident as evidence of an ongoing pattern of behavior and worthy of a warning, and the nth+1 as worthy of an hour's block, which gets an editor's attention because it puts it on the editor's easily-discoverable record. Not a punishment, just a tool for gaining compliance with civility policy. I am just really concerned that we tend to forget the cumulative effect of all the incidents of low-level incivility toward the random editor is what harms our overall welcoming atmosphere, much worse than any one incident in which one experienced editor goes ballistic on another experienced editor, which is what we tend to pay serious attention to. We don't want to overreact to any one of these incidents, so we tend to just let them go. If we don't treat these things as something to avoid doing because repeated incidents are going to be treated seriously (rather than something that might waste a little of your time responding to ANI with a halfhearted apology, nothing worse than that) then we're in effect tolerating them. valereee (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There was previously an incivility noticeboard, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, which was closed down - you might want to review the discussions around that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Meta

See meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Propose Wikimedia Code of Conduct (adapted from open source Contributor Covenant) Jbh^Talk 13:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Addition

Do you support or oppose this entry? Pwolit iets (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Pwolit iets, did you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Before_starting_the_process? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is all about the absurd idea that saying "It's all Greek to me" is "prejudiced". See [4]. EEng 02:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN, yes I did read that. @EEng, no, its not necessarily about that - if you're curious you're welcome to ask on my user talk page. Pwolit iets (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." Where's the discussion? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not view it as a dispute but rather a misunderstanding; the misunderstanding being that my edit is a follow-up from a previous thread elsewhere. Thats why I thought it didn't apply to me. Pwolit iets (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, feel free to remove the rfc template if you want. Im still getting used to all this. Pwolit iets (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• No Adding obvious stuff to policy is not helpful—of course anyone displaying prejudice would be stopped, regardless of what this policy says. The trick, however, is deciding what is prejudice and what is fair comment. In general, policies never identify all bad things that should not be done—instead, the principle applies and there is no need to provide an exhaustive list as might be needed for a court of law. A more fundamental reason that this addition is unwise at this time is that it is never a good idea for an editor to modify policy to either support their position at ANI, or to express displeasure with the outcome of a discussion at ANI. The section at ANI is here (permalink). In that section, Pwolit iets fails to understand a common English idiom and maintained their position regardless of several explanatory comments. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, don't get your Irish up. EEng 02:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That's called reading someone's mind. Yes that was partially a motivation but at best only negligibly so. I frequently press the history tabs of multiple articles I read about in order to view previous versions of the page to check what the version appeared like. So that has been the larger influence. Pwolit iets (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• No per Johnuniq. -- Begoon 02:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• No "Prejudiced" is hopelessly vague, and policy doesn't attempt to be exhaustive. EEng 02:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. To the extent the proposed addition is not so vague as to be useless, it's needlessly redundant with the existing injunctions. Also, it is beyond belief that the impetus for this change is only distantly related to the proposer's recent position at ANI. Rebbing 04:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to develop concept of bullying in policy

Currently, the policy contains two brief references to bullying:

Under "Identifying incivility" --> "Other uncivil behaviors":

(b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings

And later, under "Avoiding incivility":

Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.

I would like to suggest working some more description of what bullying is, and what it looks like, from Workplace bullying.

Bullying occurs when an editor experiences a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others that causes harm. It can include such tactics as psychological abuse and humiliation. This type of aggressive incivility can be difficult to confront because, unlike the typical school bully, bullies can operate within the letter of established rules and policies and still show a pattern of incivility that can harm other editors and make the editing environment feel hostile to some. Bullying can be overt, but is often covert, with plausible deniability maintained to avoid sanctions to the bully. Negative effects are not limited to the targeted individuals, and may lead to a decline in overall morale of editors, quality of articles, and a change in organizational culture. Bullying can occur in a single incident, but often it is an ongoing process in which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position socially and emotionally, if the bullying is "successful." Bullying can result in negative effects toward the bullied people, which can cause stress and carry-over outside of Wikipedia. Editors are humans, and human interactions of good kinds can lead to good emotional carry-over, while bullying can lead to negative emotional carry-over. Another aspect of bullying is that bullied people are often treated worse when they attempt to confront the bully or to deal with the bullying behaviors in a direct way. The very act of naming or confronting bullying behaviors is often used as more fuel for the bullying behavior, and the recipient may be accused of making "personal attacks" or "casting aspersions" or "creating drama" for the very act of confronting a pattern of abusive behavior. Bullying is more likely to happen in an environment where bullies feel they have the implicit support of the power structure, and that their bullying won't be officially called out or receive sanctions. Bullies can create a culture of fear, and the impression of petty tyrants who can rule pages, and has some crossover with WP:OWN. Discerning what is a bullying behavior is a complex matter, requiring examination of a history of interactions. Those who evaluate a situation must be careful not to blame the victim, or to see the recipient's defensive reactions as the problem in the context of bullying.

This is some language that i propose. It's not final and it's pretty long. I'd love input about what more needs to be included, and how it could be streamlined. Or any other input. SageRad (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It's a start, but as you say it's got to be boiled down. There are too many tangents e.g. I think the stuff about carryover to real life is just too far off point.

2. For better digestibility, you might try breaking out the material into bullet points. (Number them for easier discussion.)

3. We can't define bullying in terms of what the putative victim "experiences". It's got to be what the putative aggressor has actually done.

4. I think attention needs to be given to the common phenomenon (and what to do about it) of inexperienced users interpreting the normal mechanics of the site as bullying. WP is a much-too-complex place -- wish I knew what to do about that -- and it's easy to see how a new user might come to conclude that rules are simply being made up to frustrate him or her.

EEng (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Policies never contain details such as the proposed text—they are kept simple to be easily comprehended and to avoid pointless wikilawyering. My first comment regarding this topic included all that needs to be said: We don't care what kind of bullying it is—it ain't allowed here. The purpose of Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopedia, not an everyone can join in and be happy forum. If an editor engages in persistent unhelpful behavior, another editor might attempt to engage them, with escalating expressions of alarm. The proposed text could easily to be used to accuse the second editor of "bullying" when they should in fact be given a barnstar for caring enough to defend the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

... which is why WP's attempts to legislate civility continually fall down. It's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". It's pretty uncivil to block a user or to ban someone from a talk page or a topic area – but sometimes these measures are necessary. pablo 12:48, 13 December 2015‎

Your proposed opening line "Bullying occurs when an editor experiences a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others that causes harm." is seriously problematic. For example consider fictitious case description.

I feel strongly about a subject in which I have a stake. I add information, I even find many sources. Yet other editors persistently claim my sources are unreliable, that I my edits are flawed and my contents is fringe theory. But I AM RIGHT, the conspiracy people try to hush it up and keep the truth from the world, harming all of us.

And they conspire with many editors to revert me, I feel bullied. I experience a persistent pattern of mistreatment that causes harm. No further evidence needed, my experience is sufficient for a conviction of the bullies.

Sadly this type of discussion happens (frequently). And sadly supporters of fringe theories tend to stubbornly hold to their convictions, and honestly feel bullied. But, and I will be blunt here, that is their problem, not that of the editors trying to stop such people. Any bully policy should make clear that editors stopping fringe edits should not be burdened with defending themselves against bullying allegations. Arnoutf (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Precisely points 3 and 4 in my list of points a little bit above here. EEng (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I hear you all clearly, Johnuniq, Pablo X, Arnoutf and EEng. I think your concerns are completely valid. I hear your concerns, but this doesn't mean a clearer statement on bullying is not useful.

To address one concern, i don't think that "bullying" is a subjective term based on the experience of the bullied party. There will be times when it's not bullying, but rather simple disagreement. Editors must be able to take criticism. Editors must be able to live with their propsoed content not being adopted. It must be judged from the outside, by uninvolved parties. Other editors must be able to come in and say "yes, this is bullying" or "no, this is not bullying." However, the policy must give a good definition of the behavior to enable it to be referenced and judged in each particular case. I think it would need some qualifiers, to define what bullying is not, as well as what it is.

It is not about being RIGHT, but simply about being right. Sometimes an editor is right, but gets bullied away from being as forceful as they might otherwise be, by emotional dynamics. Sometimes they may be wrong, and then they may perceive bullying when it's not there. That's a judgment call.

I see it happening too much on Wikipedia, and some other editors have, as well, from my recent discussions on the WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Anti-bullying task force. I think we need to define the term better in the policy, and give a list of what bullying is, and what it is not, such as:

• Bullying is a systematic railroading of an editor with aspersions, telling them them that they are not worthy of editing, that they don't know how Wikipedia works when they actually do, condescension, mocking, and the like. Discussion can be kept to content, except when an editor is getting out of line. Accusation of editing to push a point of view is not friendly, unless they're clearly true and necessary to state. Everyone should edit to sources. Every editor may have a different focus and goal for the article, but no editor owns an article or gets to determine content despite consensus. Every editor needs to participate in dialogue in good faith in order to establish a consensus. Sometimes editors will disagree with consensus and must accept content which they would not personally write, if it follows good sourcing and WP:DUE and especially WP:NPOV.
• Bullying is not being told you're wrong about sourcing or content suggestions. To edit on Wikipedia, you must be able to admit that you're wrong sometimes. You must be able to admit that your point of view is not the majority point of view and your designs for an article need to be mixed with other editors' designs for an article to arrive at a compromise consensus (especially on controversial or contentious articles). Bullying is not just saying that you "feel bullied" but rather that the community also judges that you are being bullied. It takes a village.
• Bullying is sometimes a mobbing behavior where multiple editors take part in trying to belittle n editor or outnumber them instead of to reason with them in a good dialogue. Bullying can also take the form of ganging up, including on arbitration cases and at dispute resolution boards like WP:ANI, WP:RSN, and WP:BLPN. Involved editors intervening at appeals can be construed as railroading or bullying.
• Bullying is not stnding up strongly for what you believe. Bullying is not using swear words. Bullying is an attempt to emotionally undermine another editor to get your way. SageRad (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, when you say –

It is not about being RIGHT, but simply about being right.

– is that supposed to be some kind of koan? Are you serious about "it takes a village"? We're I-don't-know-how-many-100K into this discussion, and I still don't see anything like text that could be added to the policy. EEng (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I've no objections to this proposal. If it will encourage editors to join Wikipedia & help retain current editors? then that would be great :) GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dialogue that is ad hominem profiling of one of the editors

• This section was discussed at ANI, see this ANI archive. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• @SageRad: Three days ago I skimmed the GMO arb case and found these remedies which shows three arbs saying they would consider a site ban rather than the topic ban. A comment included 'behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree'. Searching your talk for "bully" shows more. I wasn't going to raise that here but since you are persisting I believe the background needs to be brought into the open because it highlights some concerns expressed above. Preventing anything which might be interpreted as bullying would be great for a family forum, but here it would give wikilawyers and POV pushers a weapon with which to drive away constructive editors. I don't think further discussion would be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's not be hasty, Johnuniq. SageRad really does appear to have a lot of experience with bullying [5][6][7][8] that ought to be helpful somehow, if we could only figure out how. EEng (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I hatted the above content because its not about content, and is opposition research based profiling and casting aspersions on me. Johnuniq unhatted it and suggested i take it to WP:ANI if i have trouble with this dialogue. Alright then. In any case, as far as i am concerned, this dialogue has now been made unworkable and been obstructed by Johnuniq and EEng by their underhanded tactics here, and Seraphimblade should notice how their offhand and irresponsible comments do damage to my ability edit. Thanks a lot, arb. SageRad (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq and EEng, the above comments are absolutely 'NOT ABOUT CONTENT and constituted ad hominem profiling and opposition research. The above comments are completely out of place and against guidelines for talk pages. If you can't comment on the content then don't comment at all. An arbitrator's words are no truer because they're an arbitrator, and those words are completely wrong. You cannot admit them in this dialog. Your behavior in attempting to paint me here are out of line and against guidelines for dialogue. SageRad (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

New dialogue after the blocked unhatting

Yes, i am serious. Why would you think otherwise? I see plenty of useful text that could be used. What specifically do you have a problem with, in the content ideas i wrote about above? Please focus on the content, and explain why you agree or disagree. SageRad (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this dialogue is over. I cannot talk with Johnuniq and EEng and their participation has ended in their profiling and casting these aspersions in an ad hominem way. This is not talking about the content, and it's poisoning the well. SageRad (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I was really hoping you might suggest some usable text on bullying that could be used here, because there really is bullying on Wikipedia. But after several go-rounds now of long, rambling lectures, it's more than a shock to read your treatment of others in the edit summaries I linked above. (No need for arb interpretation of them BTW‍—‌they speak for themselves.) I suggest you turn your civility spotlight on yourself, and let someone else more introspective and less sanctimonious take the lead on bullying. It's a shame because for a moment there I thought there was some hope of progress. EEng (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest edit reason by EEng being "I stand by what I've written, which is (given the amount of my time wasted here) quite mild"... talk about wasting time, it's my time being wasted here and anyone else who might have otherwise participated in this dialogue had it been genuine and on content. SageRad (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that this dialogue is being discussed at WP:ANI here. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Through my experiences here at this talk page itself, i have realized there is another dimension to bullying. It is not only about emotionally undermining an editor's ability to take part in good dialogue, but it's also about reputationally undermining an editor, which is basically poisoning the well against an editor, making it seem as if they are not fit to be taking part in the discussion, or that their input should not hold equal weight as that of other editors. SageRad (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So, i am going to persist in this dialogue and shake off the above bad dialogue like water from a duck's back, and continue with this, in hopes that other editors will take part with good faith to discuss clarifying the civility policy to include more definition of the types of behaviors we don't want to endorse here on Wikipedia.

We want to be brief enough, but not to cut out relevant detail.

Bullying is an attempt to undermine another editor's emotions and/or reputation to get an upper hand to "win" a dialogue. It detracts from good dialogue, and often muddies the water and poisons the well. It can result in harm to editors and can create a toxic editing environment that can affect ultimate content outcomes. It is often marked by an ongoing behavioral pattern, not just single interactions. Certain editors can be targeted over a period of time. Sometimes, when an editor calls out or names a bullying behavior, the bully will attack more forcefully, blaming the victim, often making it hard to address bullying directly.

There is a lot of material here. I'd like to have text be brief enough, but still contain enough to help readers who come here in search of remedy for bullying behaviors to see that policy is against it, and to find some comfort and remedy. SageRad (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence is pretty much wrong as an an assertion. Bullying can be but most of the time isn't what you say it is. If an editor has a history of making fringe theory-pushing edits, BLP violations, etc., bringing that up if the same type of behavior is occurring is not bullying. It reduces the likelihood of a drawn out conversation that goes nowhere and says to the editor in question that they're on the same wrong path which they need to get off of lest they want to possibly face more formal sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Neil, thank. By "your first sentence" i'm assuming you mean Bullying is an attempt to undermine another editor's emotions and/or reputation to get an upper hand to "win" a dialogue. This is a definition of bullying, and it references the motivation of the bully, which i think is necessary. It is a judgment call about intentions of another person, like a lot of things in morality. If someone accidentally steps on your foot, you generally forgive it very easily, whereas if someone steps on your foot on purpose, you see it as aggression. If there is a real content discussion and one editor expresses disagreement on the content, then that's totally fine. We want that to happen. We want people to feel free to express disagreement. The problem is that bullying makes some people fearful of expressing disagreement, and keeps people out of topic areas altogether, for fear of emotional and reputational harm being done to them. I agree that fringe pushing is bad, but that's not the topic here. Sometimes people can feel hurt and think they're being bullied, but they're just wrong and people are telling them that in a direct way. Other people can make those judgment calls, uninvolved observers with experience in the nuance of human interactions. That's what i think we need to clarify here. Please don't think that defining bullying behavior is a way of trying to weasel in content or to stop editors from being vigilant about content being accurate and sourced properly. It's not that at all. It's actually to make Wikipedia function better according to the policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. SageRad (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see little need for your proposed text as it stands as we already have, "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict" and "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project" in WP:HARASS. These are far more concrete statements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i had not noticed how well it was fleshed out in WP:HARASS, Neil. Thanks for pointing that out. In fact the intro paragraph of that policy is pretty much what i was aiming for in addressing bullying here, and uses the same conceptual framework, so maybe it's enough to see that as a near-synonym of bullying:

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Several things in common with what i was advocating for here. (1) Use of a "reasonable observer" as the judge. (2) Focus on the purpose (to intimidate the target). (3) Focus on the undermining quality of the behavior. This is good to know about. Thanks, Neil. SageRad (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also much of this is covered in the opening statement "Comment on content, not on the contributor" of Wikipedia:No personal attacks; and somewhat later on by "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Some of the emotional harm could be covered by looking at how meta:What is a troll? deals with such behavior. With these policies and guidelines already in place I am not sure what your proposal would add (besides more bureaucracy). Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear (and often and at great length) too, @SageRad: but what you are not convincing me of is that your proposed changes constitute an improvement. pablo 18:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, pablo, for your (civil) reply. What i'm finding out is that the content that i thought missing seems to be present in slightly different words at WP:HARASS and that seems sufficient to me. I saw a hole in the policy definition here at WP:CIVIL but seems like the behavior in question is covered elsewhere sufficiently. Thanks for being civil and hearing me. Even if it's defined, though, it still needs to be upheld in practice when editors need help to maintain a good non-toxic editing environment. SageRad (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What the problem is and isn't

First, it appears that we now have agreement that the language of this policy doesn't need reworking because the policy on harassment more or less says what the original poster (User:SageRad) wanted. That is good. I will comment that I disagreed with the original poster's proposed language because it appeared to me to focus too much on the (subjective) emotional well-being of the editor who is bullied or perceives that they are being bullied. Bullying, like other uncivil behavior, is sanctioned not because of its effects on the emotional well-being of editors (and we are not practicing psychology), but because it interferes with the mission of improving the encyclopedia. Bullying, in my experience, is usually associated with article ownership, and the problem is that, when an editor with a different opinion from the clique who claims ownership of an article is bullied, they may be prevented from improving the article, in particular from making it neutral. (Bullying sometimes is done by a clique who is imposing a non-neutral viewpoint on an article.) I will note that I disagree strongly with the original poster, who said that there are very few false allegations of bullying. Inaccurate charges of bullying are common, especially by editors who insist on pushing a non-neutral POV. (That is, sometimes the clique isn't a clique but really is a consensus.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

However, in my opinion, the real context of the problem with bullying is not that it is endemic (in my opinion, it isn't) but that there is no effective institutional way to deal with it when it does happen. There are only three methods in the English Wikipedia by which sanctions can be imposed. First, a single administrator can block, but the block can be lifted, preferably after discussion with the blocking administrator. Second, "the community" can topic-ban, block, or site-ban. Third, the ArbCom can topic-ban, block, or site-ban. However, "the community" at the noticeboards does not deal effectively with editors who divide or polarize the community, or with editors when the community is divided or polarized. The discussion at WP:ANI becomes a shouting match, which is usually archived as no consensus. In any case, the community does not deal effectively with issues that divide or polarize the community. (Perhaps that statement is a truism.) The ArbCom has, in recent years, been slow. It does eventually deal with issues that divide or polarize the community, but not quickly, and it only is able to take on a few toxic issues, and so can't deal with everything. My conclusion is that some sort of enforcement reform is needed. Maybe some sort of panels (jury system) is needed below the ArbCom, with appeals to the ArbCom. Alternatively, community input on bans and topic-bans should allow for secret voting or secret !voting, so that editors do not feel shouted down. At present, the English Wikipedia doesn't have an effective process for dealing with bullying, because it doesn't have an effective process for dealing with issues that divide and polarize the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• First, it is not only myself who saw a need for changes. I am not alone and i'm not the only one. The incivility in the above discussion made this an unfriendly dialogue that appeared to have scared away at least one person.

• Secondly, we want a non-coercive and non-harmful environment both for the sake of the editors' well-being and for the sake of the quality of articles. Both go hand in hand.

• A definition of bullying must include reference to the emotions and subjective experience of the target of bullying/harassment/abuse. That's a fundamental aspect of any definition of abusive behavior, and it's a fundamental part of being human and knowing how to act respectfully with other humans. We all do this every day. We don't have to "be psychologists" to do this. We have to simply "be human".

• I still think it would be useful to update this policy to better express the nature of bullying behaviors. Policies often overlap and it is useful to have good definitions in multiple places. It's the nature of things. I don't know why it rankles you and a few other people so badly. Can you explain what it is that makes you want to oppose any clarification or definition of bullying, if that is accurate, or correct me if i'm wrong?

• If anyone at ANI would have the insight and wisdom and frankly, the guts, to address bullying, then it wouldn't become a shouting match and it would actually be effective. As it stands now, editors go there seeking help to make a space non-toxic and instead they often get blowback and targeted themselves. It's not a safe place. It's in fact a scary place because of that. I see it all the time. I see people getting chilling warnings when they go to ANI to clarify and ask for help. SageRad (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I will try to respond to the five comments above. First, I agree that the original poster is not the only editor who sees the need for changes. Many editors see the need for changes, although some of us disagree on what those changes should be. I agree that some of the above dialogue was uncivil, in particular because it was ad hominem. I will note that User:SageRad polarizes and divides the community, but that should not sidetrack the main issue.

Second, I agree that we want a non-coercive and non-harmful environment. I don't think that anyone disagreed. We don't need to argue about why.

Third, the definition of bullying, in my opinion, absolutely must not refer to the emotions and subjective experience of the targeted editor. To include such language would permit to raise unsubstantiated claims of bullying by stating that they are upset or that they feel intimidated or derogated. We have to judge bullying by the external evidence, that is, the language used by the alleged bullies, not by the subjective issue of what the target claims its emotional effects are. We absolutely must not refer to the emotions and subjective experience of the editor who claims to have been bullied.

Fourth, I have no objection in general to improving the wording of this policy or other policies. I and some other editors only disagreed with specific proposed changes, especially to the inclusion of the emotional trump card.

Fifth, what SageRad says about WP:ANI is mostly true. However, I don't see any quick fix at WP:ANI, which is why I say that WP:ANI is broken with respect to issues that divide and polarize the community. Saying that administrators should have the insight and wisdom and guts to address bullying isn't helpful, because there is disagreement on the particulars. Perhaps SageRad means that individual administrators should block the bullies. If so, other administrators will disagree. Perhaps SageRad means that there should be a different community at the noticeboards. But there isn't. It is true that the noticeboards are often very hostile. That is why I think that some sort of reform, rather than mere exhortation, is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, i appreciate the above comments. I don't agree with all but i appreciate that we're in dialogue. I want to pick up with only your third point above, as there are so many threads here, but i see this one point as most critical to come to terms with.

Any judgment of human behavior has to take into account some inferences about motivations. Please hear me out. I made this point in the previous section, as well, when i first pinged four editors and made a rather long post. I made the same point multiple times. It's a semi-complex thing, but it's really true and really important.

• Motivation is quite important in determining justice. Like i said above, if someone steps on your foot by accident, generally you'll let it go, and especially if the person says "Oh, i'm sorry!" and really means it. However, if the person steps on your foot on purpose, then you might sock them, or yell at them. It's then an aggression. Even if they say "Oh, i'm sorry!" but you can really tell that they did it on purpose and their "sorry" is a crocodile apology, then you will still be pissed off. The intention is critical in every concept of justice.
• In a case of abusive behaviors such as bullying, the intention of the perpetrator is to affect the subjective state of the target. At least one of the purposes is that. Another purpose might be to reputationally harm them so they have less cred with others in the dialogue, and another might be to intimidate others who see the abuse of the target, and therefore become less able to speak their minds well.
• I am not saying that if anyone says "I feel bullied!" that we automatically believe them, and automatically agree that they are correct. I made that point very clearly above. We must use our own minds as a community, as reasonable humans observing other humans. This is central to what it means to be a human in society. When i said "It takes a village" above, i was 100% serious -- even though some people heard this phrase and found it funny, maybe because it was made famous by one Hillary Clinton whom i don't care for, but i meant it. It takes a community to judge and to ameliorate abusive behaviors. The community looks at the evidence, and generally it's pretty obvious what the situation really is. Sometimes a person is "crying wolf" but many times it's real and it takes some empathy and ability to judge complex human interaction, and see that there is an abusive dynamic being perpetrated on a target.
• This means that we must reference the subjective state of the target, but this does not mean that we simply believe at face value every time what any person says. That would be foolish. In the case of bullying, where one main goal of a bully is to emotionally undermine a target, then we must as a community judge whether the alleged bully is actually intending to do so. Often it's obvious, when they're calling the person stupid or insinuating that in saccharine words, or when they're condescending or implying that they don't know how the world works when it's not really true, or many other tropes of being pushy / abusive / bullying. I see these things going on here, and want people to be able to be called out and really told to "knock it off!" by a community. It really does take some solidarity of community to make a good safe space for good editing when an individual is bent on being abusive. Lack of real sanctions lets it run more rampant, because people know the chances of sanctions are very low. They even say things like "take it to ANI if you have a problem with it" in a taunting way, because they know nothing will come of it, as happened in the previous talk page section. It played out in textbook fashion. So, we must reference the subjective state of the target, to determine if it looks like the alleged bully is doing something with the intention of affecting the target's subjective state to knock them off balance or demean them or otherwise make them shrink away.

We all take this for granted pretty much in daily life, like my example where someone steps on your foot by accident or on purpose. I'm sorry if it seems like i belabored this point, but i think it's really important to be clear and see if we do agree on this or not. If not, i'd like to understand why. Thanks, Robert. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable Man Test

US law on workplace bullying and on hostile work environments involves a "reasonable man" test, whether a "reasonable man" would feel threatened or made uncomfortable by the conduct in question. In the case of sexual harassment, the test is amended to a "reasonable woman" test. I do not object, at least not on principle, to including language as to whether a "reasonable editor" would think that the conduct in question was emotionally threatening. (I do have a concern that the policies could get too wordy, and workplace policies that will be taken to real courts do need to be wordy and precise, while Wikipedia is a different entity.) If you are suggesting some sort of "reasonable editor" rule about emotional impact, I am willing to consider that. It can't just be the emotional impact on the editor who claims to have been bullied, because we have editors who perceive all disagreement as bullying. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph of wp:harass does include "appears to a reasonable observer to be intended...." I believe that makes sense. SageRad (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to go into much detail at the moment, but I thank Robert McClenon and SageRad for beginning a constructive dialogue. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My issue with the "reasonable man" test is that not every target is the same, and we do need to take into account the specifics of each person, and see that these may be perceived by an abuser and used. For instance, if one person's pet peeve is known to be strawman arguments, and then an abuser uses strawman arguments on purpose to try to get their goat, then we as observers can recognize this dynamic. Human behavior really does go many layers deep. This is really how things work in the real world. Abusers are very often quite smart and skilled at recognizing specific vulnerabilities in a target and exploiting them in a way that can help maintain the covert nature of the bullying. Inside "jokes" that are not jokes but slights and jabs, and the like, are very common fodder for abusive behavior. SageRad (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this really need to be codified, or can we reasonably rely on administrators dealing with civility complaints to be aware of it? I am inclined to think the latter. If not, I would like to see the language that you feel should specifically be added to the text rather than more generalized discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be said. By my experience, administrators tend to not enforce civility in this vein. There is much proposed language above in this talk page section. SageRad (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is much proposed language above, and I have no desire to wade through it myself. I think what is needed is a clean restatement of exactly what you feel should be added, perhaps as an RfC. With the current state of this discussion, I am otherwise unable to currently support any changes. DonIago (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It takes time and effort to work on this. I will quote the latest and briefest version. It's also contained in the definition of WP:HARASS in large part, but i think it can be stated better in WP:CIVIL to serve editors:

Bullying is an attempt to undermine another editor's emotions and/or reputation to get an upper hand to "win" a dialogue. It detracts from good dialogue, and often muddies the water and poisons the well. It can result in harm to editors and can create a toxic editing environment that can affect ultimate content outcomes. It is often marked by an ongoing behavioral pattern, not just single interactions. Certain editors can be targeted over a period of time. Sometimes, when an editor calls out or names a bullying behavior, the bully will attack more forcefully, blaming the victim, often making it hard to address bullying directly.

That's one short version of a proposed more nuanced summary of bullying. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me like more detail than is needed here, though I'd be willing to defer to other editors on that. DonIago (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is more detail than is needed. I disagree with the proponent, who apparently wants to insert detailed language about the effect on the emotional state of the editor who is being bullied or perceives that he is being bullied. I think that excessive detail will increase the likelihood that emotionally fragile, but possibly aggressive, editors will manipulate the language to frame legitimate disagreement as bullying. I would like to keep it to a "reasonable man" test. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Robert McClenon on this aspect. A reasonable observer test is appropriate and is sufficient. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• I concur with User:Ryk72. Going into excessive length about the emotional consequences of bullying is likely to encourage editors to cite these details and to claim that they were bullied, but the editors who respond to this encouragement are likely to be editors whom a reasonable observer simply thinks were editing against consensus. The claim of being bullied by editors who are not being bullied is quite common (User:SageRad is just good-faith mistaken in thinking that it is like the claim of rape and unlikely to be made wrongly), because some editors have a low ability to accept honest disagreement as honest disagreement. A reasonable observer test is sufficient, without going into detail that will encourage difficult editors to argue that they were bullied. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC
• I too concur that the "reasonable observer" test should be sufficient. pablo 19:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Me too, and I'd like to suggest that even that need not be stated, since it applies to everything we do at WP to evaluate behavior. This isn't a court and we don't need "jury instructions". EEng (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that an uninvolved administrator close this discussion as concluding that there is consensus that a "reasonable observer" test is sufficient and that we do not need an additional discussion of the emotional impact on the victim or alleged victim. If the original proponent disagrees, as is their right, they may obtain a community-wide consensus by Request for Comments. That is my suggestion, to close this thread with consensus that "reasonable observer" is sufficient. I can argue further why the additional proposed language would actually be detrimental, but I don't think it is necessary unless there is an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin availability for formal closes is, of course, precious and in critical need throughout the project. I'd prefer to see the OP withdraw, at least as to any text proposed so far. After that if we just let the discussion sit a while maybe someone will think of another direction to go in that will be helpful. Those big pastel-background closes are so... final. EEng (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree closing would not be helpful. Since I'm busy in real life, here are a few very brief points on this discussion:

• Honest disagreement is not bullying; ad hominem argument is generally not honest disagreement. The difference is important.
• I don't know why the rape analogy has been imported to this discussion. Tim Field said, "Bullying is a form of psychological and emotional rape because of its intrusive and violational nature." I don't think framing the discussion in those terms is helpful here.
• The fact false accusations of breaking a rule can be made is not a reason to abolish the rule.
• The "reasonable man" does not ignore the "specifics of each person". If someone says (as a purely fictitious example) "stop calling be Big Nose, I don't like it", a reasonable person will respect the person's feelings, rather than insisting, "I really do think your nose is ugly".
• There is precedent for discussion of the impact of misconduct. See WP:Harassment#Consequences of harassment.
• This discussion is not solely about the "reasonable man test". There is no time limit.

I may be unable to take any further part in this discussion at least until the new year. I hope you all have peaceful and refreshing holidays. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Burninthruthesky highlights a couple of reasons why a "reasonable observer" test is preferable. Ad hominem and other bad faith argument will, it is to be hoped, be seen as such by a reasonable observer. Additionally, the specifics of each person will be taken into account - where they have been communicated (per the example above), and. more importantly, where they are reasonable. I would consider it reasonable for an editor to request a focus on content, not contributor; I would not consider it reasonable for an editor to request they be addressed using honorifics. I have seen both. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Uncivil essay titles

Do we need Wikipedia Essays as WP:FART and WP:BOLLOCKS. They may have point, but the existing policies are enough to edit Wikipedia. These essays may become excuse to make uncivil comments.

Can we mention and link these essays to newbies on their user talk page? We can tell them your article don't meet WP:BAND, your article don't meet WP:COMPANY. But we can't say to newcomers, read WP:FART. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a few issues here. First, pointing newbies to a limited number of policies rather than any and all available essays is good, simply because we don't want to overwhelm them. But essays generally serve a purpose in expressing views on policies, principles that are helpful to experienced editors but don't necessarily rise to the level of policies, etc. Silly redirects to said essays (and FART is definitely in the "silly" and not "uncivil" category) aren't "excuse" for anything, and aren't inherently problematic - if there are any that truly are, WP:RFD is thataway. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Spectral Evidence

I added a citation to the first section under Spectral Evidence which defines what it was and how it was used in the trials. I also added a paragraph on Cotton Mather regarding his thoughts on the use of spectral evidence from Wonders. And also a note about Robert Calef's thoughts on confession as evidence. SarahK86 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Current Political Climate in the USA

Given that Donald Trump is now the Leader of the Free World, does anyone else think that a complete overhaul of this policy should be considered? Maybe we should get rid of it completely? - pretty IittIe Iiar 09:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No, this is about building an encyclopedia, not about current events. - TransporterMan (TALK) 04:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I recommend not feeding this. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Given "Don't pick a fight. You think I can't catch you in a weak moment?", anyone with a blockhammer has enough WP:ROPE to swing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: My question was indeed meant as a joke. Although seriously, is civility necessary in building an encyclopedia? Given that a large percentage of editors find ever subtler ways to insult each other, create drama where none exists, and go out of their way to get confrontational, why not just drop the act and say what's in our minds? Is that detrimental to building quality articles? Should make the wp:dramaboard much smaller in my opinion. -- pretty IittIe Iiar 12:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Civility of editors with autism and/or Asperger's

Seeing such editors getting blocked and losing their rights for uncivil incidents, maybe I can ask what editors with autism and/or Asperger's are expected in accordance with this policy. I'm not trying to generalize or offend the kind or anything like that. Well, I'm one of them... actually, "moderate". However, I'm concerned about the well-beings of autistic editors and those with Asperger's. Can they cooperate? Can they be civil? Can they follow this policy? What do people expect from us autistic editors and them with Asperger's? I'd like thoughtful opinions and responses to this. I hope I'm clear about what I was saying. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HONEYPOT. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: is asking some very interesting questions not just a single question. Can I expand on some of them; I have no answers but feel that the community has responsibilities to editors on the spectrum. In many ways autism is a gift- and leads to a highly focused editor- something that I will never be myself.

• Civility towards editors with autism and/or Asperger's- how does the community cope with that challenge? How does it create a benign editing environment that dissipates conflict situations? In a conflict situation, how does it recognise that an editor on the spectrum will feel the threat disproportionately, and is likely to throw a more extreme response?
• Clarity of definition, and clarity in describing the step that need to be taken to diffuse a situation. Is it adequately explained in the policy: an an editor on the spectrum will be more likely than most to follow the policy (which in some cases will be seen as evidence of incivility). Do we adequate explain the concept of apology and give the steps needed to give one?
• Appropriateness of sanction. Should our sanctions be autism aware? If an editor does not understand what he has done to cause offence- is punishment morally justified? If the answer to that is yes- how effective is it going to be? If the punishment was designed to modify behaviour- does it?
• Civility of editors with autism and/or Asperger's. George asks some interesting general questions about the nature of editors on the spectrum-'Can they cooperate? ( I would say yes but it will be very difficult- a personal goal) Can they be civil?( I would say yes almost all of the time but it is diffcult if non-autistic editor keep changing the rules!) Can they follow this policy? (I would say yes no problem if the policy is rewritten to be clear and unambiguous) What do people expect from us autistic editors and them with Asperger's? I would say that they haven't even understood that it is a question. Thanks for raising these questions- now lets see the community start to address them. ClemRutter (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I've worked with two or three self-identified editors with those conditions and absolutely have been able to do so for the benefit of the encyclopedia. It's a real shame for self-identification to be needed, but in the heated, but often surprisingly caring, environment of Wikipedia it's often of real benefit since many editors are willing to apply a bit more consideration if they know a person has one of those conditions. Still, self-identification must be a personal choice and there's always the possibility that some [expletive uninserted] will use it against you. George, you ask, "What do people expect from us autistic editors and them with Asperger's? ... Can they cooperate? Can they be civil? Can they follow this policy?" I can't speak to expectations, but my experience is that their actions and comments often seem to indicate that they fail to catch the underlying, often unspoken, social and emotional subtleties behind things, which cause their comments and actions to sometimes being seen as being somewhat askew from what would ordinarily be on point or most helpful. They also sometimes come across as being cold or abrupt, which is sometimes mistaken for being uncivil. As I understand it — and FSM knows that I have damned little to base this on — deficits in social cognition are common in both conditions. The editors I've worked with, and who I consider to be successful Wikipedians, keep this in mind and at least intellectually adjust for it even if it doesn't come naturally to them. Though this certainly doesn't only beneficially apply to just folks with those conditions, they're also open to evaluating, taking, and inculcating criticism, both constructive criticism and less-civil criticism, and not just ignoring it or replying aggressively to it. That's my experience. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• The same policies should apply. Asperger's isn't the same thing as stupid. Also, if someone has a personality that profits from clear rules, then great news, here we make such rules explicitly codified.

I can see no reason why anyone with Asperger's or HFA (and capable of managing WP:COMPETENCE) should not be able to manage CIVIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Andy. This user's behavior is no exception, right? To me, since the second block, the user, self-identified as autistic, used awful language toward another user, which led him to being indef. blocked. Earlier, he was productive, but a couple of blocks must have motivated him to behave worse (to me). --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you @Andy Dingley:. That is non autistic thinking. That a productive editor can be triggered into non civil behaviour shows that WP is not Autism aware. I haven't followed the case study back fully but there is something dreadfully wrong in a system that allowed it get to the point where the productive editor felt it acceptable to resort to such language. My experience with autism comes from teaching CS in secondary schools- where we attracted every child with a statement. The rule of thumb there was- when you personally felt like killing the child- that was the time to say 'you poor thing- relax a bit and we will try again" and when personally you felt like walking away and saying 'oh it doesn't matter' that was the time to be strict and lay down the rules.

I've got to say that I have enjoyed meeting many wikipedians and based on that experience I reckon that WP has been built on the back of Asperger's- as generally we are a supportive community where the Aspergic thrive.

So in the case study we have have two incidents to consider.

• What triggered the productive editor, and where was the 'I can't cope button- help quick' At that point he physically cannot see the OPs POV. Could we change the left tool bar, to include one- labelled Help-I feel I am being targetted or even Cool down- button. This could be configure to send a layoff message to both editors concerned, and maybe semi-protect the article---
• What triggers normally reasonable editor to always apply draconian sanctions which just make the situation worse. Is this because their confort zone has been challenged- do they enjoy the certainty of the WP world, and not being good negotiators throw the equivalent of a two-year olds tantrum. If this is the case we need to assist them too, which may mean rewriting entirely the sanction system! Rewrite it so- 'blocks' become requests to block and if the editor has self identified as 'On the spectrum' the RFB has to go an AutismArbCom. What we need is mediation skills.

This is important- should it be discussed in detail at Wikimania (I won't be there) where I suspect there will be many editor with personal experience who may be able to help. ClemRutter (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have (diagnosed by a doctor, not self-diagnosed as commonly found on the Internet) what used to be called Asperger's Syndrome and is now called "High Functioning Autism" as the mental health profession keeps redefining various conditions, IMO largely based upon gaming the insurance and disability systems so that people in need are not denied coverage.

I have been editing Wikipedia for Since January 1, 2006 (first as an IP, registered on Jun 9, 2006), have made 37,000 edits, and have never had a block or user restriction. I believe that most people would consider me to be a productive editor.

I make no effort to keep my condition a secret (and I give my permission to others on Wikipedia to comment on it whenever and wherever they choose), but I don't go out of my way to advertise it. Doing so might help those who are already friendly and cooperative to better relate to me, but it would also give assholes and trolls ammunition to attack me.

There are a wide variety of conditions that are lumped together under the umbrella term "autism", but for me, my condition manifests itself in the following ways:

• I have trouble reading other people's emotions. In face-to-face interactions I have trained myself to watch for things like faster talking, flared nostrils, dilated eyes, etc. and to deduce the person's emotional state from that, but for me it is a conscious effort whereas it comes naturally to most people. On Wikipedia I have to watch for taking things too literally, missing sarcasm, and not detecting annoyance/anger in others.

• I am very detail oriented, and prefer well defined WikiGnome activities to more open-ended tasks like new article creation. As is common with those with Asperger's, I have a high IQ (tested at 167) and do very well with complex technical tasks.

• I rarely if ever get angry or emotional about anything anyone on Wikipedia writes, and I am often puzzled when someone assumes that they can read my mind and assign an emotion to me that I do not have. Sometimes people try to make me angry, and instead their efforts amuse me. On the other hand, I get annoyed more easily than most when someone appears to be wasting my time.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Question on profanity

The section of the policy on identifying incivility states "1. Direct rudeness: (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions"

Here's my question--do we mean that, or can people let profanities fly without recourse? I ask because I've brought it up in the past and have been shut down, being told that profanity does not equal incivility. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Apparent behavioral problems at Holly Neher and related pages. I'm seeing policy showing one thing and practice showing the opposite.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

From your work at XfD you are probably aware that there can be a disconnect between different constituencies here. At XfD it's between what ought to happen according to NOTABLITY and what actually happens at XfD. I'd argue that the same thing applies here. The policy wonks who create and maintain this policy (and I don't use that term pejoratively: I'm a self-identified policy wonk at other policies) are a different constituency with different goals and standards from the constituency who believe and become involved with what ought to happen when the policy is violated (who are often folks more concerned with editor retention than with civility). Where our system breaks down is that even if we had a huge RFC with hundreds or thousands of participants to make this policy say exactly what most of the people involved in that RFC discussion think it should say, that does not mean that it will be enforced that way. The only way to achieve that is to pass (and enforce) something like a desysopping policy that says that any admin who is asked to sanction someone for a violation of this policy but fails to do so will be desysopped. And that's not going to happen (and IMHO would be a bad idea). Some things here at en-WP which have the policy label are mostly actually only descriptions of best policies, not policies which are going to be enforced without a considerable showing of disruptive or NOTHERE editing. (The Edit Policy is one such on the content side.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That certainly seems to reflect actual practice. It sure seems to deflate the term "policy" to a significant degree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In any complex system such as this, including the real world, there are going to be rules which are rigidly enforced, others which are going to be ignored or near-ignored, and a bunch in between those extremes which are enforced to varying degrees of intermittency. Which rules are treated which way often bears no relationship to their importance or the seriousness of the harm they're intended to prevent (even when everyone agrees on the issues of importance and harm), probably largely due to simple human nature. Moreover, since our policies here at WP are, philosophically at least, not even really rules (see the first sentence of the Policy policy (not a typo)) that sets up yet another constituency clash between the "there are no rules-ers/wiki-ists" and the pro-bureaucracy "yeah they're rules, get over it" factions. (Full disclosure: Though I'm flexible, I'm mostly in the latter faction.) So the situation I described in my last post isn't particularly surprising. Nonetheless, I think that most — not all, but most — of the time we strike a pretty good balance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Abusive talk by experienced editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This comment was left on my page. I created a new page on the Israel-Gaza conflict 2018. My main focus was the fire-kites and environmental damage they cause. Many editors jumped in to delete and criticize every word. At one point I decided that enough is enough. I will not work on this page in this type of enviorment. I want you to pay attention to what Zero wrote because this is wrong and new editors shouldn't have to go though this. Its one thing to enforce the rules and another to be abusive.

"Well, you know, I looked at the article and changed my mind. It is a piece of crap and should be deleted. There is nothing in it that can be usefully merged anywhere either. As for your editing, imagine moaning about one editor who didn't know about the fires, while not even mentioning the 136 people, mostly unarmed civilians, who have been shot dead and hundreds more maimed for life on the Gazan side of the border. That is exactly the sort of extreme bias that we don't want around here. Go away." Zerotalk 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)--Jane955 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

People are dying every day in conflict while others come to Wikipedia to battle over hearts and minds. Expecting more than faux politeness under those circumstances is unrealistic. A quick skim of your talk page shows that you are not taking advice well. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Language?

What's our current policy on "unparliamentary language"? Has this changed recently? My perception is that our practice, or at least our acceptance of it, has shifted of late. Is language itself a breach of CIVIL? A contributing factor, or something irrelevant to be particularly ignored? Should it be, or become, such a factor? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley: I'm unable to comment on what our current policy might be, but I think our policy should take into account the extremely diverse nature of the body corporate that works on Wikipedia - men and women, young and old, highly educated and not-so, those who are white-Anglo-Saxon protestants and those who aren't, those whose self esteem relies on display of unparliamentary language and those whose self esteem doesn't, and so on. Abrasive and offensive language doesn't build content. What is worse is that abrasive and offensive language has the potential (I assume) to drive away new contributors including potentially strong contributors. It is unlikely we can legislate for the sort of behavior we want, but we can model it, and draw the attention of those who display unparliamentary language that there is a better way to get the job done. Dolphin (t) 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Vox recently published a pretty convincing article arguing that notions of profanity in the English language have shifted significantly over the last couple generations. Words like fuck, shit, and damn are no longer considered very offensive (e.g. even the prudish New York Times now feels comfortable printing "shithole"). Instead, language that denigrate particular groups is now considered the most profane: nigger, faggot, cunt, kike, etc. Not sure if this deserves mention in the policy, but if anyone ever wants to cite it: [9]. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with incivility

I recently adjusted the text in this section ([10]) so that editors are not instructed to always adopt a wholly passive response to incivility, though it has been reverted by Andrew Davidson. Considering that the WMF's policy on civility is inconsistent, editors should not be instructed to behave in a certain way. My wording emphasized that editors can choose how they deal with incivility, while still offering up the view that some responses may be more productive than others. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Several changes were made and none of them seem to have been discussed here. This is not acceptable process as this is policy, not a personal essay. And the changes do not seem to be an improvement. For example, advice to be "calm and reasonable" was removed. That is not passivity; it's sensible advice to react moderately rather than in kind. I oppose the implication that editors should escalate or react hotly instead. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't discuss anything because I chose to be bold. I figured this page is being closely watched and people can easily revert if they object, which you did. Now, we are discussing.
In certain situations I do not believe it is sensible to react "moderately". There are editors here who are bullies - they use intemperate language in order to intimidate people and get their own way. This does not benefit the encyclopedia, and it does not benefit individual editors if they believe that they have to just sit back and take it. Sometimes a few strong words used back at bullies can make them stop. It doesn't always work like that, but editors should not be steered away from that option if they believe it would work.
I removed the "calm and reasonable" instruction, but I did not replace it with "react hotly", therefore there is no implication; editors can choose how they wish to conduct themselves. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• The main point of our civility policy is that editors should not just act as they please. Instead, they are expected to act in a "respectful and considerate way". If editors behave otherwise then they may be sanctioned and that may still happen if they were provoked. Our enforcement of this is quite haphazard but that's another issue. I still oppose the wording change. Andrew D. (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The civility policy states one thing, but how it is implemented is another. My viewing of ANI and other pages shows me that editors are allowed to be quite uncivil to each other; as an example (that I am sure you are familiar with), it has been stated several times recently that telling another editor to "fuck off" is not considered sanctionable. If this is the case (and I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the current position), editors (and new editors in particular) should not be given the impression on this page that their only acceptable response is to accept it and then pursue it through dispute resolution, because ultimately their complaint will just be thrown out. If my alternative wording is read carefully, I think it will be transparent that it does not advise one type of response over another, it merely reduces the imposition of a passive response. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: as you have not responded to my last post, can I assume that you acquiesce to my position? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Getting the last word is not significant. My bold !vote is still there and still represents my position. Andrew D. (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Consistency regarding American and British English

I tried making the policy consistent regarding the spelling of "behavior/behaviour". My edit was reverted with the reason project space is agnostic WRT Engvar. If it's agnostic, there's no reason to revert, and there's reason to keep the edit for consistency. Bright☀ 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't seriously think it would be desirable for editor A to change all "behavior" to "behaviour", while editor B does the reverse? Would it be helpful to have an RfC and spend a month battling over which spelling to use? (Answer: no.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully there's a policy that says "don't revert a change if it's neutral", which should have been followed here since the revert reason is claimed to be neutral ("agnostic") while on the other hand, the edit was made in good faith to improve the page and make it consistent across policies. The correct thing to do would have been to leave the improvement alone and not revert, or give a reason why the edit is detrimental. Either way saying "let's not discuss this" is not helpful and reverting a neutral edit is not helpful. Bright☀ 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Look, we understand that you didn't understand, and it's admittedly not obvious, but exactly because Engvar choices are arbitrary on project-space pages, and there is no objective criterion by which we might choose one alternative over another, the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change. Yes, that means pages will be mutually inconsistent, but that's the way it is on an international project. EEng 03:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change The choice of this page's early editors was "behavior". It was years later changed by a single editor to "behaviour", probably in the name of consistency though we may never know. Either way "stable version", "status quo", or "the choice of early editors" is not a valid revert reason. You should in the future avoid revert reasons such as "not needed", "status quo", "choice of early editors", "agnostic regarding change" and so on. Bright☀ 04:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, and maybe that change should not have been made (perhaps there was some discussion about it) but given that it was made -- five years ago -- it should have been let lie; though MOS does not apply outside article space, we do follow the principles outlined at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety pretty much everywhere.

I hate to pull this on you, but (1) when you have more experience you'll understand, and (2) you should probably be directing your attention to the current ANI thread about you [11], particularly the bit about wikilawyering and dropping the stick. EEng 05:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I was thinking that I recognized the user name from somewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

it should have been let lie This is exactly the argument I am making and the argument WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is making. I made a change that was not detrimental. You reverted it with the reason "agnostic regarding change", another way of saying that the two versions are equivalent (Engvar choices are arbitrary) so your revert is a no-reason revert. I hate to pull this on you Then don't. Using "seniority" to justify your actions is also an indicator of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 05:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I'd say there's about a 50% chance you'll still be editing three months from now. EEng 05:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I was just about to say I'm surprised there haven't been any insinuations of blocks yet. Well-phrased, it insinuates a block but does not come off as a threat. Bright☀ 05:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. If you don't start listening to what experienced editors are trying to teach you, and instead keep up the wikilawyering and WP:IDHTing, you're likely to end up blocked before too long. EEng 05:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was clear the first time. You reverted an edit with an "agnostic" reason and then when approached with the relevant policy in the talk page, you imply the other editor should be blocked. "Wow" is not a reasoned reply. If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Bright☀ 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You're on a roll at the moment but arguing and arguing over "u" is absurd—that kind of approach is not compatible with a long-term career at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Otherwise it seems you're just gloating that you have a "long-term career at Wikipedia". Bright☀ 07:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Classic Passive-aggressive behavior. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL. If you can't address the issue don't comment, and in particular don't make personal attacks. Bright☀ 08:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You could also read my post of 17 July 2017 on this page. My simple advice is - drop it. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I read your post, what does it have to do with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR or this edit? You made a comment that can be construed as WP:PERSONAL and then direct to an unrelated reply, an explanation would be helpful. Bright☀ 08:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Addition to wording of "No personal attacks or harassment" section

Scout MLG made an edit that I reverted for technical reasons but could be something to discuss adding. The addition was to the last line of the section and added the Wikipedia linked term of bans. Since the term generally means a site ban, I thought perhaps wording it a little more precisely might be an improvement. Many, if not most bans are decided for more than just an editor's conduct with others but also a pattern of editing and long term abuse. A legal threat generally receives an indefinite block and can lead to talk page editing being revoked but the most common type of ban used for harassment or continued personal attacks or disruption by both editors is an interaction ban. There is surely more to consider. Any thoughts, suggestions, or comments?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I can think of situations where an otherwise good editor might receive a community-imposed site ban for repeated personal attacks. ~Awilley (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)