Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks
Latest comment: 14 years ago by GoodDay in topic Comment by GoodDay
Archive 1

Initial rationale

Latest comment: 14 years ago88 comments27 people in discussion

Now that I've returned and have really started to get involved on AN/I (never thought I would...) I've noticed that we don't really have a consistent response to blocking editors due to incivility and personal attacks.

I was wondering if administrators would find it valuable to have a new policy to clarify matters in regards to this area? I was thinking of creating a new policy proposal Wikipedia:Incivility blocks, which would set out what should be done before blocking an editor for egregious personal attacks, etc., a guide to the length of time for the block and other enforcable ways of preventing this sort of behaviour.

I think this would also be valuable because while conflicts about the content of articles are frequent, I've seen that these problems become much worse when another editor makes comments of a personal nature against the other editor, which the other editor takes um-bridge to and of course retaliates. This has become a much, much worse problem on a whole range of articles than when I last edited a few years ago. I do think that this problem needs to be tackled in a better way, and this is one way I'm proposing we do it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Does sound like a good idea to have a consistent response in place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not an admin, but I think this sounds like a genuinely good idea. Sometimes, much as I hate to say it, you just have to let it go, but I've seen some attacks which are quite egregious and nothing short of an assault on the character of the editor, which, obviously, does not make for a healthy environment in which to build an encyclopaedia. I think codifying it so there's a general standards that admins can refer to could provide useful guidance and, hopefully, deter attacks. It seems sensible to me to start with a block of around 24 hours for a single egregious attack where the editor doesn't have a history of such attacks with blocks getting longer, leading up to an indef where there's an obvious long term pattern. These could be complimented with community bans on interaction if required. Anything that shows that personal attacks will not be tolerated and that NPA is not just a hollow acronym that people throw around can only be a good thing if you ask me. HJMitchell You rang? 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
All right... well, I'll leave this here for other admins to have a chance to review before I start anything. But one thing that I'm also considering is whether such a thing would be better as a guideline or whether it should be a policy. After all, we already have the policy WP:NPA, so editors are aware that they shouldn't be doing this. A guideline would allow administrators enough leeway to use their commonsense, but to either know where the boundaries lie, or at least have a better idea when it's OK to block an editor. Thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No policy will work unless it works in the case of Giano. Good luck with that... Guy (Help!) 12:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I missed something in my retirement. What does this mean? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Look over there for some background. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Er... someone want to give me the potted version? Sheesh - that's a wall of text and clicking on the related links leads me to a 2006 archived page with is greater than about 100K... I'm happy to be emailed if this is super controversial. I suspect that I missed everything while I was research about the USA PATRIOT Act. Not sure I've missed anything worthwhile though. Still, if this is going to get in the way of this proposal, any summary of the events might be helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Basically, there are 3 factions. Faction 1: Giano's lack of civility is a disruption and we must get rid of him. Faction 2: Giano is an excellent content editor and we must ignore much of his incivility in order to keep him at all costs. Faction 3: Giano is a great content editor, but that does not give him a pass on civility; however, we have no mechanism in place for vested contributors with civility issues and so Somebody Else is going to have to deal with this. Guy, would you agree with that explanation? GJC 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Spot on. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
              • That's basically the problem. What to do with people who don't get along with other editors, yet still make fantastic content contributions. On the one hand, this is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, so being "nice" should take a back seat to developing articles. On the other hand, this is a collaboration and anyone who can't cooperate with other people gets in the way of article development (nobody edits in a vacuum). It's like having a cat that catches mice but claws up your furniture. Do you put up with it? It depends on how bad your mice problem is, and how nice your furniture is. -- Atama頭 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Well... the problem is that if many potentially and actually excellent contributors are offended and chased off by one excellent contributor, then it's a real problem. And if that "excellent" contributor needs to win article arguments by using incivility and personal attacks, I have to wonder whether the article is being skewed if that editor gains the upper hand through such a means. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • (ec) Um, it's a bit more complex than that -- but not much more. There's the issue that (from what I've seen) Giano has an acid tongue, & if he thinks you're a moron he'll tell you so quite bluntly. Then there's the issue that if he's put under restrictions, then the folk who hang around Wikipedia who find it too hard to contribute content, &/or find WikiGnoming too dull poke at him until he violates his restrictions. Lastly (& perhaps most importantly), there's the issue that even if Giano was permanently banned from Wikipedia, this problem would not be solved: most -- if not all -- Wikipedians in good standing don't respect every other Wikipedian in good standing. Or to put it in personal terms, I sincerely think there are a few Wikipedians whose best contribution to the project would not only be to leave it, but to get the fuck off the Internet. (And I'd be very surprised if there was no other established editor in good standing who did not feel the same way.) However, unlike Giano I'm content to ignore them because either (1) their behavior will eventually get them permanently banned from Wikipedia; or (2) they do enough valuable work that I can tolerate their presence. (It also helps if we work in different content areas.) In brief, if there was only one Giano, the Wikipedia community could handle that; but Giano is only the best-known example of a systemic problem which we haven't found a solution for, & may end up destroying the project. (And no, I don't know of a solution beyond being extra nice to people in inverse proportion to your desire that she/he FOADs.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
              • As the (Un)Official Giano Proponent Admin, I should point out there is the fourth viewpoint - that Giano's non article commentary and actions has been perceived to be anathema to "the powers that be" (them again, they nobbled my horse too!) and some people who think they are part of that grouping, or want to be part of that grouping, have proposed or enacted sanctions or made comments or opinionated, that are most charitably described as ill judged. There is now instances that when people ask for examples of situations within WP that require addressing that Giano is invoked - a totem rather than an editor who might have been dealt with more appropriately than when he first contributed outside of article space... Oh, and I fully understand that my comments and stance in this issue makes me part of the "Giano problem". There you go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                • (edit conflict) It's always been the problem. I have no idea how to fix it, but I am completely serious when I say that, in my view, if any proposal does not get Giano on side then it will fail. Any policy that attempts to judge interaction here by standards that Movie Mom would endorse is doomed before it even starts, we are not Conservapedia and thank God for that. As has been pointed out before, the last unforgivable swearword in England is stated to be a term of endearment in some parts of Australia. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • Good thing I'm an Aussie then, huh? :P - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • (humor) Actually, no policy is really worth anything until someone proposes blocking Jimbo :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • Well, if the policy needs to get Giano "on side" (that's an Anglicism I don't recognize -- do you mean a policy that he can live with & gets him to act in a manner most of us consider productive?) perhaps we should invite him to discuss the matter. Only a complete misanthrope would decline an invitation to share his thoughts on the matter, & a complete misanthrope would not want anything to do with Wikipedia -- either to contribute content or to even read. ("People are stupid -- why do I want to participate in one more example of their stupidity?") -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Great idea. The issue has been fought again and again here, at Arbcom, at RfCs, WQA, and via wheel wars. If we can actually agree on a procedureal policy (or an addition to WP:BLOCK) then hopefully we can at least have a consistent standard. It will be hard and people will have lots of opinions, but I think the consensus process can work well here. The fact that we have a policy could cut both ways. It could range all the way from "we don't do incivility blocks" to "civility is a 5P and should be vigorously enforced regardless of an editor's content contributions, including immediate blocks without warning for extreme cases." At least we'll know which it is, and a constructive discussion aimed at reaching agreement would be helpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I endorse this idea too. There ought to be a guideline to cover proper enforcement of the core civility policy. I suggest that it may be best to ignore the special issues related to Giano, as he is an exception.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. Having a specific page about this to discuss it and bring it all together will hopefully be constructive and a positive improvement to alternative past practices of double-standards. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a spot of irony. I'm going to have to put this on hold for about a week after proposing it, because I'm about to become a father (again) on Monday. But please, the more discussion here the better so I can work out what to put in the proposed policy. :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Best of luck for you, your SO, and your upcoming child.
Back on topic, for consideration, we've had (mostly my) essay Wikipedia:Civility warnings for about 10 months now. It has neither raised substantial objections nor been widely adopted, to date. But it may be useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah! I'm reading this, but so far this is an awesome summary of everything I've ever thought about NPA and civility issues on Wikipedia! I think if we could distill this guideline into a more concise set of steps or procedures then this might be the way forward on this one. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I really like what you wrote at Wikipedia:Civility_warnings#What_civility_warnings_are_not_for. Separating the validity of a content argument from the way the argument is phrased seems a very important point. In current practice, an incivility block is often the end of the argument, and complaints about incivility are sometimes used as part of gamesmanship, leaving a sour taste. I believe that as long as such gamesmanship works, and people can find an admin who will block, no questions asked, a significant part of the community will always want someone like Giano around who says it "as it is", and does not play the "politically correct" game. He fulfils a function. Try Court_jester#Political_significance, or Robin Hood vs. Sheriff_of_Nottingham.
In cases where people have a good-faith content concern, I believe it is a far better idea to mediate, warn and talk people down from their soapbox than to block them outright when their POV opponent reports them for swearing. While I don't doubt that a block can be salutary, our system at AN/I is biased against trying diplomatic means. --JN466 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) We had a specific board for this once. It's called WP:PAIN. It was remaindered quite some time ago by community consensus. Perhaps it is time to resurrect it? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I want to voice my full support for an effort like this. I've been watching a lot of Deadliest Catch lately, and they keep talking about how when one crab dies in the hold, it releases a toxin that kills all the crabs around it -- who then spread their toxin to those around them. I see incivility in the same way -- a poison that spreads throughout the community.
    There's absolutely no defense for incivility. Ever. It's like saying "I have to punch people once in a while." You don't. You may need to argue at times, but you never need to argue with fists.
    That said, there is a gray area between being argumentative (which is permissible, even necessary) and being belligerent. Normally, the ideal way of testing which is which is to have the community evaluate the specifics. However, where users are concerned, the community tends to be very partisan, which is what causes editors with allies to be given a pass for behavior that would get a newbie blocked. How do we isolate editor behavior from editor status?
    One way I can think of is to draw up a list of specific behaviors that are felt to be actionably uncivil by most of the community. That would at least give us a baseline. Partisans would still interpret behavior as matching or not matching the list, however, according to their bias. How do we achieve impartial enforcement of incivility blocks? Admins aren't tested for their impartiality, so admins are just as partisan as regular users (if not more so, given that they're usually veterans with many established alliances and enmities). I wouldn't want to start a whole new bureaucracy (and user class) of "impartial admins". As it is, we have wikiquette alerts, which is rarely functional, despite its commendable intent.
    So what's possible? Perhaps we could offer admins a wide berth in handing out incivility blocks -- provided they were willing to counsel as a first step, warn as a second resort, and block only if those failed, and could demonstrate no prior involvement in the issue or with the parties. (Admins with any involvement would be expected to neither block nor unblock.) Would an approach like that offer hope of improvement over the current situation?--Father Goose (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy drafting

OK... I read down to GJC's Giamo summary, and I feel that NPA is mandatory, no matter who you are... but I would like to comment on the original post that I would absolutely love to see slightly more strict civility blocking policy... I have had quite a few times that an incivil troll would stalk me through 4 or 5 blocks (12 hours, 1 day, 3 days, a week, 2 weeks, etc.) until I finally had to break down and yell at an admin to get them blocked (no offence said blocking admins) to get the offender indef'd... Sadly, I am falling asleep, but will be back tomorrow to read more (and George's essay), and give the second half of my 2 cents... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

George's essay is actually quite excellent and one of the best guides I've seen in de-escalation of disputes where personal attacks and incivility is occuring. I think that the policy should definitely refer to this essay, which allows us the leeway to make modifications to the essay as necessary, which can be used as a guideline for ways to warn. What the civility block policy can do is give a concrete procedure that guides an admin in starting the process of raising a civility warning, then to further warning escalations till finally it gets to the blocking stage. It has been suggested to me that we should also incorporate WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility, into its own policy but that gives further clarity on what to block for and how to block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Trolls can be blocked for trolling. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you are) the old days when admins would just do that are gone, these days blocking a self-evident troll for trolling will simply result in a month of wikilawyering and the descent of every user who has a grudge against any admin baying about the evil cabal. Better to ignore them. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This section was very disheartening to read. I see JzG whining about Giano's lack of civility, and yet JzG has been historically one of the surliest jackasses in Wikipedia's history. The hypocrisy is mind boggling. Which leads into the more germane point; heated discussions happen sometime, and far too often admins will get a pass on their "incivility", while those who "speak truth to power" get slammed with a block. Giano's "civility" problems are regularly exaggerated by people on the losing end of his arguments. They can't win with rational discussion so they turn to bait-n-block. "Civility" is a highly subjective call that lends itself to misuse. --TungstenCarbide XIII (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... sometimes JzG flies a bit close to the wire, I agree. However, it's pretty incivil to call him "one of the surliest jackasses in Wikipedia's history". After all, have you ever reviewed my old edit history? I think that you are being unfair to myself - surely at certain points I have been a valid candidate? And of course, right now it seems a bit like you might be trying to reach for the surly jackass crown - keep going that way and I think we'll be bestowing this sort of honour on you quite soon! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
"right now it seems a bit like you might be trying to reach for the surly jackass crown". No, just honestly speaking my mind and hoping something good comes of it. --TungstenCarbide XIII (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Scope

I think we firstly need to clarify the scope of this policy. I think that at a minimum it needs to cover:

  • What is a blockable offense. This is already spelled out in WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility. They are:
    1. WP:NPA
    2. WP:OUTING
    3. WP:HARASS
    4. WP:DISRUPTION
  • How many warnings, and how they should be delivered (i.e. to the talk page?) and the manner in which they are warned (refer to George's essay seems like the best way forward here).
  • How long to block after warnings fail.
  • If after block further violations occur, what do we do?

I'm also thinking that we need to spell out another blockable offense, which is somewhat related to both NPA and the disruption policy but doesn't quite fit with each of the policies. The behaviour I've been noticing is when an editor make comments that include the topic of conversation, but inter-splice it with complaints and personal comments about other editors. That really needs to be stopped, because if there's anything I've seen that derails conducive and collaborative editing, it's this sort of comment. This is because the other party often doesn't look at the facts that are presented and often focuses on the personal comments. The other editor then uses this to try to get the upper hand because they can then point to the fact that they have been discussing the topic, but really their language causes the other party to focus on the personal and often hurtful comments they have made.

What do people think? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Anything based on warning counts is an open invitation to gaming the system, either by placing vexatious warnings or by claiming that no action can be taken until the requester has brought forth two shrubberies and chopped down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, a fair point. But we really need some sort of way of knowing that the editor has at least been warned about their behaviour before we block, because we often need to consider either that they are a newbie or they are human and have just gotten involved in a topic they are passionate about. Obviously there is a good deal of commonsense to be used here, but it would be good to have some guidelines that admins can use when it comes to incivility. What do you suggest? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, warnings can be a useful indication about the individual, if interpreted with intelligence. Say X acts incivil, & receives a warning. If the warning is deleted & X continues without changing ways, an experienced Wikipedian will see the pattern. Or if X ignores the warning & continues without changing ways... Or if X changes ways & the behavior is no longer an issue, we'd be able to move on. The problem is that too many people want to be able to check off the boxes in order to handle troublemakers, which can be easily gamed. -- llywrch (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If I can throw in a comment (I'm not an admin, but I am uppity  ). I think that probably the best way to handle this is on the 'parking ticket' model: rigidly predefined, non-escalating, incontestable, and with literally no concern for context. so for example, say you all decide there should be a 24 hour block for a particular act of incivility: that means that anyone who commits that act of incivility gets a 24 hour block, period. It doesn't matter if they couched the incivility inside more topic-specific comments; doesn't matter how mild or severe the act was; doesn't matter if they are IPs or newbies or experienced editors; doesn't matter who their friends are or what anyone says; doesn't matter if it's the first offense or the tenth. they pay the 24 hour fine in full, and then everyone forgets about it. You don't even need to worry about warnings - just make the first civility block a person gets short (say 30 minutes), and have the first block template say "You've been blocked for this statement - ... - for 30 minutes as a warning. All future blocks for incivility will be 24 hours in duration. There is no mechanism for appeal." Nobody will like it - everyone hates parking tickets, that's a human universal - but as long as it's applied blindly and evenly everyone will put up with it, and it will be a very effective tool. --Ludwigs2 08:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah... I was considering something like that. A thirty minute block has merits. It's sort of like a shot across the bows of an attacker to let them know that we're serious. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Blockable offenses

I think that we've all agreed that the scope of the policy is pretty much what I specified above. So now the next bit is to draft the individual sections. I'm pretty certain that blockable offenses will be easy to come to an agreement on, but I'll note this here and give it a while for everyone to comment further on what they feel should be part of the reasons for a block.

I believe that the following would be a reason for an incivility block:

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:OUTING
  3. WP:HARASS
  4. WP:DISRUPTION
  5. Baiting, by interspersing insults/incivil comments with factual statements about the argument. i.e. "You are a moron because the moon landing occured in 1953, not in 1962 as you changed the article to."

Is there anything I'm missing here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • the only thing I can think of (which may or may not be a separate issue) is indirect incivility - e.g. where editor X says to editor Y: "Don't pay attention to editor Z, he's just a POV-pushing troll". Might fit under baiting or NPA, or it might be worthy of consideration on its own. --Ludwigs2 03:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not that sure whether I would include this here... though that is certainly incivil. I think that communication between editors will happen on the wiki, or outside of the wiki regardless of what we do. It would probably be better to have this isolated to happen within the wiki where it's all in the open, but this is really one area where admin commonsense comes into the equation. Others may feel differently, I'm not really too concerned how this goes one way or another. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement

Warnings/alerts

That seems to make sense from where I'm standing (or sitting). I would suggest one warning would be sufficient, such as the standard 4im for personal attacks:

"  This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "

and then blocks increasing in length (start with 24 hours move up to 48hrs, 1 week, 2 weeks, one month and, eventually, an indef). HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah... well, that wasn't really what I was asking about above, but I'll run with this and start off a new section :-) This seems like a reasonable solution to the problem of gaming the system, and providing enough notice that the editor has been made aware of the issue.
However... I think we should give them the opportunity to discuss the matter. My thoughts are that we should also create a Wikiquette discussion, then link to the etiquette discussion in the template. This gives them a chance to discuss how what the issue is with their behaviour and also gives the rest of the community a chance to see that there is a problem.
My other thought is that the first block should be for only a short period of time. If the second personal attack was made within the hour, then for the second violation of civility then we only give 30 minutes or maybe an hour. I would consider this to be reasonable, and would be like a "shot across the bows" that shows the editor we are quite serious about preventing incivil behaviour. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That also makes sense. A stern warning followed by a block, even one of half an hour, definitely shows this kind of thing is taken seriously and codifying gives a widely accepted standard for admins to follow and for people to refer to. That said, I think there are some attacks which are particularly egregious (especially those that fall under the scope of outing and NLT but others which are especially unpleasant) which merit longer blocks. I agree though, that this could (and hopefully will be) an excellent way of dealing with incivility and attacks and hopefully even deter them. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA says this, "...comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." The template proposed above is too restrictive, it suggests that commenting on an editor's actions is incivility. One more thing, I was involved in a dispute with an editor who said things like, "your actions are those of a racist..." which I would consider to be a clear violation of the first clause of Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks. I discussed it with admins and they said that a comment like that was not enough to get someone blocked for incivility. I think that whole section needs to be expanded and clarified because at least, where I come from, calling someone a racist is taking the gloves off. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Could I ask where you discussed this? Because I don't really agree with them... this is arguing the man, not the content. However, without knowing the context I can't really say why they said it. For instance, if it was a request for comment, then I think it would be fine to comment on whether someone's actions are racist. However, if you are in the middle of a debate and someone throws in the race card, then that would usually not be helpful or constructive. I think that we need to make it clear that we give admins a bit of lattitude when it comes to making decisions, because situations differ and admins often need to use their commonsense (which is really the point behind WP:IAR). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unruled_Paper_(film)&oldid=234040491 - This is a link to where he called another editor a racist (search for the word "racist" on the page, it comes up a lot). I had a bunch of discussions on several pages with him including his talk page, an admin's talk page, and an ANI post, and I can't remember where he specifically called me a racist. But it was pretty much like this. Basically someone thought his writing was plagiarized so he called them a racist. I was told that, "Incivility is hard to block for, as what people consider incivil is dramatically different; you really need a ranting foaming at the mouth ALL CAPS FUCKTARD rant before everyone will be in agreement." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
David is right - it is currently hard to block for incivility. But I think that's because nobody is quite sure whether they can, or if they can how long they should block for. That's what this is trying to address. And I'm sorry that you got called a racist by another editor who didn't get anything for it - that's clearly not on and if I had been around then and I'd seen this situation, I would have stepped in. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No worries, it was awhile ago and he got blocked anyway for legal threats for a few weeks. Just saying that'd whatever decision you guys make regarding what is blockable, I hope it includes this kind of behavior. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this policy will be addressing this point, I'm afraid. But if you see this sort of thing again, note it on WP:AN/I and I'm sure we can get a bunch of admins have a productive discussion to work something out. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Length of block

I think we need to provide consistency in the length of time we block for. I'm seeing a number of editors who are blocked indefinitely, but then I see other editors who get repeated warnings and only short blocks. The length of blocking seems a bit arbitrary to me, so I think we need to get some harder block times around this sort of thing.

Firstly, I want to emphasise that blocking is not something any admin should take lightly. In fact, it's a real shame we even have to block editors - in a perfect world this incivility policy wouldn't be required. Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world and because of our low barrier to entry, coupled with a desire to write about any and every controversial topic we tend to attract a fair amount of tendentious editors, nutcases, cranks and the just plain nasty. Of course, we also attract ordinary editors (which is what we want!) who, for whatever reason, may have a particular viewpoint or passion that can cause them to act out of character and act in an incivil manner.

Consequently, I believe that we need to start out slowly when blocking. This does tie in with the above section, which is how to alert the editor, so I won't go into that aspect very much. Suffice to say that if the editor has been sufficiently warned that their behaviour is out of line, then my thoughts are:

  1. If the admin has noticed that the behaviour has occured within the last 45 minutes, then I suggest that we block them for an hour and leave a note on their talk page that they have been blocked because they have not modified the way they contribute to Wikipedia. I call this the "shot across the bows" block. Basically it doesn't do any real lasting damage (it's only an hour), but it certainly shows we mean business. Hopefully at this point they will realise that they need to change their behaviour.
  2. If the shot across the bows doesn't work, or if the last attack was done longer than 45 minutes ago, then I suggest we block for a day, again with a note explaining that we find their behaviour unacceptable, point them to the appropriate policies and politely explain that we regret having to make the block, but this is necessary to protect the project. Then we note that we hope that after the block they will have considered their behaviour and will have ceased the incivility/personal attacks.
  3. If that doesn't work, then block for a week - again with a note, but this time explaining slightly more bluntly (but politely) that they are getting quite disruptive and making contributing unpleasant for other editors.
  4. If that doesn't work, then we block for a month. This will be accompanied with a note on their talk page that says that this is their final block before they are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.
  5. If that does not work, then they've had enough chances and we indefinitely blocked.

Now I think this graduating block level is useful because not only is it fair, but it also gives editors a chance to understand that they can't get away with incivility or attacks. I think, but can't say for certain, that we will often be pleasantly suprised that the editor may change their ways. However, if they don't change how they edit, then this gives us a chance to basically boot out the most egregious attackers. Honestly, if they get to point 4 then I really don't think we want them to edit Wikipedia.

The only other aspect of this is that it doesn't take into account topic bans. Maybe we can incorporate something similiar for this sort of situation.

Again, thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree, but do not understand why punishment for the same offence should be increased 24fold simply because the admins weren't looking when it happened. WFCforLife (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah... sorry, I should have explained why. The reason for the 1 hour long block is to make life a bit inconvinient for the offender. If the offender has not edited within about 45 minutes, then I'd say that there is a good chance that they have logged off for the day and an hour long block won't be noticed. That's my reasoning behind this. There's no point firing a shot across the bows of a ship that has no pirates, after all :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
well, they will still see the block notice on their talk page, and see the block in their logs, so the warning shot will have served its purpose...
that being said, I still (personally) don't like the idea of escalating blocks. I think escalating blocks will lead to a different kind of gamesmanship (e.g., are me and my three friends willing to take 24 hours each in order to game that guy into getting blocked for a month?). I think these blocks should be just painful enough to be an aggravation, but shouldn't be viewed as steps to some bigger punishment. they shouldn't even interfere with the editing process too much, but be more like a time-out. assume that anyone and everyone will slip occasionally, and when they do they get 24 hours away from wikipedia to think about it, and then we can all forget about it. problem cases (where editors are repeatedly and persistently getting themselves 24 hour blocks) can be reviewed independently, and more severe action can be taken then, but in those cases the damage is so minor - at most they'll be making a couple of uncivil comments per day, and getting blocked for each - that there won't be any hurry to rush to judgement.
put anther way, I think this should be viewed as sting to encouragement people to play nice, not as a tool for weeding out undesirables. my 2¢ worth. --Ludwigs2 05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, totally agreed on the undesirables point! Sorry, that was just an aside - my only point was that if by the time you get blocked for a month and you still don't get it then you really can't edit here! I think pretty much everyone would agree with this.
The reason that I think that escalating blocks will work is because currently we have the ridiculous situation whereby somebody is reported on AN/I for civility issues and an admin blocks for ages, but then the editor appeals and of course many times the block seems too long so they either get unblocked or the block is lessened. At this point the editor feels emboldened and of course comes back worse than ever. If anything, they are gaming the system because it is currently so chaotic.
One thing that the policy should include, however, is a general commonsense clause (similar to IAR) that says that admins are given considerable leeway for decisions, and if it is felt that the editor is using the policy to game the system then they will be blocked for disruption. I think, however, that those who game this system will be quickly rooted out and we'll know who they are. Really, this policy is not for those who would game the system - by and large they are only small in number. Most of the incidents I see on AN/I and Wikiquette alerts are actually editors who have a vested interest or are passionate in a particular topic, and feel that others are wrong so therefore they can abuse them at will. These sort of editors are the ones that we need to target and address, and I think this method would do the job admirably.
Addressing the 1 hour long block, this was just an idea I was putting out there. I still think the blocking for an hour is still valid, but perhaps the idea that doing this in the first 45 minutes has flaws and shouldn't be used. You are right, of course, that they will know that they were blocked for an hour from their talk page, but also the block log would record that this happened and any further admin would be able to know that this has occured, which could only help them. So I'm happy to drop the whole 45 minute idea :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, but I agree with this policy, although I think that the length of the block should also depend on how the user insulted the other user. So for example, if a user swears at another user, the block length should be longer, but if the insult is just a mild one, maybe the block wouldn't have to be as long. Blocks should also be longest if the user endangers the other person's life (what I mean is by telling the user's personal information, which could be considered a personal attack), whether or not the personal information is true. Mild insults would probably have the same block length. Swearing would be about 2 or 3 hours (for the first block length), 2 or 3 days (for the second block length), a week and a half (for the third block length), a month and a half (for the fourth block length), and maybe stay indefinitely (for the fifth block length). However, maybe if the user is blocked for a day due to the second block length part (of the insult being more than 45 minutes ago), the second block length should probably occur twice if the user insults people again. Also, if the user tells personal information (whether or not it's true), it should be about a week for the first block length, a month for the second, half a year for the third, a year for the fourth, and indefinitely for the fifth. Remember that this shouldn't be done if a user tells their own personal information. Also, those block lengths may seem harsh, but that's because telling personal information is very serious. Those are just suggestions, so if you want to make the lengths shorter or longer, you can. --Hadger 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The only difficulty in such a scheme is determining what is more severe. I think that could lead to people gaming the system - I can envisiage someone making milder insults that would nonetheless tend to derail productive discourse on article talk pages. I think that having shorter blocks that progressively get longer, with a reasonable reset time for each block level, would largely put a stop to that.
I'm definitely in agreement about anything where another editor endangers or threatens another editor, however in those cases I'd be doing a severe block that is outside of this policy, which I don't think really covers this situation. There is a bit of overlap with this policy and outing, but I think that the outing policy should only be applied when you can clearly see that an editor is digging around for someone's identity but hasn't made much headway. At the point they find the information and actually out the person, then they should be blocked for a reasonably lengthy period of time. I would not apply graduated blocks to that sort of situation, mainly because of the gravity of the action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't know it had nothing to do with this policy, but even though, then if the user tells personal information about another user, they should be warned a smaller amount of times (maybe 2 or 3 warnings, because, like I said, telling another user's personal information is very serious). --Hadger 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it sort of is part of this, under WP:OUTING, but we've not yet worked out the scope of the causes for blocking. I think that if another editor is outed involuntarily by another party that we should be cracking down very hard on the one doing the outing. I would personally not give any warnings whatsoever for outing attacks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm repeated what others have said (I didn't entirely read the above), but one thing to be mindful of is that our blocks should always be preventative. In other words, we should block for only as long as needed to quell the disruption (in this case, the personal attacks, harassment, and gross incivility.) The problem therein is "how long". Most of the "problem cases" discussed (Giano, Malleus, et al) are firmly entrenched in their behavior, in part because a segment of the community agrees with them. So even if they remained blocked for term, they are highly unlikely to see the error of their ways and will be back to it in no time. So then how long a block would we need for such chronic incivility? (Which is the only reason I really see for this policy; most newer contributors are much more likely to get punted and for longer periods.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Application to all Users

Though I'm hoping this is common sense I don't see much above. Anything in writing really needs to state that the policy and blocks are equally applicable to all users anywhere in the system. No more de facto immunity as a long-time contributor, widely-known name or evasion via reply spam on any incident filings. The user's history on content and the like would, however, be a reasonable part of an unblock request on the assumption of good faith per "okay, we all know they know better" (Though this wouldn't be in writing since already a known). I admit in advance that no consensus on including anything even close to this could ever come to fruition since any discussion would become an unmoderated mess to sort out just like all discussions regarding any blocks of admins ever for any reason already are. Even so, would anyone care to claim that the collective community would not like equal standards of incivility-- and especially incivility enhanced by use of any tools-- be enforced and applied to everyone on the whole scale? Again, I know it'll never happen and since virtually all !votes given in any discussions on this stuff are persons with a direct conflict of interest or are basing opinions because of social contacts. Even if agreed upon, it would be even more impossible to write anything that didn't prevent unblocks 2 minutes later without reason with an easy message sent off to a few people. Let me dream, at least. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. NPA applies to admins and non-admins alike. So does 3RR, NPOV and NOR. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
well, as someone who's been on the receiving end of incivility gamesmanship, I don't like the unblock request option, period. I'm sorry, but that is a typical feature of some of the most uncivil editors I've run across on wikipedia - they have a number of good friends who flood any ANI thread with pleas, excuses, angry rants, and etc, with the result that their fair-haired troll gets blocks that are lifted so quickly it's tantamount to saying the blocking admin made a mistake. heck, in my own experience (back when I first started here) I had a well-established editor who followed me across several pages for three or four days, making numerous overtly insulting comments about me and my edits. I can't even list out all the policies that behavior violates (harassment, stalking, and incivility, for starters) - his 'punishment' was that he got a more or less politely-worded warning (and even that was a risk, because the admin who warned him got hit with a raft of angry talk-page comments). this, considering that if I had made even one of his comments I'd have gotten a three day block. If you really want to include unblock requests, then it ought to be set up like parole - there's a certain minimum time (say 30%-50% of the standard length) that needs to pass before any request will be considered, and if they do get unblocked they are are on zero tolerance for the remainder of he block period (i.e. one episode of the thing they got blocked for will put them right back in block for the remainder of the time). sorry, bit of a touchy issue for me. that experience almost turned me into a hard-assed wiki-cynic, as opposed to the amusing and genteel creature you see before you now.  . --Ludwigs2 12:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with the essence of that. If somebody ignores an incivility warning and ends up blocked for it, they should serve it out, regardless of whether they're a 'crat or not even autoconfirmed. My hope is that a policy like this will prevent that kind of ANI flooding and disingenuous appealing- it'll be one of those "bright line" rules like the 3RR and if you break it, you just have to take the consequences. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 13:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
To clarify an above concern, I would love if there were some way to forbid the "clique unblock", but I just can't think of anyway at all it could be worded such that it could ever be enforced, and if written in a very generic and blanketing manner it would be impossible to prove during attempts of enforcement. I too cannot stand anyone that can escape a block like this. Also, I was trying to extend my logic from above about participation in such discussions being from involved admins, and TLDR overload is quick on issues sensitive to some admins. ...But damn right things like 3RR/edit warring and other really basic things that other users are blocked for should apply. Just that it very rarely happens (at best, on a good day, during a blue moon, when the planets align). At the very least I'd like to see a place where any user with blocking rights be required to post a rationale for any and all unblocks of others in the same category. The community already hates this enough so it'd be nice if we could point them somewhere to read what was being done and why so admins might be held responsible on questionable actions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As a response to both daTheison and Ludwigs2, I hear you. However, blocking application is probably a different issue here - personally I would make the difficult call and block any admin who makes personal attacks if I could follow something that gave clarity over when and for how long to block for. Even if I know the admin. I've not really found that many admins who I can think I'd need to do this to... but I would definitely do it if I came across it. That's why I have the difficult blocks userbox. What really helps here, however, is that if we can formalize our response to civility problems in such a way that it's clear to all and sundry that we've been fair and consistent. Having this policy would definitely be a start, and IMO it will make it much easier to apply a consistent and reasonable block to any editor who is being incivil. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • While I am all for users acting like civilized adults and not resorting to childish name calling, etc, this isn't going to work as it is framed now. Here's why: You can't just say "a personal attack=1 week block" or whatever. Why? Because there are different forms and levels of personal attack that merit different responses. Saying "that user is an idiot" is not the same as saying "that user is a worthless fucking douchebag and I'm going to cut off his head and crap down the neck hole before I ass rape them." See the difference? That's why the "speeding ticket" model doesn't work. There's no "radar gun" besides our own judgement to tell us how fast the car was going. No way would I block someone for just calling another user an idiot, if it wasn't part of a pattern of attacks, but the other remark would warrant an indef hardblock just on it's own. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Another thought: admins aren't really the "cops" of Wikipedia, they are more like the local magistrate. Vandal fighters and other users are the cops, they find the offenders and report them, and admins judge the seriousness of those offenses, including if they were given adequate warning to stop, and make a judgement based on that. Yes, it's inconsistent, sometimes people who don't deserve it get blocked, and sometimes nasty trolls get unblocked and are free to be jerks once again. It's not perfect, but it relies on judgement which admins are supposed to have. If we make some byzantine system of "sentencing guidelines" then we take the admins ability to make those judgements away. They would no longer be able to do things on a case-by-case basis, but would be forced to follow the "book." Wikipedia already has a system of rules/policies/guidelines/essays that are defacto policies to rival even California. Let's not make it worse by trying to codify this. On the other hand, I solidly agree that no amount of good contribs excuses prolonged nasty remarks and attacks, and experienced users who continue to make them in the face of repeated warnings to stop should be treated like any other troll/vandal/jerk. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)::I take your point, but I think the intention of this proposal is to deal with the more borderline cases- to show that incivility will not be tolerated. Calling somebody an idiot would merit a warning and then a brief block if the behaviour continues and admins or the blocked editor can refer to this, which would hopefully provide clear, codified guidance. In your other example, the attacker is clearly making threats of violence, for which any admin in their right mind would hopefully indef. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 21:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
it's 'parking ticket' not 'speeding ticket' - in my state, if you park in a handicapped zone you get a $275 fine - same rule applies to scooter-driving busboys and SUV-driving CEOs. The thought here is that garden variety incivility is just one of those things that happen because we're human and don't always think clearly - the penalty is a sharp reminder to pay more attention the next time. of course, if someone parks in a H-zone and then starts waving a gun around, he's going to get more than a fine; the incivility of threatening to cut someone's head off and ass-rape them is probably going to be overlooked by any admin trying to deal with the homicidal rage implicit in the statement. to that extent you're right - we ought to spell out both upper-limit and lower-limit criteria (what statements - e.g. general sarcasm - are too mild to be punished, and what statements - e.g. actual threats - are too major to be considered mere incivility). within those bounds, though, I do think penalties should be (as daTheisen put it) bright line rules, clear cut and uniform. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I applaud Tbsdy's proposal. I agree that Wikipedia should attach consequences to an editor's being repeatedly blocked. I agree that Wikipedia should expel editors who are not here to help the project.
That being said, I would make a distinction between insult and the other types of misconduct. In the case of insults, I would put more steps in the process toward banning. I consider an insult less serious than, for example, disruptive editing. Disruptive editing causes visitors to Wikipedia to see a spoiled article. By contrast, an insult may not affect an article at all, or an insult may preserve a good article. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to have one block-log for insults, and another block-log for disruptive editing. PYRRHON  talk   03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen so many insults that have disrupted the flow of articles that it's hard to count them... I also have to disagree with Beeblebrox. The judgement that incivil conduct has occured is obviously up to the good judgement of administrators, but there should be consistency in the way that we warn and block. I think that most people would agree that it's quite inconsistent at the moment. Most editors won't need to have this applied to them as they are quite good at editing, it's only really a very small number of people who cause us these problems. This policy helps show that we have a low tolerance for this sort of behaviour.
And I would argue that saying "that editor is an idiot" should be seen as just as incivil as "that user is a worthless fucking douchebag and I'm going to cut off his head and crap down the neck hole before I ass rape them", because both show ill-intent and argue the editor, not their content. This is the sort of thing that we are trying to stop on Wikipedia, and I would consider blocking an editor who used such language, even if you would not. So would a lot of other admins.
As for it being "byzantine", I can't see how that is the case. First provide warnings, then do a short block to get their attention. Then block for a day, then a week, then a month and then indefinitely. Why is this is difficult to understand? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
well, again, we need to take care with the escalation (I really dislike this escalation - it adds so many needless complexities). for instance, let's say someone get in a tiff on some page and ends up with a 24 hour block. after that they edit happily and productively until (5 months later) someone new says something that ticks them off and they call that new editor an idiot. a week's block in that case is absurd, no? there's got to be some escape valve or reset button for occasional incivility, otherwise everyone on wikipedia is going to end up indef blocked - no one is above losing their temper every now and then. --Ludwigs2 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't think of that... I'm 100% in agreement with you on this one, we definitely need a release mechanism here. What do you suggest? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
well, under the escalation model, you'd probably want a progressive or an absolute expiration. progressive would be that each week after a given offense the the level drops by one (e.g., you get a 24 hour block, then for the next week you risk a week block, for the week after that you risk another 24 hour, beyond that you're back to warnings). absolute would mean that after a week or two the offense is forgotten (poof). anyone who can keep their head cool for a full week is probably not much of a problem to begin with. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
In response to the original poster, the situation with an incivil long-term Wikipedian is different from a newbie being so. Speaking from my own experience, there comes a point when someone has been participating with the Wikipedian community for years that the individual experiences a form of burnout. (I say "a form" because real burnout is permanent & since nothing can be done the person should simply leave.) That contributor experiences some event that has convinced her/him that the lunatics have, after long last, taken over Wikipedia, anyone who disagrees with her/him is an idiot, & there is no point to being civil to anyone here. I don't know why that happens, but every long-term contributor to Wikipedia has experienced it at one time or another -- including me. 24-hour, 1-week or 6-month blocks aren't going to fix the problem: the long-term Wikipedian doesn't trust the messenger, so the message will be ignored. In these cases, IMHO the only thing to do is to find someone the problematic Wikipedian still trusts to convince her/him that it is time for her/him to take a WikiBreak -- or be banned from Wikipedia. I believe that is the real reason why templated warnings & blocks aren't endorsed in these situations -- they simply don't work. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds very much like me 2.5 years ago... can we incorporate Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars somewhere? I do think that we shouldn't be applying a different standard to regulars and newbies. However... we do already do this, because we tend to be more tolerant of newbies than editors who've been on the site for longer. I agree that regulars shouldn't be templated though - perhaps though we might be able to start a group to support regulars who are going through burn-out? Would that be helpful? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
well, my own personal view is that if we start enforcing civility regularly and thoroughly, the burnout conditions will ease dramatically. I know from my own experience that the most frustrating, hateful thing on wikipedia is to have some [incivility deleted] editor nipping at you like a psychotic chihuahua and not being able to do a damned thing about it. zap people for incivility and you clear out bulk of the hostility on talk pages; clear out the hostility and it becomes much less stressful to edit. that will extend the half-life of editors a good bit. --Ludwigs2 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That's part of it. The other part is that one can only handle so many frustrating encounters with contrary individuals who have an opposite opinion before frustration leads to possible burnout. I don't care how reasonable or polite one is -- that eventually happens to every one. One can only be aware that it will happen & be prepared for it. -- llywrch (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Differing Implementation

Is there a way to have a uniform implementation of this policy if it passes?Doc Quintana (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's become pretty clear that this is meant as an "in spirit" policy along with civility itself and is a common sense balance against itself. That seems minor, but to actually have it down in writing that the community specifically takes incivility seriously is a very positive change in tone to many. It wouldn't require new templates or a noticeboard or anything I can think of since that's all already in place but are just considered "weakly enforced" by many as-are. I could make a case that this is almost an unnecessary proposal because infrastructure exists, but personally I'd prefer this as it would imply that deliberately ignoring incivility and permitting abuse isn't tolerated either. The desired venue would be WP:WQA ...I think? These things die cold and alone at ANI and even then a lot of users are just encouraged to file an RfC/U. Most don't, and that's a big escalation, and even then it's very rare for anything to happen in the end.
Basically, implementation would hopefully not require much more than mention and rewording in existing policy to point out specific attention to it. Incivility should be more freely used as block rationale like edit warring and general disruption are now and less excuse given to time passed since incident as NPA and harassment have long-term effects on others vs just text changes needed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed... it definitely reflects a general concern that civility is not only appreciated, but it is expected :-) The mechanism can definitely be changed, this was my idea for what to do for consistency of blocking policy but of course I'm interested in other ideas... Doc, what were you thinking? My only concern around blocking is that we have some consistency. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What worries me is an arbitrary WP:IAR interpretation of the civility policies that does more harm to the project than good in burning out a good user that is unfortunately caught in a heated discussion like we all sometimes are. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well... not IAR, but a bit of commonsense should be emphasised. However, I think that the policy of escalating blocks allows an editor a fair amount of lattitude to change their behaviour, but not so much that they can be disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Escalating blocks are no different than cool-down blocks, they are only likely to steer the user into feeling into a corner, make their behavior worse until they get an indef block and start creating socks. Civility can't come from force. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
What would you suggest as an alternative? Currently their is more incivility than ever. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales view

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jimbo Wales wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal Europe about a month ago about incivility and how people suddenly become rude on the internet, more so than in person. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean, something like John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory? :-) Agreed! That's all the more reason why we need to formalize something to clarify how we deal with this sort of situation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572101333074122.html

Burnout support?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What do folks think of the idea of a burn-out support group for regulars? It's been noted above that regulars often get burned out and when this happens their behaviour can change for the worse. Perhaps a group that can support regulars (but in no way condone bad behaviour) would be helpful? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Status-stars

Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments14 people in discussion

I would like some comment on a feature that could be incorporated into Tbsdy's proposal for escalating penalties.

I propose that Wikipedia put stars (or equivalent) in front of every editor's username, e.g., ++++GoodEditor. The number of stars would indicate the editor's status. That status could have the following specifications.

++++ A 4-star editor is either a novice or someone whose conduct is irreproachable.

+++ A 3-star editor has been blocked once. A 3-star editor should expect that other editors will be suspicious of his intentions. He should discuss those intentions before editing an article.

++ A 2-star editor has been blocked twice. A 2-star editor must seek consensus before editing an article.

+ A 1-star editor has been blocked 3 times. A 1-star editor is prohibited from editing an article; he may edit any discussion page. PYRRHON  talk   22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that might give the impression of some kind of "special status" or a position of authority which is generally though to be something we should avoid. In any case, if this proposal has any hope of getting accepted, it should be kept as simple as possible! Also (I'm not trying to pick your idea apart I promise) just having a clean block log doesn't mean an editor is always civil (mine's clean, but I've probably been less than polite in the past) and having been blocked does not necessarily mean one is uncivil. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
plus some eminently civil editors (such as myself) have been blocked a few times in the past. blocks are not punitive and they are not diagnostic. --Ludwigs2 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Editor rating systems don't really work well on Wikipedia articles. I should note that I've been blocked before, and this didn't stop me getting my admin rights back. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


The status-star process does not stand alone. It is a complement to an escalating-penalty system. The status-star process enhances the escalating-penalty system by putting restrictions upon the amount of mischief a malevolent editor can do. The status-star process does not inhibit a constructive editor.

Concerns that suddenly-reformed editors may be disadvantaged by a status-star process can be addressed by adding further specifications to the process. One might add the specification that an editor who edits for 20 days without being blocked can request that a missing star be restored to his username. The status-star process permits any number of specifications that will encourage constructive editors to edit, and malevolent editors to leave.

It is also possible to modify the escalating-penalty system to keep it from driving constructive editors away. Like the status-star process, the system could provide that 35 days of editing without a block would remove a block from the block-log, or would cause the block not to be counted in determining how many blocks an editor had. As I suggested above, the system could be modified to distinguish between those who are blocked for insults and those who are blocked for other reasons. All sorts of specifications can be added to the system to make it work in the best interests of Wikipedia.

The more specifications the system has—the more complicated it is—the fairer it will be. A complicated system can provide for more contingencies than a simple system. I suggest the escalating-penalty system with the status-star process is complicated enough to be our best hope for encouraging good editors to stay and for encouraging malevolent editors to play someplace else.

I note that nothing prevents a banned editor from re-registering under a new username. I do not know what Wikipedia does about malevolent editors who re-register and continue to make mischief. Anyone?

If anyone has links that reveal Wikipedia's experiences with escalating-penalty systems or status-specifying processes, please put some of those links here.

PYRRHON  talk   04:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I have never heard of such a ridiculous suggestion bubbling over with priggish hypocrisy in all my life, stars by people's names? Reminds me of those louche would be gigolos who keep little black books with varying stars by the name of each sexual conquest - I see my name is being taken in vain by the usual motley whining crew of Christian brothers up above - seemingly oblivious to the fact that I barely edit these days - never mind why let a little thing like that spoil your rants no doubt hiding your own inadequacies. If you don't want to be called an idiot, don't behave like one. Four star editors indeed - you lot aren't for real - just listen to yourselves: - "me - me - me I'm a four star editor! -I'm not like nasty Giano!" - get yourselves off and write some pages and do something useful. Like I used to do before you lot became totally puerile.  Giano  08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If you want to see little twits not only being admins but signing their names with a series of stars like some sweat stained tinpot dictator wearing cheap alloy medals in some flea-bitten, disease ridden banana republic? then agree! Is that what Wikipedia has finally come to be - it appears so.  Giano  08:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Giano, could you please help me lobby for a system of negative stars, because zero stars is hardly low enough for me personally. I should carry at least minus nine stars (perhaps cut out from my wiki uniform in an attractive pattern of holes?): three for blocking an arbitrator,[1] three for being blocked by Jimbo,[2] and three for shamelessly taking the godking to RFAR.[3] Isn't it time real malevolents like me were marked by some effective brand of shame, so people knew to prevent me from editing articles? I scorn your piddling incivilities! Bishonen | talk 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

My only question is, how many stars do I get for this?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate this star idea in that it goes against our very culture on Wikipedia. It is explicitly stated in policy that a talk page and/or user page is NOT to have badges or marks of embarressment or chastisement, warnings can be deleted, we do NOT mark people and we arent about punishment, we are about accepting that people can change and we warn them to encourage them to do so. We shouldnt be marking people and "watching" them. This will lead to some not accepting the viewpoints or contributions of "marked" or lesser star ranked editors in favor of higher ranked ones. We are ALL EQUAL. I am against any proposal which makes anyone look better than another. One editor may do better quality edits, but other than that we are all equal in our opinions and rights.Camelbinky (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the star thing is a good idea, but it wouldn't be good for Wikipedia. Like Camelbinky said, Wikipedia is not for punishment, and I think stars for editors would be somewhat punishment. Besides, what if an administrator starts to abusively block people for no reason, and because of that, the innocent user runs out of stars? Then what do we do? Besides, the star system would probably distract us from new editors doing vandalism and just make us watch anyone without 4 stars. I think it's better not to rate people by how they act, because, like Camelbinky said, we are all equal, whether or not we disrupt Wikipedia. Although blocking isn't suppose to be a punishment, I think that users who are blocked would be sad about being blocked, and I think rating that editor by stars would only make it worse for those people. Also, what if someone gets blocked, doesn't vandalize for a long time (so the user earns stars again), does vandalism again and gets blocked, and repeats that process of waiting a long time to vandalize over and over again? Like I said, this is a good idea, but, like Camelbinky said, it would also be embarrassing the user and punishing the user. I hope you don't get offended by my opinion, because I really think it is a good idea, but it would be punishing users and embarrassing them. Good idea, though! --Hadger 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I belatedly noticed this thread. So would this be an example of one of Giano's notorious misbehavior? If so, it's sorta what I expected it to be -- a rant over a proposal he perceives to be foolish. (And it is hard not see it as such: the making a solution more complex does not make it more fair, but it makes it less likely to be implemented. Some of us who have been around Wikipedia long enough to see how it operates know the community operates on the principal of least effort.) While what he wrote could be seen as a vicious attack on Pyrrhon, & he could be criticized for unnecessarily belaboring what could be said far more simply -- e.g., "this is a foolish idea" -- I can't help suspecting there is some humor here: what person would berate another with the phrase "those louche would be gigolos who keep little black books with varying stars by the name of each sexual conquest", even if English is not her/his first language? Is Giano viciously attacking someone, or slyly teasing him? There is a notable ambiguity here, which I suspect is Giano's intent in order to separate those he might respect from those unable to carefully read what he actually says -- & not worthy of his respect. In any case, if this is a typical outburst for him, then I can think of a number of other established, long-time Wikipedians whose behavior at least as problematic. If someone wants to sanction him for comments like this, then those individuals deserve to be sanctioned too -- if not first. They act in ways far more disruptive than comments like this one. (And no, his behavior did not encourage them to act that way.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Slyly teasing for the purposes of causing maximum outrage, upset and controversy is commonly referred to as trolling. In what way does behaviour such as that exhibited by Giano contribute to a friendly atmosphere that is conducive to excellence and collaboration on Wikipedia? I think that the day we accept this sort of mean-spiritedness is the day that we should reconsider our goals. Certainly I believe that those who are are against such baiting by such editors should not be blocked. But, please, feel free to go ahead and block myself if you think that your comments are fair and accurate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This really is half of the problem, as demonstrated so admirably by Tbsdy and others here. Sonebody makes a comment that is perceived as humourous or acceptable in one culture and then along comes another (in this case Tbsdy) and squeeks "Trolling" - what a complete inflammatory lie! Getting over one's pont using metaphor and idiom is not trolling, quite the reverse. If I see stars by a lady editor's name - I can't help it, I would immedidiatly think of the legendary "little black books", and so would many others! Equally, I'm sure some lady editors would think the same of stars by a man's name. Not even a s sad fact, just a true one. Is it trolling to say that, or are we treading on over delicate sensibilities by saying so? Tbsdy says "maximum outrage" -that's not outrageous - for God's sake. I refuse to bring myself down to the level of a few dull individuals who are represseb by the bourgeois, narrow minded, culture of the backwoods in which they were reared. If I were to call someone a "F..k w....g, q....h c..t- that would be incivil (even if true), but using idion and metephor to make a point even an unwelcome one is not being incivil. And this is most of the point, peope don't like the particular point being made quite reasonable - they squeek "trolling" and hope all the other morons will creep out of the backwooods and support their narrow point of view.  Giano  09:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We could have a counterbalancing system of sense-of-humour stars: Someone with 4 civility stars and 0 humour stars would have as much standing as, say, someone, with 3 humour stars and 1 civility star. --JN466 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The star awards could be confusing. PS: I never was overly supportive of awards anyways. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No chance of working

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Do people really think this will make any difference to the atmosphere around here? This sort of proposal will just increase the level of lawyering and interpretations as to what is 'incivil' or not. For long term editors these sort of measures will just be open to gaming, and be used as yet another tool against people they are in disagreement with. You can put someone down quite easily without being 'incivil' about it. Being sarcastic or patronising to someone causes just as much offense as saying "fuck off", but is much harder to legislate against. If there are long term problems with editors, the odd block is not going to make much difference. The only real way to solve it is through community (but good luck with trying to get a consensus) or arbcom bans. I understand the effort to try and make wikipedia a nicer place, but I'm afraid this sort of proposal has very little chance of either being implemented in the first place, or making much of a difference if it is implemented. Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

well, that's why we're having this discussion. the point is, I think, that the current situation pretty much sucks, and so any effort to improve it is worth a try. this kind of policy could hardly make things worse, no? --Ludwigs2 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at what happened with WP:PAIN. This would just be used as another weapon in people's feuds.
The current situation sucks mainly in certain highly divisive areas, and where there are POV pushers and people with agendas. The problem there is that we do not have an effective mechanism to solve such content disputes. The 'incivility' is a natural result of the point of view and agenda pushing that goes on, but it isn't the problem in itself. Quantpole (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
actually, I think it's because we don't have any effective means of promoting discussion towards consensus. I do think, though, that if we zap people for engaging in unproductive behavior, there won't be a lot left to do on talk pages except talk about content. --Ludwigs2 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Quantpole raises a serious issue. He says an escalating-penalty system does not fix a preceding process—the process by which blocking occurs. Quantpole notes that the process by which editors are blocked is "open to gaming" and can be used as a "tool against people."
Quantpole is correct. The escalating-penalty system applies only AFTER the decision has been made to block an editor. Such a system does not shorten the blocking process. Such a system does not make the blocking process fairer. Such a system does not address the problem of who deserves a block. The escalating-penalty system does not address these issues at all.
I infer that Quantpole's point is this: there is no good reason to fix one part of an enterprise that has other parts which need fixing. We should either fix all the parts at one time, or leave Wikipedia as it is. Either we should have everything we want instantly; or we should have nothing.
If we leave Wikipedia as it is, the worst that can happen is that Wikipedia will lose some constructive editors, and present some bad articles. In response to some newspaper report recently, a spokesperson from Wikipedia responded that as 5000 editors leave, another 5000 register; so it seems Wikipedia can afford to lose editors.
If we fix one part at a time, then we will have to have endless discussions about what to do next, endless discussions of specifications and procedures, endless discussions about the wording of the protocol, endless ... endless ... endless.
Maybe we should leave Wikipedia as it is. What do you think? PYRRHON  talk   22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, I genuinely mean that it won't fix anything, and probably make it worse. Quantpole (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Some observations (1) civility vel non is much in the eye of the beholder; (2) different people have sensitivities or a sense of propriety that may be narrower than others; (3) and the internet unlike RL doesn't easily permit use of sarcasm or emotion or much by way of context; (4) our block policy is not to be punitive yet this proposal seems purely punitive. Examples: is the abbreviation of a username uncivil? Does it matter whether someone prefers a style of address (how about, please preface your comments thusly: "If it may please your imperial majesty as my enfeebled thoughts run...") and others ignore it? Is swearing/cursing taboo? always? Must someone who looks at something which may appear uncivil look at the entire interaction between the parties to see if a block is warranted? Do I get to use the word "queer" because I'm gay, but if you straight people use it, block-a-rama time? Don't we have an encyclopedia to write rather than worrying about this tempest in a teapot. And if anyone finds what I have written uncivil, please forgive me it wasn't meant to be and please don't block me for it....grovel, beg, plead, wince, whimper, cry... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately too many of the established users around here have found that if someone disagrees with you or calls you out for doing something you shouldnt all you have to do is say at the particular forum, or also go to their talk page, and accuse them of "uncivil" behavior and "you are accusing me of stuff" and "you arent giving me good faith"; and therefore think they can mark the person or hurt their credibility in order of hopes of... well, I'm not sure of their motives, it varies, but usually to try to shut the person up or hope others dont listen to them in the future. Since these spurious charges show up on the talk page eventually they can be used in favor of a civility block. Making accusations of a "uncivil" behavior at an editors talk page without bringing an actual complaint to the wikittiquete board or AN/I should not be allowed. Too many on this page have talked about good contributors (like Giano and myself) who do alot of work but rub others the wrong way in forums when we call them out on things; its been said this can also scare away other good contributors. Really? I doubt it. Best thing for this proposed civility block policy proposal is for it to say "If someone says something rude you dont like, shake it off and tell them "I am walking away please dont comment further to me on this issue". If they comment again then it is uncivil and action will be taken." There should futher be a line between uncivil talk and uncivil action. An uncivil action should be banned, uncivil talk should not unless it is on another person's talk page after being warned not to further pursue the matter.Camelbinky (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually, the harsh comments made by a number of people towards myself caused me to stop editing for some time before I left in 2007. Of course, there are a number of reasons I left which aren't that important to go through here, but the point is that I left for two and a half years and have only now had the courage and fortitude (not to mention time and energy) to come back again. I think that attacks by other editors is one of the leading causes of burnout on this site.
If you are being needlessly spiky, then... stop being needlessly spiky? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Example of recent incidents cause by a lack of policy

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Lengthy. Sorry. I have no other outlet. Feel free to put this in a dropbox.

I have to disagree that it could never work because this is something I really feel we have to make work at some capacity. Sure, it's subjective, but admins issue blocks for non-3RR edit warring and POV pushing plenty, despite it being subjective. Some things are more evident than others both in a sharply pointed incident or longer histories explained. Block appeals exist if someone feels a serious error has been made but this is (my technically unofficial suggestion) a 24hr type of thing to start. My best hope is to have something like an AIV for talk page language. We need abuses like this very specifically in writing.

I only mention this one example because I got dragged in just after joining and responding to my first "third-party view" request. There's this declined ArbCom case of one rouge editor with over a dozen incident reports filed on many levels for continuous low-impact incivility, edit warring (often to 2RR on a number of articles and talk pages daily), and even if not uncivil never particular civil either. The user even refused to join mediation. This should be a case study on how users can game absolutely everything so much that the only reason they could up blocked would be over a technicality violation of a policy because they were so cocky they continued to disrupt after being the ArbCom filing. Blocks were repeatedly avoided... reflecting the accusations back, massive lawyering, WP:TLDR spam disruption, admin shopping and counter-filings on boards with rubbish claims just to try to cause a double-annulment resulting in a verbal warning at worst. The ArbCom decline comments showed confusion as to how admins or the community had not dealt with it with any blocks despite the entire dispute resolution system being run with no breaks in the disruptions the whole time and no one taking responsibility for violated good faith at every turn. There was 1 LTA filing along the way [5] but was removed for no given reason. It was posted with incorrect formatting but shouldn't have been ignored. Likely wouldn't have ended in anything since there were no officially-documented prior abuse/incivility.

This is why we lose editors, especially those working particularly within one project, or at least heavily frustrates many into seclusion. Several editors in that case fought hard for over 2 years against the sole rogue editor that openly stated his lone POV was so important his actions were warranted and openly posting on public forums his intentions to endlessly disrupt until "winning". They completely wasted combined thousands of hours of volunteer time just to salvage one article they cared about and deal with this one editor. It's inexcusable for anything like this to ever happen at Wikipedia. These things are how we end up with "Randy in Boise" major media complaints and a reasonable stereotype that users can be forceful with words and reverts to assert ownership without consequence, yet we're surprised we have new editor worries?

Hell, label this as part of a response to WP:RANDY and as proof there's something concrete users can cite and we will act on without reservations or endless discussion and bickering. A way to tell newer editors they don't have to put up with this junk. This needs to be something that by itself can be given as a block rationale in edit summary. I could care less if a handful of violators end up with indefinite blocks and leave, since there could be dozens of possible new editors shoved off or intimidated in the process. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of having a policy stating 3RR is what should not be done if you (and others) are going to say doing 2RR is what is wrong. We are human beings, we arent all going to get along, we are going to rub each other the wrong way, some of us dont play nice. If a physicist/proffessor doesnt play nice and calls his colleagues "spherical bastards" (because they are bastards no matter what angle you look at them) and also discovers that the universe is actually speeding up (which would lead to the theory of dark energy) that doesnt mean his anti-social personality that pissed off other scientists and students alike leads to his contributions to science being banned, he didnt even get censured by the college he taught at. A US Senator can call another Senator a jack ass, and another one can actually cane close to death his own colleague, Senators and Congressmen can call names, yell, insult, and be uncivil on their respective floors and they dont get censured or kicked out (technically they can, but it has been RARE). I can go to another employee at my company or to my boss and say "look, XY is creepy and is a jerk to me, he's following me around and redoing my work in a manner that makes it worse while he says he's making it better"; around here in Wikipedia that would get me a civility block (and actually has happened for basically that sentence); in the real world the boss would have a talk with the creepy jerk who was doing actions, not anything against me for talking. Let's worry about ACTION that affects articles and NOT talk that is between editors; the only caveat to that is unwanted talk on a users talk pages, none of us should have other editors continue to comment on our own talk page after having asked them to drop it.Camelbinky (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Piffle. It doesn't matter whether you're in academia, or an office, or the senate - if you start doing things that interfere with the way that the organization runs, you're out. a scientist can be an ass, but he can't be an ass to the extent of interfering with other scientist's experiments; a senator actually cannot call another senator a jackass (that's specifically against senate rules, and he'd get censured for it as a pro forma action); a boss is far more likely just to fire someone than to have a talk with them, and the 'who gets fired' bit is more a matter of politics than reason. You want to fight with another user, do it in user talk - incivility on article or article talk pages simply interferes with with the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and it ought to be stomped on, gently, but with nary a shred of mercy. --Ludwigs2 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Im a bit confused, here I am thinking I have a degree in Poli Sci and am working on my masters for it as well... WAIT that IS true! So, I think I'll stick with my analogy, YES a Senator can in fact call another Senator a jackass, oh and look up how often any member of Congress has been censured IT IS RARE compared to the amount of BS these guys pull off everyday. The example with the scientist had NOTHING to do with messing with experiments, never said that. You are talking about ACTION, I am talking about speech, which is what this incivility discussion is about, please do not change my analogies in order to prove them wrong, and the example with the scientist I gave is an actual one, he really exists (well, he did, he's dead now). So in your last sentence stating "You want to fight with another user, do it in user talk", means that you support me in that I should never have received a 24 hour block for calling another editor a "jerk who is creepy and has been stalking me" in a third-person's user talk page? Thank you if that is so. But on the other hand you are implying that it is ok to "fight" in your words (or be incivil as I'm interpreting it) in talk pages, whereas I am specifically stating "If someone tells you to not pursue a matter or comment on their talk page THEN it is uncivil to make ANY comments on the talk page, with exceptions for notification of being brought forth to AN/I, etc." Uncivil ACTIONS such as vandalism, disruptive editing, etc (in the analogy you give this would be the scientist messing with experiments) is not covered by uncivil action policies and guidelines, they are editing actions already banned by policies dealing with them. Uncivil talk is what this is about. We can all agree actions should be banned. What we are disagreeing on is whether uncivil talk should be on the same level. My OPINION is that talk is sacrosanct and it is "piffle" to state that people are leaving Wikipedia because there are people who talk like asses. Uncivil actions, which actually dont get the attention and quick bans that talk does, are what is causing Wikipedians to bail. We are an encyclopedia, messing with our work is what pisses us of; insults are words. "Vandalism and excessive tagging may break my article, but uncivil words will never hurt me". With some editors beliefs of uncivility I can claim you were uncivil with me just now when you called my ideas "piffle". We are all equal here btw, my opinions and beliefs arent piffle and in fact JUST as valid as yours (or more so regarding poli sci when we consider I am in fact an expert in political science).Camelbinky (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Addendum- Have you ever attempted to fire someone?! I have fired people, and it isnt easy after their 30 day probationary period because companies even in a work-at-will state you must fire with cause (which generally means having given two previous disciplinary actions (written "warnings" or "write ups" following "verbal warnings", which verbal warnings must still be on paper and signed by the employee as documentation they received them even though its verbal its still written) on the SAME infraction) or an infraction for which the employee manual states is an offense of "immediate termination" (even then iffy without prior warnings) or else the employee may receive unemployment benefits, which means the company's unemployment insurance premiums go up, and EVERY company fights those and will never allow supervisors to fire someone in a manner which will cause that except in the most unavoidable instances; which is why even small companies have an HR director (they arent there to protect the "human resource" from their bosses, they are there to protect the company by giving advice to supervisors in how to deal with the "resource" and they actually have talked me through on how to "get ride" of a person, it sometimes means MONTHS of waiting and disciplinary actions before termination). It is in fact very difficult to fire someone for uncivil talk or for anything in fact that would get someone a 24 hour ban on Wikipedia. So NO, if I called another employee a "jackass who bothers me" to my boss, I wont get fired, and he probably wont either.Camelbinky (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) The actual US senate rules for debate procedures. Note clause 2: "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." Calling another senator a jackass would generally be held to violate this proscription. Whether it gets applied or not is a different issue (I don't have high regard for the current state of the senate). and I'll match your 'almost Masters' against my PhD any day, so don't even go there.
to the point, however. Speech is an action, particularly on Wikipedia where all we are doing is working with words. When someone is making a protracted effort to use speech in a way that causes commotion, confusion, emotional stress, and general bad feelings, he is doing as much (if not more) to disrupt the creation of the encyclopedia as a vandal who is actually editing in nonsense. Vandals are actually easier to deal with, and cause less harm. I mean, really - what are you trying to preserve here: your own ability to call other editors jackasses? I wouldn't mind if you called me a jackass once, in the heat of the moment - that's excusable. if you kept doing it every time we interacted I would sure as hell want to see you blocked, and you would want to see me blocked if I kept doing it to you. There have to be some rules of order, and they have to be enforced, or there will be no order. --Ludwigs2 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x2, and actually regarding the first two replies: Your points are certainly fair, but as much as I wish I might be able to loosen up into a less-than-polite manner sometimes... this isn't the real world. It's Wikipedia. Because the assumption is that some users have zero tolerance on incivility, enforcement can and should be a wide blanket. I'm not saying anyone who's called on it gets any kind of reprimand, and in mild cases and one-off anger boiling over for 1 edit at random a trouting is probably more effective. On the 2RR thing, I'm using it as an example of where a similar policy to what I'd hope this could be already exists. Admins have and will block at that point of it's an ongoing edit war since "edit warring" or general clueless behavior is a block rationale. Maybe think of this as how the police try to enforce speed limits. Everyone claims they'll contest their ticket since they insist they've done nothing super wrong, but 90% of people ticketed wake up the next day and understand they were an idiot. No one chooses an abusive work field if they know they can't take it, but editors here don't sign a disclaimer to start and must agree that they can be verbally abused to no end and have to suck it up, and yes, even if an admin considers them a wuss we will isten.
I think a fair part of actual incivility blocking would be a chance to apologize directly, or at least the user might admit they were being an idiot if it's not a common trend. Even a indirect apology via a confessions of some stupidity can help a lot. We can't force people to feel bad and be "sorry", so this is all we can ask for.. This is a stupid ciché, but we should make a victim comfortable to continue on as normal again... as I said, this is how we lose a lot of editors. I don't know why this was never strictly enforced in the mainspace. Do I have a case study on editors putting in less effort or just leaving because of these things? No. But why can't as close to 100% of that be avoided or even 1 editor lost when it's preventable? There's a reason we're too often mocked in the media and are talk show comedy punchlines, one being that any combative and abusive 14-year-old from Boise can indeed bite a Noble Prize winning new editor away in massive frustration with but a few edit summaries. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
See, if you ask me, the apology thing is not the correct approach. the whole civility problem amounts to an attempt to substitute affective/emotional reasoning for content discussion - it's a psychological power play, where you try to make yourself look bigger and better or make the other person look smaller and weaker, in the hopes of gaining some kind of editing advantage (god that sounds twisted when you put it straight out - lol). asking someone to apologize or making someone plea for unblocking are merely psychological power plays in their own right, which serve to perpetuate the problem. In my view we simply need to remove the psychological power element entirely. make it so that if anyone tries to play a psychological power game like this they are removed from editing for a short, predefined, set-in-stone time, with no other consequences, no escalation, no escape, no drama - nothing that will feed the beast (e.g. nothing that will make them feel like they won or make them feel victimized). if they can't get any psychological satisfaction out of being uncivil, and are prevented from editing for short times with each incidence, the urge toward incivility will rapidly disappear. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

Latest comment: 14 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

I agree it would help to have clarity on this. Users who poison the community rather than learn how to collaborate, or who cannot understand they have the same community obligations as other users, do the project a disservice. Equally, users should not be blocked for incivility unless it's really justified (and some will feel it is never justified).

I would try and target it more directly by going back to basics. Why is civility important as a Wikipedia cultural norm and expectation? Why do most academic journals and many legislative bodies have a civility norm?

  1. When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked, and often over-react. People get dragged in to "defend" rather than to "resolve". It encourages "heat" not "light". It's unproductive.
  2. Most users here wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it poisons the atmosphere and discourages or de-motivates others.
  3. People realistically know there will be disagreement. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude and clearly offensive manner (i.e. would be uncivil in most cultures) and getting away with it, is demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way can be discouraging.
  4. Polite language tends to hold the emotional temperature down. It may not stop users misbehaving (e.g. civil edit warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will almost always have some positive effect. Disputes can usually be resolved calmer if people are not needling others.
  5. Civility, done right, is helpful. It focuses users on issues and content, not on each other.

Perhaps one thing missing is a "close enough" definition of incivility.

Proposal:


== Incivility ==

The Wikipedia culture is one of mutual respect and finding ways to work with other users. Users with a criticism of another user should either talk to that user, ignore that user, or seek dispute resolution if there is evidence of a genuine concern. Users who instead express their disapproval of another user or their actions in a personally directed, provocative, crude or disruptive manner unlikely to aid the project or resolve any personal differences, are likely to be in breach of this policy.

On Wikipedia, incivility generally involves pointed comments that do not objectively aid the dialog or set out facts. Uncivil words or comments usually meet the following criteria:

Targets someone: targets a specific user or real-world peoples;
Is usually negative: usually (but not always) phrased in such a way as to be taken as derogatory, insulting, or egregiously offensive by ordinary people if they were in the target's situation;
Improper character: unlikely to be posted in order to aid calm evidence-based collaborative handling of a matter, but instead appear intended to inflame emotions, or for their negative effect on the target or those sympathetic to the group;
Lacks project benefit: objectively seems to have little or no project benefit - i.e. nothing seems gained from the wording except personal satisfaction from the inclusion of the uncivil words or statement (for example a rhetorical question, smear, slur, or insult);
Meets the "redaction test": could easily be removed or paraphrased without loss of any material significant to the project debate.


Incivility is often due to frustration and often best ignored or gently asked to stop. Do not over-react to trivial lapses or brief frustration that will quickly blow over, as this can cause the matter to escalate. However a user who grossly or repeatedly engages in incivility may be warned or blocked as below. Incivility is also blockable when it reaches the level of personal attacks, outing, harassment or disruption, as described in those policies.


It's notoriously hard to write a short and fair definition that won't get immediately abused. That's my attempt. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks perfect as an introduction. It leaves enough scope for common sense and emphasises that we would prefer editors to communicate amongst themselves before we are forced to block the editor.
I think the next stage is to work out the general process for blocking. I still maintain that a gradual but escalating set of blocks might be the way to go. We obviously need to be able to allow people to make mistakes, and it was agreed above that we need to ensure that the escalation can be forgotten if a good faith attempt to curb attacks has been made.
What about:
Proposal:


== Enforcement ==

Any editor who is deemed to be so uncivil that it causes disruption or an unwelcome environment in which to contribute to Wikipedia will be firstly warned, then a set of gradual but escalating blocks will be applied. These are not done with the intent of punishing the editor, but are put into place to protect the general project and allow participants the greatest chance of improving the quality and scope of the encyclopaedia, within the scope of the various policies and guidelines that govern it.

The general process with which to block an abusive editor is detailed below.

1. Discussion: The editor is warned via any number of generally accepted mechanisms. Calm discussion with the editor in question is encouraged. It is by far preferrable that a good faith attempt be made at resolving differences, or if necessary a friendly caution be directed to the editor to make them aware that their behaviour is unacceptable. Other mechanisms to consider include Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and (... fill in the blanks...).
2. First warning: A formal warning should be given to the editor by an uninvolved party that specifically details the unacceptable behaviour and explains what will occur if it continues.
3. Short block: A short block (no more than 30 minutes to an hour) should be made, with an explanation as to why they were blocked. The block warning should detail that this is the first block for incivility. This enforcement is deliberately to be made as short as possible – its purpose is not to punish but to show that we are serious about abuse on Wikipedia.
4. One day block: If the editor continues with the same behaviour, then a day long block should be given. The block summary should note that this is because of further incivility, and as before an explanation should be provided as to why they were blocked for a day.
5. One week block: The next block for abusive behaviour should be a week long block, using an appropriate blocking summary and an explanation provided on their talk page.
6. One month block: The last level of block before an indefinite block. Again use an appropriate block summary, only this time a stern admonition should be used on their talk page. Be careful not to engage in uncivil language when making this. It should be made clear that this is their last chance to improve before they are indefinitely blocked from contributing to Wikipedia. At this point, the blocking administrator should report the block to WP:AN/I.
7. Indefinite block: At this point all avenues have been exhausted an the editor has proven that they are not able to participate in an appropriate way to Wikipedia. An indefinite block should be made with a brief explanation that they are no longer welcome on Wikipedia.


The hope with a set of escalating blocks is that editors will be rehabilitated well before more drastic blocks are made. To allow editors to change their ways, previous blocks should be periodically reviewed on WP:AN and the community should decide whether the escalation level should be reset. We are concious that there will always be a number of editors who try to game the system, so in order to prevent disruptive behaviour escalations should be periodically reviewed by the wider administrative community instead of resetting the escalation level after a fixed time frame.

I'm sure there are things that need changing, but this is my first stab at the actual enforcement mechanism. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good. I don't know if we need the person giving the first warning to be uninvolved. I often tag the recipient of a personal attack objecting to it as sign of first warning, if the warning is not legitimate then that is not to hard to see. Clearly defined escalations are a good idea as people tend to look at a users 20th incident of personal attacks in a vacuum and ask why it was a whole week for just one comment. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons that I want an uninvolved editor to make the warning is because what I've tended to find is that if the involved party makes the warning it doesn't sound like a constructive criticism, but an open attack. Our goal here, I think, is to try to deescalate the situation. Having an uninvolved editor helps with this process. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 I like the way this has developed and I think that, with the enforcement section, it actually has a chance of working. Uncivil editors are given plenty of chances to play nicely with other editors and I think the part about not over-reacting is especially important. I'm glad we have something that shows incivility will not be tolerated while giving plenty of chances for somebody to correct their behaviour. Pending any tweaks that may be required, I think this should be formally proposed and listed on WP:CENT in the near future. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
We don't normally prescribe blocks and warnings to this level of detail. Enforcement can almost be left to admin discretion, or a much simpler format chosen. My question here is the core approach to civility, because that's almost always been the stumbling block. If we can agree somewhat a wording that covers what civility is about (and what it isn't), enforcement is by far the easier part. [I've retitled the section back. If there's a reason the title change helps, drop me a note :) ] FT2 (Talk | email) 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I dunno FT2, we are pretty prescriptive when it comes to 3RR and that has worked amazingly well, all things considered. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested revisions:
Receiving a template warning can sometimes increase tensions, particularly if only one side receives it even though both are incivil.

Section 3 states "This enforcement is deliberately to be made as short as possible – its purpose is not to punish but to show that we are serious about abuse on Wikipedia." However, this statement is not permitted by the WP:BLOCK rules as it comes close to a cool down block. It seems to me, though, that perhaps the WP:BLOCK policy may need review. Section 3 to 5 might be combined.

Should we want say that section 7 can be used sooner but not before a shorter block? Think of the worst incivility possible. "Jimbo ____________ and his mother _________ and he eats _______ and has the IQ of ____ and is an infidel." I can't think of a worse insult. Is that worth automatic indefinite block or should we say that a shorter duration must come first?

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the big concerns is that people might game this system, and we currently use arbitrary block lengths. This often leads to the situation whereby an admin considers the block length inappropriate and when the editor appeals, they will often find that they can worm their way out of the perfectly considered block of the first blocking admin. With a process such as this, we can gradually escalate the blocks, which gives the editor time to make amends before they are indefinitely blocked from the project. This is actually quite a bit better than the currently system, whereby an abusive editor can go on for months at a time, before everyone gets so angry at their behaviour that they go from many one and two day blocks, to an indefinitely block. At least there is some consistency in this method of blocking.
As for prescribing what civility is, I think that FT2 has that covered in his opening statement. I think we can largely leave that up to the good sense of most administrators - and when there is concern we have our avenue of review, which is WP:AN and WP:AN/I. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh brother, I think its late here because I totally misread that. Ignore what I wrote above, I'm going to get some shuteye and come back tomorrow to respond. Sorry Suomi, I really shouldn't be up this late! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy asked that I comment on this proposal, & I'd like to respond to some of the comments here. First, I don't think we need a detailed definition of "civility" because it can be presumed all of us are socialized enough to know how to act civil -- although FT2's definition above is as good as any definition. If I have to engage a user in a lengthy discussion to explain why her/his action is incivil, then I can't help but suspect that person is acting in bad faith -- & should just be blocked indefinitely. And the repeated example of how some words are not offensive in certain contexts is a red herring: if you need to negotiate with someone you are not on intimate terms with (e.g., a stranger, a boss, a loan officer at a bank), you do not start off the conversation with "Hiya, you old bastard" -- or worse. (And if this news to anyone on Wikipedia, then that person should immediately take a WikiBreak & use their time instead obtaining help with this because it will affect her/his life far beyond this website.) Second, we need to observe an exception that there are cases where calling someone an idiot is the kindest thing one can do; sanctioning someone just because she/he is being blunt is not constructive, & only leads to wikilawyering or a wide-spread tendency towards using evasive comments where other people are left confused whether sarcasm or damning with faint praise is being used. (Maybe this exception falls under ignore all rules; even if it does, I think everyone would be more comfortable with setting forth an explicit explanation that, yes, this is allowed.) And thirdly, we need to recognize that in some cases the only solution is an immediate indef ban -- if not a permanent block. One reason for this is, yes, there are some people we will never reach (you can point a troublemaker to policy but you can't make him understand it, to paraphrase an old saying), & we shouldn't waste our already limited time on these people. Another is that by acting decisively with these instances, people involved in other instances will have more patience with Wikipedia's cumbersome conflict resolution process. In short, while I doubt we will ever removed the subjective element from incivility enforcement, we shouldn't worry about it being there. "Pain" is also a subjective quality, yet if someone complains of a pain we automatically know what that person means -- although there is no way for us to actually experience that sensation; it's the same thing with incivility. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

well, you know I have a slightly different view on these things. I'd probably want to see it structured something like what follows (I've also taken the liberty of revising the text and definitions a bit - I thought that FT2's definition, while acute, was a bit narrow).

== Incivility ==

Wikipedia tries to promote a culture of mutual respect and cooperation, where editors find civil ways to work with each other productively. Occasional personal conflicts are inevitable, and users may need to discuss their differences in user talk space, agree to avoid each other for a period of time, or even seek dispute resolution or administrator intervention if personal incivilities become overwhelming. When incivilities appear in article or article talk space, however, they begin to interfere with development of the encyclopedia. Users who express their disapproval of other users in a provocative, crude, or disruptive ad hominem manner are likely to be in breach of this policy.

On Wikipedia, incivility generally involves pointed comments that are more likely to inflame emotions than contribute positively to the discussion. Statements or comments that satisfy one or more of the following would meet the criteria for incivility:

Targeted: Comments that accuse other users of personal traits, group memberships, ideological beliefs, or other characteristics that supposedly dictate those users' actions.
Slanderous: Comments that ascribe motivations, intentions, moods or other psychological states to users that those users would (or do) explicitly reject.
Dysfunctional: Comments whose primary effect is to derail the conversation into a non-productive personal disputes.
=== Enforcement ===

Incivility is often due to frustration, and mild forms are best ignored or responded to with a polite request to stop. Over-reacting to trivial lapses can often create escalation, which may lead to administrative action against all parties involved. Before considering administrative action against a user, make sure the case meets the following tests

Redaction test: Could the comment be removed or rephrased, in whole or part, without removing some important element of the discussion? Commentary essential to the discussion at hand should not be considered uncivil.
Flood test: Is the comment a momentary, singular flood of temper, or is it purposive? An exclamation in a moment of irritation is excusable, but a protracted effort against other editors - either as part of a heated argument or as a more-or-less rational attempt to demonstrate there is something 'wrong' with another editor - should be considered uncivil

Where comments pass these tests, the users should on first offense receive a 30 minute warning block designed to make them aware of the incivility. All subsequent incivilities should receive a mandatory, unappealable 24 hour block. If multiple editors are involved in an uncivil dispute, all editors who contribute uncivil comments should receive the same block. It is hoped that the 24 hour block will provide a sufficient disincentive to incivility without impacting on the editor's long-term ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, editors who repeatedly engage in incivility regardless, or who try to evade blocks or game the system to their advantage should receive more extensive sanctions under other wikipedia policies, such as personal attacks, outing, harassment or disruption.

substantive differences aside, whatever bits of this are useful, please feel free to use. --Ludwigs2 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There were some reasons for the initial wording that are missed out here. For an "agreed policy", civility is perhaps the most argued over and wikilawyered policy of all of them. Quick comments on the wording:
  1. The original was deliberately short (eg 1st paragraph). It focused upon what incivility is. Everything like handling incivility, alternatives to being uncivil, what to do if tempers rise, can all go in a separate section. Look at Edit warring policy for a good example of splitting out "what you can do to avoid problems" from "description of the problematic behavior itself". Keep this section purely about defining incivility. Explain everything else below.
  2. Incivility is not just about "in article or article talk space". They affect the project in any space. Most incivility probably happens in talk, user talk, and project spaces.
  3. It's better to define incivility in terms of what it usually excludes than by positives v. negatives. The latter is far more gameable. "Incivility usually involves pointed comments that aren't helping the debate." Then list the criteria. Short and simple.
  4. "Statements of comments that satisfy one or more... would meet" is too definitive and also too broad, hence gameable. Better to say "Uncivil words and comments usually meet these criteria".
  5. "One or more" means anyone can call "incivility" if just one criterion is met. Eminently gameable.
  6. In your criteria (any of: targeted, slanderous, dysfunctional) there is huge slippage. The original wording will catch a lot of that. This version won't.
Overall I see what you're trying to do, but I don't think it works. There are too many ways that a capable "provoker" could still be incivil that it wouldn't cover, and too many loopholes for incivility to be called when it wasn't really so. The original is a test that I think would probably work in the majority of real cases, but this one wouldn't. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
well, I'm not so sure about the original approach. for instance, let's say I went to some page and said: "Editor X is an inveterate POV-pusher for position Q, and so all of his edits and comments should be removed/ignored as ignorant and biased because of the damage they to the encyclopedia". I could then argue that this (1) doesn't target a user (it speaks about his behavior); (2) is not negative but descriptive; (3) is a calm and factual statement; (4) is beneficial to the project by disposing of crap; and (5) no part can be removed from it without changing the meaning of the point. By the time I finish that, I will have thoroughly insulted Editor X 5 times over. my wording cuts that kind of thing off at the knees because it prohibits ascribing or talking about editors characteristics or intentions. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The old "I was calling his comments ignorant not him" wouldn't work so well under this definition because it's a comment that clearly talks about a specific user, and most people in that position would consider describing "all" of someones actions as "ignorant" to be negative or insulting. Civility is a well-known "hard to define" issue, and examples like this will help to fine tune any proposal. But "hard to define" isn't a good reason not to try; many policies relate to matters that are "hard to define" or culturally related. We might have to accept that we can improve it, but won't be able to prevent every last issue with it. That said, a "typical examples" page would do a lot to cut down the scope for dispute. Examples pages exist to help clarify other policies too, such as WP:NPOV (words to avoid) and wheel war policy (WP:WHEEL/Examples).
If such a page existed then the example you give would probably be one of them with a brief explanation why it would be deemed uncivil ("This would usually be considered uncivil. A judgmental comment about a person's general actions on-wiki (or in some area of the project) is effectively the same as a general comment about that person, for civility purposes. In general, broad and pointed claims like this should usually be avoided. It is usually better to actually explain why the user is in error, than just labeling them in an inflammatory manner. If their lack of understanding is causing problems then seek dispute resolution rather than needlessly inflame the situation."). FT2 (Talk | email) 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You know, it might be a good idea to create a list here that gives examples of comments that are uncivil - we could debate them, decide what's to minor for punishment and what's drastic enough to get sent to other policies for more severe action, and would generally help us all focus the discussion. maybe add a {{todo}} box with the list, so that we can kep the list and the discussion of it separate? what do you think? --Ludwigs2 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh good Lord, please tell me there wont be a "list of unacceptable language" actually spelled out in policy on Wikipedia resulting in blocks. This isnt television or radio, editors arent George Carlin and admins arent the Supreme Court. Cant everyone please find better things to do and just ignore those that call you a name? All this talk is revolving around TALK, and does not address ACTIONS that are uncivil and are much more disruptive. Someone can wikiharrass me by obsessively following my talk page and contributions and disrupt and harass my contributions and posts and I'm told nothing can be done... if I go to a third-party and say what I think of the editor doing such a thing, THAT is crossing the line and I get a 24-hour block... am I the only one who see's a problem with that?! I have yet to see anyone take time to explain HOW someone calling them a jackass, dipshit, or ignorant has EVER caused them to not be able to edit... I cant see how, at least not on the par with someone reverting your contributions, deleting, and disrupting talk pages by refusing to even acknowledge the legitimacy of consensus on an issue. Please, cant everyone just focus on editing and researching an encyclopedia and stop with the social engineering, people are people and such draconian methods to enforce some arbitrary idea such as "civility" (which is subjective in nature, and not all of us even acknowledge such a concept) is futile and leads to more pent up anger, resentment, and disputs; especially with having these things drawn out through noticeboards and AN/I, etc etc. Let insults die on the spot; the insulter gets his/her frustration out but doesnt get any satisfaction that may lead to escalation; the insultee by letting it go gets the satisfaction of denying satisfaction to the insultor. Ignore ignore ignore. Please!Camelbinky (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Bloody hell you're an idiot. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. (and this takes away from the humour) but that was a joke. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
If we were all the Dalai Lama, nobody would be insulting, and nobody would be insulted. But we're not. I'm pretty careful to stay cool when the editing gets hot, but nothing causes me more wikistress than hostility. You just cringe inside when you encounter it -- you know right away, "oh, shit, here's going to be a person who is going to make getting this encyclopedia written an absolute hell."
Is "hostility" subjective? Not to an unaddressable degree. There are plenty of times when one can say "this person is really swinging the club". And for the life of me, I don't know why we should be willing to tolerate people who behave like that. If people aren't willing to collaborate -- worse still, if they're behaving in a way that sabotages the collaborative spirit, deliberately or otherwise -- I think they should be moved right the fuck off the encyclopedia. Just like how you escort someone out of a business who is causing trouble. We're trying to get something done here. People who want to act like manchildren should do it somewhere else.
Now, does that mean we should police language, specifically? No. I just cursed twice, and not to prove a point. You might also note that I used the word "hostility", not "civility". Maybe that's a critical distinction. I've had awful hostility directed at me by people who were nonetheless studiously civil. So never mind being "civil" -- don't throw fists. Don't edit-war, don't scream, don't badger, don't refuse to listen to other people. Act in a way that makes us realize that you don't think you're the only person on the encyclopedia, let alone the only person who's "right". That's my gut-check for whether a person's upholding their obligation to everybody else who works here.--Father Goose (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - I don't really have an issue with swearing, just open hostility. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
A secular 'Amen' to that.

Comment by GoodDay

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion

IMHO, the best way to deal with somebody who's being obnoxious (for example: rude language) is merely to ignore them. If they're not vandalizing pages or userpages etc etc, I don't see any reason for blocks. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone has that ability. I can ignore rude comments directed at me, and you can, but if Joe Editor can't and leaves Wikipedia as a result, or objects to the comment which escalates a discussion into drama, then it's disruptive and should not be ignored. An intolerance for incivility makes Wikipedia a more collegial environment for the kind of collaboration necessary for article development among people who will often have different (and conflicting) opinions on an article's content. -- Atama頭 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
That's true, but if enough editors (who dislike such behaviour) can make it clear to a potty mouth that he/she will be ignored in any discussion, then he/she might get the message - 'watch thee mouth'. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but the result of that would be that every page on wikipedia would end up being owned by the most uncivil person present. if an editor realizes that he can enforce his contributions by insulting, degrading, and attacking other editors (with just enough restraint that he can't be blocked on other grounds) so that other editors will avoid the page, he can pretty much add whatever material he likes to articles unchecked. This happens all the time on pseudoscience articles, and if you look at the talk pages of contentious articles like global warming or creationism you'll see that the vast majority of comments are aggressive insults designed to drive new editors away from the page (or attack old editors for page ownership). I can't even tell you how many times I've been called a 'fringe POV pusher' and been told to take a hike when I've edited those kinds of pages. it gets old. I'm probably more persistent and assertive than 95% of the people on wikipedia when it comes to things like that, and it wears me down; I can't imagine what it's like for someone without my sticktoitiveness. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Good points. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:RBI does work in a lot of cases, but for trolling purposes usually. We also can't force people to follow that mindset or are even aware of that essay. Disruption for the purpose of ranting or bating and disruption with a direct intent to "damage" or do emotional harm are also quite different, and it's the later we never enforce. (I know this is a rather Utopian view, but) Our base assumption should be that all editors are 6, dedicated scholars and are open top compromise... but are emotionally fragile VERY exaggerated but the safe route, but we do need realize that some users take things more personally than others at all experience levels. A general question an admin would ask him/herself if this was reported might be "if I had just joined, would have been put off by this statement?" ... a duck test somewhat, and this would best be most strictly enforced in the mainspace. I also have to face reality and entirely admit that it'd be administrative/janitorial suicide for level 3+ warnings on ta first goa little leeway with a first warning trouting in the main project space / WP:whatnots. Although not an admin it's entirely obvious to me that the boundaries on "uncivil" bend a lot more in policy or disciplinary discussions.
Actually, troutings are good, period. imo some leeway should be given on the severity of an initial violation in the same manner that a normal disruptive edit might start at level2-3 if it's exceptional. I'd be be incredibly weary and have to oppose any 1-warning-only before a block short something like criminal threats which are often blocked on the spot already. So long as infinite strings of final warnings disappear as much as possible. We're getting somewhere here, slowly! I'm optimistic. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
For myself, obnoxious behaviour on the talkpages doesn't intimidate me. However, I reckon there are editors (particularly newbies) who can be Wiki-bullied away. If WP:CIVIL is to be strenghted, low tolerance of threatening foul-language can be effective. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
IMO before we even start talking about blocking users for incivility, we should decide what to do with uncivil administrators, but as long as even a member of the Arbcom states that by being uncivil the administrator has not violated the "administrative tools" IMO there's no use in talking about blocking uncivil users.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I think this may be a source of some confusion. I've been advocating for short, non-escalating blocks specifically as a form of trouting (being told you can't edit for a day because you were mean is a pretty effective fish-slap). however it works, I really want to separate out grarden-variety incivility from more serious disruptive behavior. editors who are trying to edit constructively but lose their cool should get a time-out (they should really take a time out on their own, but few people have that kind of self-reflectiveness); editors who are actual problems should be dealt with under more serious policies. So long as we keep trying to deal with civility and disruptive editing under the same heading it's going to cause massive confusion. it already does: I can point to dozens of instances in ANI where block discussions circle the drain endlessly around: "Yes what s/he did was wrong, but s/he is a valuable contributor to the project...". If we can clarify that even valuable contributors might lose their cool and get short blocks on occasion, and that that's ok for the good of the project, that will make things much easier and ANI can go back to dealing with real problem characters. --Ludwigs2 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Mind ya, there are some editors who are habitual potty mouthed, including big contributors. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Mbz1: if you ask me, uncivil admins should get the same mandatory short blocks as anyone else. It would be an abuse of the tools to unblock themselves, so no worries. --Ludwigs2 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Uncivil behaviour by administrators? Perhaps we could be the judges. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
@GoodDay, I do not believe it works. Arbcom just rejected my request to desysop an uncivil administrator in spite I gave them more than 10 differences of his behavior.IMO it is much easier to become an admin than to loose the tools.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe, if we elect them, we should be allowed to recall them. Time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
@Ludwigs, Well, you might be right in some cases, but not in the others. Sometimes it is really hard to stop using language one is used to. What to do in such situations? Block after block, after block? And then what?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Barring people with Tourette syndrome, I don't think that issue applies. No one is going to get a civility block if they habitually say fuck, shit, and piss (that's unpleasant, maybe, but not uncivil). People will get civility blocks for saying "He's a fucking piece of shit, and he pisses me off". Any reasonable editor will get at most two or three such blocks before catching on that stuff like that can't be said with impunity, and after that will stop doing it (except for the occasional extreme provocation situation). editors who won't or can't stop will keep getting benched, and I imagine some formal or informal criteria will work itself out (e.g. any editor who spends too much time on the bench over the period of a couple of weeks) where admins can say it's no longer merely a matter of civility, but now a matter of disruptive editing. Then they can start doing escalating blocks under disruptiveness policies. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I honestly believe that administrators never should use the words you mentioned, and besides, if a user is using the words like those rather sooner than later, he will use them to call the names as in your example. IMO your first examples using words only is incivility, your second example is incivility + personal attack. Down with such administrators. They do much more harm than they do good. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
On one hand, the words Ludwigs2 listed have their place, & I will use them when I think the occasion calls for their use. However, I am also aware that overuse not only weakens their impact but distracts the reader from the message -- so I will use them as sparingly as one uses a pungent spice in cooking. On the other hand, habitual use of these words would lead to someone asking the user to "clean up your language", & if several people have done this without the user cleaning up her/his act that person will get banned for disruption. In short, let's not belabor the point; pottymouths will be shown the door regardless what the rules are. -- llywrch (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's good approach on the foul language, since, yeah. We'd pull our hair out if we had to sit around and think of a politely-worded alternative in some places. Slips happen. When people are offended by that they often vocalize it in replies and most editors respect that. Repeated usage in the face of polite requests to stop could be seen in user histories or easy searches. Use within personal attacks like the above "He's a fucking piece of shit" example should be an easy block. On tools, gaining community trust for tools is not a legally-binding contract to "play nice or else". If any admin is so extremely exceedingly awful for so long to drive an editor to such lengths, there will still be RfC/U and RfAR. Hopefully this will never happen. Tool removal should just not change as it's rightfully a closed process. Just so long as blocks on admins are possible in remarkably bad behavior versus the current not-ever-really-happening method, that's enough for me for that angle. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it off-putting when in some debate an editor with a different view says "You are ignorant about topic X, and your statements are ridiculous, silly nonsense." There should be a policy requiring civility outlawing personal attacks with some provisions for enforcement when the offending party refuses to delete or strike the offending remarks and instead reiterates them or parses the definitions of the offensive words they use to get their way. The constructive edits done by a persistently rude editor do not outweigh the potential constructive edits which might have been done by all those they drive off the project by their incivility. Edison (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You are making the asumption that from time to time complete idiots do not turn up pretending to know about subjects about which in reality they have not a clue. Is one to waste valuable time discussing with such people when one can cut straight to the point and say "You are ignorant about topic X, and your statements are ridiculous, silly nonsense."? And before you start to argue, let me tell you, I have experienced such a person on these pages only very recently, and most reading this will know of whom I refer. Yet, in spite of all - he is encouraged in his folly and continues in his pontifications on civility - such people invite incivility and deserve it. It's the only language they understand. These people should ask, why me? Why are so many people incivil to me so often and not to others? A little introspection would help to solve a lot of problems. There should be a policy protecting the rest of us from these fools.  Giano  22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are better informed than the person with a different view, it is still not desirable in a project such as this for you to attack or bully by saying "You are ignorant, and what you say is foolish ridiculous nonsense!" Instead you could say "You apparently are not familiar with Ohm's Law (or whatever) which shows that blah and blah, quite contradictory to your assertions." Going to "You fool!" "You idiot!" "You ignoramous!" is deserving of a block. Edison (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Edison. Giano speaks for a number of other users in this regard, but there is overwhelming consensus, policy, and administrator and arbcom precedent that it is not acceptable to demean or abuse users even if they are (factually) ignorant or incorrect on topics.
Participants in this project must treat each other with at least a minimum acceptable level of respect and tolerance; failure to do so has been and remains grounds for blocking or other sanctions.
Giano, Arbcom has now walked two long term good content contributors who refused to stop acting in a manner felt by wide parts of the community to be abusive out the door with yearlong blocks. I would hope that this would indicate that the policy on civility and personal attacks is strongly held by the community writ large, as represented by Arbcom and the admin community, and that violent disagreement with the policy is a worse idea now than it ever has been.
You (and others) are welcome to continue to disagree with the wisdom of the policy. But it is perhaps a better idea now to advocate and disagree by word rather than abusive deed or blatant disregard. The policy can change, but attempting to protest it by being abusive (or disregard policy and continue to act abusively elsewhere) is probably a really bad idea. Please don't encourage anyone to self-destruct on this point. If you chose to yourself - so be it, but please don't take anyone else with you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You try writing a decent page and then having some complete idiot wanting to destroy it because he is trolling for attention. On the last occasion the whole of Wikipedia knew he was trolling for attention - where were you, the Arbcom or any of the civility police then? Were any of you concerned about the content? No, all were sitting dithering on your hands - praying I was going to be uncivil to that ridiculous person - so you could block me. The civility police behave like a lot of nasty ancient old ladies, sitting knitting misshapen garments, waiting dribbling for someone to use the word "fuck" so they can leap out of their chairs in excitement. Do not presume GWH to lecture and hector me, many editors are sick of this attitude by a few obsessed with civility and will no longer tolerate it. If the Arbcom chooses to humour the knitting old ladies rather than support content, then perhaps we need a new Arbcom! However, in my experience the Arbcom are not nearly as concerned with this matter as the civility police. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if that is all the civility police have to contribute to Wikipedia (their mainspace work from what I can see of it is nonexistent or truly awful) would be far better of without them.  Giano  08:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's best an editor lay down his/her own rules of civilty acceptance. If I get annoyed in a discussion with an editor's behaviour? I request that editor make adjustments when conversing with me. If he/she chooses not to adjust? I mererly ignore them (it's alot easier then going through all those Wikiquettes, ANI reports etc, a lot less time consuming). GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have the same approach at my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by WFCforLife

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Turkeys tend not to vote for christmas. Men with grey beards seeking employment in October tend to hold an alternative view.

Civility is one of the fundamental principles of the project, and we already have an established policy on it. If this proposal's aim is to strengthen admin powers, there would need to be an acceptance among non-admin editors that incivility was enough of a problem to warrant such a strengthening. Making the block threshold lower without consensus from ordinary editors could prove extremely counterproductive, with editors in good standing being given punitive blocks for isolated, out of character instances of unacceptable behavior, and deciding not to return. WFCforLife (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that it shouldn't be needed. Try to think of it as saying one can be cited for speeding even if "obey all the signs" is already obvious. If anything, this is meant deflate admin status-- at least from the public perception-- by making it clear that the 'watchers watch the watchers' as part of it. I know it's one of the 5, but detailed things under the others already have their own policy. Of course there'll have to be community talk and admins offering opinions that seem self-centered will have to be questioned. I too feel just dirty in general for wanting to see this in writing since anyone who can't follow it probably should be avoiding Wikipedia in the first place.
It's also not so much that we're trying to lower the threshold, but making very clear that the current standard is a blockable matter as inexcusable behavior here and having a some details defined under it. The common public perception of Wikipedia being a bias, self-serving group of elitist editors and administrators that are above all laws is something everyone should be ashamed of, which is why I've specifically mentioned equal application to editors at higher user rights levels. It's hoped and assumed that some non-admin editors will comment, but yes I agree this is exceptionally important this time since a good deal is a reminder to them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

I realize we may be beating a dead horse here, but I wanted to add in my two cents, at the request of tbsdy.

In spirit, this is a great idea. No editor should ever have to deal with incivility in other editors. Due to the naturally frequent different perspectives that are here, a sense of decorum is necessary to avoid editor burnout.

That being said, I think there needs to be a few things we keep in mind if we solidify a blocking policy for incivility.

There needs to be a carrot and a stick

  • If block warnings, short blocks or discussion towards the infractioner are toothless, they will not correct the incivil behavior. Likewise, blocks that are not accompanied by attempts at behavioral rehabilitation will only cause resentment in those that are blocked, mimicking the feeling that occurs dealing cool down blocks.

Blocks, not bans

  • Likewise, I don't think that bans would be effective, since a ban would just cause the incivil party to create socks, which would then be blocked, creating more socks and so on. There is a near infinite amount of IPs out there, and blocking those IPs for long periods does not hurt the banned parties, it only hurts passive editors using those IPs.

When it comes to any blocking policy, the goal should be convincing the incivil party to rehabilitate their behavior and the Wikipedia experience will be more enjoyable for them if they make it more enjoyable for others through pleasant behavior.

Redemption for good behavior

  • If someone has a black mark forever due to an incivility block, it removes the incentive to improve behavior since there's a feeling that no matter what the editor does, they will always been seen as a black sheep.

If I have any more thoughts, i'll add them later. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of these points, and I think that all of them except the "carrot" approach is dealt with in the text above. What sort of reward system can we give to those who rehabilitate themselves though? All I can think of is encouragement and appreciation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think encouragement and appreciation is all that anyone can ask. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
What about a nice pretty ribbon for their hair? Or something else equally patronising?  Giano  14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Patronizing? Pot, meet kettle. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Abiding by our rules and policies should be non-negotiable. You don't get anything for being a law-abiding person. A carrot won't work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem is, no here seems able to properly define incivility. I define it as cussing, swearing and menacing - Ta-bu and others imagines it to be anyone not talking in the sepulchre tones of a methodist ministers' convention - or in my case, merely not agreeing with him. Take my advice, just let adults be adults and sanction anyone who who says: "you're a f......g the c..t."  Giano  16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You assume too much, I'm afraid. That's not really my concern. For instance, Guy has said some things about you that I'd never consider saying, but I don't think I'd block him for that. Similarly, you have made some incredibly inflammatory and mean-spirited things, but again I would not block you for that either. It's when incivility spills over to main article space that things need to be done. Let's say, for example, I edited Exploding houses and you didn't like it, and you decided to attack me personally, then this would be incivility that disrupted the project, so I would apply this policy here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Awarding somebody for being rehabilitated (from foul language) is irrelevant IMHO. It basically all comes down to the community's decision. If enough editors complain about the language usage of an editor & move towards a community ban, that editor would be wise to reform. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
They would be wise to reform, but we'd also be wise to realize that we should not create vandals if we can avoid it. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) honestly, the real reward here should be a change in the response they get. i.e. they act uncivilly and they get slapped on the hand; they act civilly and editors treat them with respect and consideration. that would require a separate effort (something would need to be done to curb those editors who are inclined to dredge up every last peccadillo from the previous five years to discredit an editor they dislike), but it would work. nothing makes a people sit up straight faster than treating them with respect. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Incivility is a tough one to nail down. It comes in many forms: Foul-language, threats & perhaps even most annoying, the 'no-response' editors. I've run into editors who refuse to respond at their talkkpages to any messages, to any discussions concerning their edits at the corresponding talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
actually, that 'no talking' thing (which seems to be a practice more common in experienced editors than newbies) is a real irritant. does it really qualify as uncivil, though? It clearly violates social norms and expectations of consensus editing, but...
It's sorta uncivil, as it slows-up collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I am reading this with increasing incredibility:"that editor would be wise to reform", "the real reward here should be a change in the response they get", "nothing makes a people sit up straight faster than treating them with respect" What planet are you on? I have read all of Tbsdy's banal comments and dismissed them as naive, however, all I see here is further naivety and a lack of worldliness taken unto an art form. It is depressing for the future of Wikipedia, that no one tells you how foolish and damaging to the project you are being. So I will tell you this now: You wish to stifle development, free thinking and opinion and have all conform to your own narrow perspective and cultures. All your views will result in, is a wikipedia of high stepping Fascisti-like Admins who use "civility" as a weapon to defeat free expression and opinion. I shall leave you to your deliberations on Utopia and La-La Land. I am not fooled - I shall not return to this farce of a debate and I leave you with no salute.  Giano  21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you're about be blocked for incivility, it would be wise to reform. What's the point of getting blocked at the moment your previous block (for the same offense) expires? If ya get a bad shock, do you stick your finger back into the socket? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Giano brings up why I am concerned if this policy goes through without a positive reinforcer of some kind. What is to some user who is just frustrated from being seen as incivil, and then leaving a black mark that will harm them throughout the rest of their time at Wikipedia? We need to prevent harming productive users who are just in a bad state of mind while protecting users from those who are just here to pick fights. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Balance is certainly needed, it's a fine line applying WP:CIVIL. Too softly applied, one's seen as a jelly-fish; too harshly applied & one's seen as dictatorial. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. In the policy proposal, it was noted that we should discuss when to reset the escalations. We already leave black marks on someone's good name I'm afraid - the block log. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano's discussion thread

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments7 people in discussion

Thread was about kicking off the policy page. Below is Giano's commentary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • There really is no point to this because Ta-Bu considers any point but his own to be incivil.  Giano  11:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • When you make a reasonable point without needing to make ad hominem attacks, then perhaps there will be something to listen to. Anyway, regardless of your input I've starting this off. If you want to be part of formulating this policy I would be very appreciative. if you don't, then I'm not sure what you want me to do here? If you don't want to help with this stage of the policy, you will have ample opportunity to express your opinion when the general community decides to formalize this as standing policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest you learn the meaning of both "ad hominem" and "attack." Your constant assertion that debate using metaphor and idiom is "attack" and "incivil" is largely to blame for the fact that nothing can ever be resolved on these matters and that such confusion reigns on what exactly is civility. If you don't want an opposing view then don't debate, but stop trying to drive me off because others brought me into this debate, without soliciting from me, and here I will now stay!  Giano  12:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it certainly wasn't me Giano. I definitely kept well clear of the whole conversation that occured above, aside from asking what they were talking about. So far, it appears that you've taken umbridge to the whole conversation because of this unfortunate occurrence and have done nothing but snipe at others from the sidelines. By all means, feel free to debate the issue at hand, but try to use Latin phrases such as Quod erat demonstrandum a little less, as you don't appear to understand how to apply them appropriately.
As for attacks, phrases like "priggish hypocrisy", etc. are exactly that - attacking. A lot of your argument seems to me to be attacking my person (calling me "naive", etc.) and not arguing the issue at all. Thus you are indeed engaging in an ad hominem attack. You see? I understand short but interesting Latin phrases also. Like "Et tu, Brutus?", in camera, ex parte, Caecilius est in atrium, quo vadis, caveat emptor, ecce homme, veni vidi vici and a whole host of other pithy and irrelevant phrases. Impressive, no? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Not particularly, no. So far, all you have done Tab-Bi si behave in a very petulant and spoilt fashion. When I have said things with which you don't agree, you seek to have me removed from the debate. That so far you spectacularly shot yourself in the foot (prompting "Quod erat demonstrandum" from me) is only surprise to yourself. It's my opinion you are unqualified and too imature to be part of this debate as you have no comprehension of civility or how to debate it, beyond shouting and screaming "Giano's being rude to me" which really is rather silly, because I can sssure you, that you will have to deal with far worse in your future life.  Giano  14:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As I believe someone put it above, Quod erat demonstrandum. But slow down Giacomo, in your anger you're missing keys on the keyboard! I'm sorry that what I've written has clearly upset you, I'll try not to misuse Latin phrases in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
As is well known on Wikipedia I am grossly dyslexic, which I not the least ashamed of, and I hope it encourages others to feel the same. Content is far more important than a few confused words and typos. So your nasty little jibes on missing keys fails to further or encourage my ire at all. In future, when addressing you I will run everything through spell check, as I hope you will when writing to me in Italian. However, I am unconcerned with minor incivilities and jibes from the likes of you as I am quite big enough and ugly enough to deal with them - something I feel all editors should be able to do. I am only concerned with gross incivilities - and that is what should be being discussed here. My own views on incivility have been clearly defined here [6] for years. I still think it about says all that is necessary on the problem.  Giano  16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
May we collapse this section? or transfer it to both your guy's talkpages? GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
No we damn well can't. Let people see how TBDSDY conducts his arguments.  Giano  17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, what better place to observe a disagreement, then at 'Wikipedia:Incivility blocks'. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Serious though, let's at least collapse this section. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I had no idea that Giacomo is dyslexic. I was in no way targetting his disability, merely the substance of his argument, which is weak. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So why mention the typos? Cheap! You have no idea of good manners and civility, yet you attempt to lecture us all in the subject. Giano  21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I merely mentioned the typos because you were getting very upset and the typos only started at this point. Like I say I had no idea you are dyslexic. While it may not seem that way to outsiders, the only interaction I've really ever had with you before now is when I took your article to FARC and you got so upset, so I'm not intimately aware of your condition. Obviously if I knew of your dyslexia then I would have taken this into consideration and not mentioned the typos, but I definitely would have mentioned how upset you are getting. I'm sorry that you were mentioned, but I have two points to mention about that. Firstly, you were mentioned because you are a problem we are trying to resolve - you are an excellent contributor (even if you don't like contributing to main article space in the normal way), but you are also someone who tends to discourage others from contributing because of your behaviour. Yes, you have a coterie of loyal followers, but that doesn't mean that you can do what you like, which is what you do. The second point I make is that only a few people made specific commentary about yourself. For myself, I only asked for clarification what was being discussed, especially as I remember my last run-in with you all those years ago. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no recollections of "run in" with you at all! (can we have diff - you know what one of those is?)However, on this page my name is mentione 20 odd times, with no supporting diff and you are happy to carry on pontificating. Is that civil? No to say on my talk you are being discussed? No you just carry on - you have no idea of good mammers or civility. None at all. So do not presume to lecture on the subject.  Giano  21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure. This is the diff. Your direct accusation was "at the moment it seems to me you are merely adding your name to the editing history file, for reasons best known to yourself." You later made the following post, where you stated that "From the very moment you theatrically announced your departure you have been constantly popping up and down like an agitated infant. Now if you've nothing constructive to say it's better to say nothing at all." You might not remember, but I sure do, and it seems not much has changed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Who cares if one is this or that. It can't be confirmed or denied, eitheway. Move on. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't wanna see either of yas getting blocked for edit-warring, so I'll request an administrator to consider 'archiving' or 'collapsing'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've reported this to ANI. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a current discussion, we shall not have it archived because some admins don't care for the way it is going.  Giano  21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that will certainly deescalate the drama... <rolls eyes> UnitAnode 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Djsasso to see what he thinks. Whatever he decides, I'll accept it. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You can ask the Allmighty, but the matter is current and relevant to this debate.  Giano  21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ask the all-mighty? I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If we want this page to get back on-topic then it is required of us all not to respond to off-topic conversation. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, agreed. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
For sure. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late. What did I miss? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest that folks here stop focusing on Giano. The problem is much greater than any one editor, and focusing on a non-banned editor will just create unneeded drama and make a consensus that much harder to find. There are plenty editors who've been banned for incivility should examples be needed.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)#
Banned editors, what are they? do these people even know of one - No, they preferred to discuss me in my absence, and are now cross I have come to join the party. Is this civil - these people have no idea of the meaning of the word. Suddenly, they don't look so civil themselves.  Giano  08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be very wise for these comments to be restored to their original place withing the next hour or so. Ta-Bu has no right alter a page to distort and influence and mislead. Or is this his private page? Or you all afraid of him? Whatever, if not restored shortly, I shall do it myself, and it would be a pity if anything were to be accidentally lost.  Giano  08:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not going to happen. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a huge pity Ta-Bu, I had no idea you had promoted yourself to the Arbcom? You must be left here to distort then, the page is now so deeply flawed, any policy, of changes of policy, wich results from it must be treated with contempt and disdain.  Giano  08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You just said you were OK with losing material. Can you confirm that this is correct? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kicking this off

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

OK, so I think there's been quite a bit of discussion, with mostly great contributions so far so let's get this started.

I have started with FT2 and my own text, however there is another suggestion that we may want to incorporate into the text. The page is here:

Wikipedia:Incivility blocks.

I've also moved this discussion as a talk page for this policy.

So let's see what else we can do to incorporate the other ideas and concerns into the proposed policy text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea, it will give a clear way forward for those users who have no intention of becoming civil while giving those willing to change ample opportunity. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I can dig it. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging FT2/Tbsdy and Ludwigs2 text

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

OK, so I've added FT2's text into the proposal as well as my own, however I like some of Ludwigs2's ideas. In particular I like the "Dysfunctional" idea that Ludwigs brings to the table, and for my text I like the first paragraph and the two tests (the "Redaction test" and the "Flood test"). I think they both are good points!

How do we do a merge? Now that we have the text in an actual proposed policy page, anyone want to give it a stab? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very good at mergers, but I suppose taking the best of each would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If you, FT2 & Ludwigs2 can come up with a merged proposal, that would be cool to check over. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
well, for a start:
  • we could move the 'dysfunctional' bit into the 'Lacks project benefit' point. something like: "objectively seems to have little or no project benefit - the wording seems intended merely for emotional satisfaction, and risks derailing the conversation into a non-productive personal disputes."
  • We could move the 'redaction test' point (as I did in my version) into the 'enforcement' section and add the flood test bit - set them up as minimum criteria for applying enforcement.
would those work? --Ludwigs2 18:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely :-) Did you want to do the honours? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
lol - I'm not sure I feel honored, but it is done. I just realized we need to add in some kind of 'half-life' clause to keep these blocks from endlessly hanging over people's heads. should that go in one of these two sections, or get it's own space in the article? --Ludwigs2 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's quite good! Nice merge :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Incivility_blocks/Archive_1&oldid=1144756899"