Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Inclusion of Diplomacy?

Should we mention the use of being polite and using diplomacy in the act of being civil? For example:

"Civility also includes the use of diplomacy, where users are expected to use neutral language when dealing with a hostile or contraversal situation."

--Karn-b 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil Templates

I subscribe to the idea that people are naturally good, but that sometimes people don't know when they're being uncivil. Maybe a template should be created to be inserted into a talk page, on request by admins, which will gently inform a user they have been uncivil, give a relevant example, and point them to this page.

For example:

"Wikipedia subscribes to the ideal that all contributors are editing with goodwill, and are all trying to improve the content of the article. Language which may be insulting to other users maybe counter productive, and focus the efforts of editors from improving the article to counter-productive arguments."

--Karn-b 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sonic,Pikachu,and Snorunt 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)13:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)People are cursing!

"Fixed Sloppy Spelling

How is "fixed sloppy spelling" being rude? If someone takes that as rude, I'd say they either need to learn to spell better or be thankful that someone fixed their mistakes. - JNighthawk 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fixed spelling" is fine. The judgmental tone caused by the adjective "sloppy" is what offends. The adjective is unnecessary.

I don't see how "sloppy" is offensive at all. People should take care when they edit an article. If they can't take five seconds and run a quick spell check, Wikipedia is better off without them. Modor 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Modor

Being Patronised

My personal hate is being patronised, and I am slightly disappointed that there is no mention of it in these pages, as a new contributor I have been subjected to a particular user making condescending comments and find this offensive.

These mainly revolve around policys and guidelines, and my lack of minute knowledge of these, allied to being a new contributor.

Any comments on this particular topic(I fully expect the one who is patronising me to arrive on this topic and start their discourse anew). Cheers. Belbo Casaubon 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the right page to complain about how another editor is interacting with you. You might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. John Broughton | ♫ 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your feedback, however I was primarily (perhaps ineffectively) the subject of being patronising in the context of civility, and although I suppose that is how my discourse could be parsed, I was not complaining, except perhaps about the lack of coverage of this topic. Belbo Casaubon 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're saying that the policy doesn't say anything about "condescending" or "patronizing" remarks, that's true. I'm not sure the goal of the policy is to list all the ways in which language can be used to say negative things. You might want to take a look at WP:BITE, which discusses how more experienced editors should interact with newer ones. John Broughton | ♫♫ 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

{{civil}}

I've made a proposal regarding this recently deleted template. See Tagging uncivil users.[1] --ElectricEye (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered making a {{welcomecivil}} similar to {{welcomenpov}}? Addhoc 14:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Edit summaries - civility

Is it uncivil to mention previous editors in the edit summary in the following fashion: "fixed missorting by Suzy Queue" ? Novickas 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. In fact, it would be much better to just say: "fixed sorting". The "mis" part, as well as the name, are really unnecessary in this example. Suzy Queue can be a good potential contributor who is just learning the ropes. Being nice to her will encourage her to try harder and improve her edits. And it's not just Suzy herself - anyone else around gets affected by the bad vibes of incivility, so it's important to maintain a friendly and fun environment that will attract contributors and enhance collaboration. Crum375 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I am thinking of adding a link to this section on the person's talk page; would that be appropriate? Maybe wait a little while, in the hope that he/she is just having a bad day? Sincerely, Novickas 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. Sometimes just quickly pointing out mild incivility, especially when not part of a clear pattern, may aggravate the situation. I would wait to see a pattern before commenting, and even then very gently, by emphasizing the positives. But if you do see either a clearly offensive remark, or an emerging pattern of milder uncivil ones, it would help to point them out 'diplomatically'. Doing it in a polite and gentle manner that de-escalates the situation is the mark of a good wikipedian. Crum375 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The word is "Uncivil" not "Incivil"

Useless Policy

The worst part of this policy is that this there are no consequences for being uncivil. If you contribute to Wikipedia and accuse other people of completely false things and talk in a degrading way, admins can't do jack all. Look at User:Mais oui!,User_talk:Donteatyellowsnow. There's no point other than to say please be nice. Langara College 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See no personal attacks. Also note that editors that are uncivil in a recurrent manner, can be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Failure To Answer Serious Questions Is An InCivility!

In my personal opinion, the failure of any editor or admin to acknowledge and/or answer legitimately serious questions about contributions, references and WP guidelines to be a case of incivility. Any editor, but especially new editors are going to make errors. Those errors are going to result in all types of actions the new editors may or may not understand such as COI, POV issues, notability, verifiability, deletion protocols, reverts etc and require further inquiry to understand fully. When questions are clearly posed to specific editors or admins on talk or discussion pages in a civil way and there is a clear expectation that the editor/admin will see the question, those editors/admins should do one of two things:

  • 1) Acknowledge the question and choose to not answer it. or
  • 2) Answer the question with their interpretation of the issue.

Both these actions are the civil thing to do. Failure to acknowledge a serious question, asked in good faith is just uncivil. The editor asking the question may not like the answer, and may not even like being told by the specific editor that they choose not to answer, but that’s OK. But asking a question that goes unacknowledged and/or unanswered is extremely frustrating and very un-collaborative. I think that Failure on the part of editors and admins to acknowledge and/or answer serious good faith questions by other editors should be included in the list of incivilities.--Mike Cline 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It is also possible that the editor is busy with other things, or on wikibreak, or didn't have the page the question was on watchlisted, or otherwise hasn't seen your question. WP:FAITH. >Radiant< 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
All reasonable possibilities, but that's why I included the following in my comment above: ...and there is a clear expectation that the editor/admin will see the question... My point, when you KNOW the editor/admin is active on their talk page or other discussion pages then there should be a reasonable expectation that questions will be acknowledged and/or answered.--Mike Cline 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It still depends on what is being asked. Maybe the question is incivil and the askee is ignoring it. At any rate, you can't legislate Wikipedia; if you are upset by having your questions gone unanswered, adding a clause here will not actually fix anything. >Radiant< 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing a user

I've go a user who's accused me inventing content/policy, made insulting comments against me, and has consistently been using a very aggressive and accusation tone for about a month. I've informally warned them, and so has another user, but they have persisted. I'd like to cite them under NPA or Civility, but I can't find out how to. Some help would be appreciated (for some reason the incivility etc boiler plates don't seem to be clearly accessible).

perfectblue 07:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Giving WP:CIVIL some teeth?

Are there any proposals to creating consequences for people who don't obey WP:CIVIL? It seems people can get away with being a WP:DICK for a long time without any real significant consequences. -- Craigtalbert 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Being thought of as a dick can be a real significant consequence in a community where you keep running into the same people. I've also seen blocks for repeated gross incivility, which usually falls under WP:NPA, I guess. I don't much like the idea of writing enforcement language into this policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with not creating an enforcement policy for this page. See WP:VAN and WP:NPA for more information on that. Alex43223 T | C | E 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be civil to give this policy teeth :) >Radiant< 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Expanded information about cautions

I added this information to the "caution the offender" section. Radiant deleted it. Anyone else have an opinion on whether or not it would be appropriate?

When leaving a comment on a user's talkpage, it is helpful to include a section title and edit summary such as "Civility," which can be of use later if it is necessary to go through a user's history to prove a pattern of ignoring warnings and persisting with uncivil behavior. It may also be useful to look at the history of a user's talkpage to see if there have already been recent cautions from other users. One or two cautions about civility are generally not seen as sufficient basis to take action against a user. But, if it can be shown that multiple users in good standing have been cautioning an editor about civility, then it may be time to escalate the matter, such as via a user conduct Request for Comment. Please note that this step should not be taken for minor infractions or in a simple one-on-one dispute, but only in a case where multiple users have attempted to address an ongoing problem. If a user conduct RfC is not "certified" by at least two users, it will be deleted.

Personally I think it's useful to give these kinds of instructions. In my experience, when an editor is repeatedly uncivil, they usually react to civility cautions by just deleting them off their talkpage, and this method of sweeping things under the rug enables them to coast without official action for quite awhile. However, if we encourage the victims to use a gentle but more standardized method of cautioning them, then it makes a pattern of problem behavior easier to spot, and easier to document if it's necessary to dig through someone's talkpage history for an eventual RfC or RfAr. --Elonka 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In my opinion this language is too much focused on maintaining records of a user's misbehavior, with the later intent of RFC'ing or RFAr'ing them. That is a negative and unhelpful approach. >Radiant< 16:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Seems like policy creep and more like encouragement to gather evidence for DR than actually dealing with civility. Let's not fetishize talk page warnings. Using edit summaries and section headers is common sense and isn't unique to civility. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Does overheated debating equal to incivility?

I've got a question to ask about Civility. Let's say there is a discussion that goes very heated that you can actually feel there may be conflict doing on. Would that be considered incivil? I see many disputes around the place where both sides won't compromise, and an awful argument arise.Kylohk 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Heated debate tends to lead to incivility, and incivility tends to lead to heated debate. >Radiant< 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick response. It's like this, I'm noticed a heated debate where participants of both sides started to yell at each other, with sarcasm and anger felt at both sides. I stepped in, and try to explain that is being overly harsh in posting their points and rather provocative, and yet I was simply told that I am egoist. I had no ill intentions at all, just wanted to quell the argument. I simply declared my good intentions right now. So, what should be done about this? the discussion, which I recently joined is[2]--Kylohk 15:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't it be nice if we could just block both of them? — Omegatron 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter much now. Once I came back with attributable proof about the argument, I received no more responses. At the same time, I looked up the policy on no personal attacks, which state that attempting to use people's affilations (In this case, their residency of Hong Kong) as a means of discrediting their views is not something one should do. Also, the discussion was finally closed due to that user committing an ad hominem fallacy. But either way, I would like to apologize for any wording I have posted that may be perceived as going too far. Cheers.--Kylohk 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Judgemental tone?

With regards to, "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")" - I was about to go ahead and be bold and change this to something like, "Judgemental tone in edit summaries and comments about [or regarding?] articles." I was going to do this because sometimes in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion (I'm sure this would apply elsewhere) people make comments like articles being "rubbish" or "people wasting their time" (in reference to good faith contributions, and these are just isolated examples), etc. Does anyone have any objections or support or suggestions on how to implement this, or would just being bold be appropriate?

I bring this up in reference to a comment "Seriously, do I actually need [sic] to go into detail as to why this sort of fancruft rubbish [sic] shouldn't be poisoning Wikipedia further?" On this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kenny's_deaths. The the user's opinion about the article should be respected, but perhaps to create a more positive environment they should be more sensitive to the editors who contribute to article about Southpark (or any topic for that matter) and who act in good faith. --Remi 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Although the article was unnecessary and needed to be deleted, I agree with you that the nominator could have said so in a less offensive way. It's most likely that such articles are created by relatively new users who don't understand Wikipedia's inclusion standards, and so it's not really civil to WP:BITE their heads off with aggressive deletion nominations. The term "fancruft" isn't excessively uncivil IMHO, but "rubbish" and "poisoning Wikipedia" certainly are. Walton Need some help? 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Blocked Because of Beliefs

Yeah, so i was blocked because of political beliefs. User:Ymous

this was the parting shot:

"*Yawn. Oh well, perhaps you are right. There, I said it. Feel free to consider your block a pyrrhic victory. At any rate, playtime is over; talk page protected from further trolling"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CIVIL

Yep.

Profanity

I was told it is proper ettiquette to use profanities like cunt, cock and fuck when making suggestions for changes in articles. I am against this. If wiki wants to appear scholarly these words should not be used. I think there should be a rule on this. For instance I would not want my 10 year old daughter to attempt a conversation on a talk page and then have someone say

[[== "I don't write the fucking definitions" ==]]

as a response back to her. Now that happened to me and I asked the editor not to talk like that and he said it was not against the rules.

I think this should be changed. I do not think children should be exposed to that kind of language and actually neither should adults in this type of forum.

ProtoCat 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone is using profanity, consider applying peer pressure to discourage them. But don't paint the kettle black while you are doing it or you may just add fuel to the fire. But still, usage of profanity may be a personal attack, and that is another violation, not just in Wikipedia, but in society.--Kylohk 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're talking about the seven dirty words, just delete the words or the whole post. What are they going to do? Complain to an admin? Haber 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes but he has said he has the right to use profanity since it is not prohibited by wiki rules. I would like the rules to say you cannot use profanity. ProtoCat 12:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, profanity in public is frowned upon in society. If you are meant to talk things over seriously, it had better be civil. I believe discouraging people from using it is a good way to deal with the problem. If he utters profanity for the sake of doing it, then it's likely to be a personal attack, or he is causing trouble just to prove a point.--Kylohk 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Causing trouble to prove a point maybe counter-productive - insulting a person "your edit is utter crap so I reverted it" is likely to esclate into something worse. In any case, I do agree that the seven dirty words should be made against the rules, in order to show that it is unacceptable in the wiki society - after all, these guidelines must be changed by concensus, which means they demonstrate that it is what society here prefers.Karn-b 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the most important article on Wikipedia

thanks for starting it. RodentofDeath 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Labeling fellow editors

How civil is labeling fellow editors with nouns based on their work, views and nationality? For example Ive been here for a month and Ive already been labeled as a "meatpuppet" and "problematic Estonian nationalist"(Being called meatpuppet is plain insulting and my nationality is Estonian, but I am no nationalist)... Where does policy stand on such labeling? --Alexia Death 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and labeling any arguments on the specifics of Holocaust an act "Holocaust denial"... It feels like a roundabout but clear way of calling editors nazies...And that is instulting to any thinking person. This sounds like complaining... Heck, it is complaining. This Civil thing does not work...--Alexia Death 05:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing sourced information from Holocause related articles, based on a nationalistic/denialist agenda, can be seen as a form of Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is a special form of hate speech, you do not need to say something "hatefull" to engage in it, it is just enough simply to actively remove and censor factual information on the Holocaust. -- Petri Krohn 11:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah another "friendly" tag to toss around. Hate speech. So nice of you to exhibit it here as living proof. Labeling opposition as speakers of "hate speech"... I must realy thank you for this living demonstration of tagging. "Removing sourced information from Holocause related articles, based on a nationalistic/denialist agenda" implies so much... "sourced information" is only applicable in the context of the article in question. and accusing someone of having a "nationalistic/denialist agenda" is just a sophisticated way of putting someone down because they do not agree with you...--Alexia Death 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people are more interested in putting others down in a converstion than in making meaningful progress. The best response is to model correct behavior back to them, and hope that they rise to the occasion. When they don't, you can always seek outside opinions. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment

I put the essay on the "see also".--Cerejota 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Before incorporating such information into the policy, you may want to post a link to your essay at Template:Announcements/Community_bulletin_board to get some feedback and then add to the policy only after consensus on this talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

threats

On my talk page, there is a threat of legal action over Acen Ravzi, from the alleged producer who keeps replacing the earlier text, which he claims is incorrect, with POV copyright (which he claims to own) spam. I'm not losing sleep, but I can't find the policy regarding legal threats. Any ideas? I'm out all day, so for the time being I've deleted and protected the page to call a halt. Jimfbleak 05:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this link Wikipedia:No legal threats of any help to you?Julia Rossi (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding a Link

I'd like to add a link to a forum whose purpose is to discuss topics with civil, non-vulgar, non-hateful, non-spiteful.... well the word civil pretty much sums up how you can debate. It is very well monitored and debaters are chastised and even removed if they become uncivil. It is censored for profanity and vulgarity automatically, and further censoring is accomplished by the moderator. I placed this link up here last week and someone felt it necessary to remove - I'm sure because they thought I was promoting some gain of my own, but I'm really just trying to help anyone interested in civility out so that we can all discuss things together. This is not a profitable site, membership is free I have nothing at all, nor do the site's operators, by anyone visiting or joining except for the conversation you may choose to take part in. Please allow this link to stay.

What is the benefit to this encyclopedia of posting the link? In what article did you want to post it? Sancho 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There are currently a number of links to other sources of information on civility, this link provides not so much a source of information on the topic of civility itself, but provides a place where civility can be practiced. I will try to answer why I feel this is beneficial to the encyclopedia.
This encyclopedia is about providing information to people interested about an almost infinitely growing number topics as well as places to go to gather more information on the same, similar, or related topics. It is edited by its users, as is the nature of a "Wiki," and two main goals that are achieved by this manner of implementation of an encyclopedia are ever-evolving, current, up-to-date information as well as a wealth of oversight. I am providing new, current information to this topic that I feel would be at least interesting and at most useful to readers of this article and I feel that most people overseeing this project might agree.
I encourage more discussion on the topic. If the person who removed the link would kindly explain the reason then perhaps we can come to an agreement regarding placing it here or not. Omalley 09:05, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
I agree with removal of the link[3]. Wikipedia talk pages are forums where people practice civility. The purpose of the project page is to set out the policy on civility. While some resources may be in order, we don't need a link to discussions outside of Wikipedia. The link does not meet the guidelines for external links. It does not belong here. Sunray 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry it was removed. I think it was a useful addition. Although people practice civility on Wikipedia talk pages, that is not the intent or purpose of Wikipedia talk pages; their intent is to discuss that page's topic, albeit civilly. The link I was attempting to add is for a web-site whose purpose is civility and discussions are typically in areas where it is hard to find civil discussion. This link provides further information on this project page's topic. I realize Wikipedia does not like linking to discussion forums, but at one point in time it did not like "links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content," but now even that is okay if "the article is about such rich media." I propose that a similar situation exists here. This project page is about civility. The link I have proposed adding is to a site whose prime purpose is to practice civility; unlike Wikipedia discussion pages which merely practice civility as one of many guidelines and rules regulating the discussions. Although this project page outlines guidelines for Wikipedia's discussions it also serves as a traditional encyclopedia article on the topic itself, and links to resources "with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" should be linked to as outlined in the guidelines for external links. My apologies for the delayed response. I have been away on business for sometime. Omalley576 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it isn't a great site and perhaps most useful for individuals interested in civility. However, you were trying to add it as an external link to a Wikipedia Project Page (a policy), not an article, which is what your quote, above, refers to. For clarity: Project pages are in a different namespace than articles. This page is not an article, it is a policy. BTW, I doubt that it would pass the test as an external link to an article either, but that is another matter (for another page; perhaps another time). Blessings. Sunray 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

Why isn't this a "behaviourial guideline", like WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:POINT, etc? Melsaran 13:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility is crucial to being able to collaborate with other editors to produce this encyclopedia. Thus it is in the same league with WP:CON and WP:NPA, IMO. Sunray 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
NPA is pretty clear: No Personal Attacks. Civility is more abstract, and interpretations vary. This is rather in the same league as AGF, I think. Although important, it does not have any "firm" rules, and therefore looks more like a behavioural guideline than a policy to me. Melsaran 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is behavioral. It is listed under Behavioral policies. You are suggesting that WP:NPA is clearer. I agree. It is also, easier to administer. However, I think that a limited number of things become policies because of their importance to the Wikipedia community. Civility is one of these. There have been debates on this page about whether it is a valid policy. My own view is that it is the behavioral sine qua non. It is the basis for WP:AGF,WP:BITE, WP:POINT and other, more specific, guidelines. It speaks to the citizenship of editors in the Wikipedia universe. Sunray 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

this page is getting out of hand. I see that even "calling for a ban" was listed as prohibited "incivility". WP:CIVIL is important, but it cannot be enforced, because people's standards vary enormously: it can only be enforced stringently once "incivility" has clearly given way to "NPAvio". It is de facto a guideline, and in fact not more than a corollary of WP:DICK. Some people will even call "WP:CIVIL" when they are pointed to WP:DICK ("how dare you call me a dick"...) WP:CIVIL is important, but it is just as important that we do not allow it to be used as a pretext to dodge the issue of blatant bad faith. WP:CIVIL should never be construed as a prohibition of calling bullshit bullshit, or bad faith bad faith. WP:AGF is subject to WP:UCS. Hell, every policy is subject to WP:UCS. At some point, it becomes impossible (or silly) to assume good faith. And while we shouldn't be positively rude even to trolls, it is perfectly necessary to deal with them unceremoniously and without decorum. "troll. blocked." or "rv nonsense." aren't civil statements, but they are matter-of-fact statements (as opposed to hysterical personal attacks), and often perfectly appropriate. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link

I think this essay should also be included in all the other essays at the bottom of the page. The other essays listed are relevant, and so is this, since it outlines a core philosophy on how to better stay civil. 68.143.88.2 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a particularly good essay, at least for adding to this policy. It might make a good external link to WP:DICK, which is marginal itself, but it is cited so often that I don't see a reason to remove it. - Dean Wormer 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
comment I understand you don't think it is a good essay, however all these people do think it is a good essay. Additionally, the reason why WP:FUCK doesn't get cited enough is because of the huge censoring issue Wikipedians have simply because of a "taboo" word. additionally, if more people would adopt this attitude, incivility would no-longer be a problem. I think the essay is at least worth mention in WP:CIVIL. 68.143.88.2 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not an essay should exist is a completely different discussion than whether or not it should be linked into a core policy. Dean Wormer 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is it is a very relevant essay and I believe it would help associate the core concepts of this policy to contributors that it might otherwise not reach. Basically, the point is that it would improve the encyclopedia as a whole to have the essay accessible though this highly viewed policy, especially one a lot of the people that review this article are, in-fact, probably displaying non-civil behavior and clicked on a link on their user:talk page. 68.143.88.2 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reason why I cited the AfD discussion was simply to counter your original response that seemed to justify not including the subject essay simply because "you didn't think it is a particularly good essay". Many others do think it's good. 68.143.88.2 20:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with marginal essays existing in Wikipedia namespace, but I do object to lending them an air of credibility by linking them into core policies. Dean Wormer 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You say the essay is "marginal", but I beg to differ. And it would seem the essay has many followers. Don't give a fuckism, as an essay, is good. How are you rating this essay? I'm not sure I understand where you come up with "marginal". I'm not sure about adding it to WP:CIVIL, but I don't think it would hurt either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.14.113 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we're going to continue to disagree. We should allow others to express their view. Dean Wormer 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Misconduct

I have suffered from a series of misconducts committed by the user:Brincos. Regardless I was cleared off from the sockpuppetry charge raised by user:Brincos, he keep calling me as a sockpuppeteer in my user talk box [user talk:patriotmissile] and [talk:korea university].

In addition, he called me as a dog in the [[talk:sky (schools)] box. Moreover he threatened me without any clear reason in my talk box. He claimed that I did misconduct rightafter I replied to the sentence made by [User:Boromir's Regret]. All I have done was replied to user:Brincos remark, 'Please try to think before writing something. Brincos 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)' by adding the line, "Likewise, as you saidPatriotmissile 23:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)". I think he is trying to put some excuses to make me convicted from Wikipedia. I certainly feel tight threatens from the words made by user:Brincos.

At last, I think he made a confession on his committing an user-computer hacking in the [talk:sky (schools)]. He added the lines as follows; 'I like discussion, but think that I need to stop because I found Goldenapex, Patriotmissile, Antiskku had used computer in the same area so I am very suspicious of your multiple log-on. (This is not that hard for me. I am a computer scientist.)'. He clearly stated that he found that those three users were logged on the same area. As I know, there's no way, but knowing this by hacking. Is there any official means to know the user's log-on area supported by Wipedia? As I know, there's no such means. I feel very upset because I feel like I am tracked down by [user:Brincos]. Please check above accusations.Patriotmissile 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Patriotmissile 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

I've been working with User:SJ to get this user to realize the basis behind WP:CIV. A few hours ago this comment was made where SJ made a statement (which has been made before) that "your edits make articles worse" and followed it with a statement that I should get off Wikipedia and stop editing. I responded with a kinder note [4] but am requesting a neutral person contact this user and state that it is indeed the case that such comments are unproductive and not in the spirt of WP:CIV. I am not asking for a block or any kind of punishment, just someone unrelated to comment. Thank you! -OberRanks 03:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

libel and other attacks on reputation

One of the problems that I've seen has been a tendency in some contentious areas to engage in casual libel, usually not actionable in a US context but IANAL so don't take that as legal advice. I would find such libel to be remarkably uncivil but the only mention I find here regarding the problem is an admonition that even when accurate, one should not call someone a libeler.

This seems remarkably incomplete. Is this covered in a different document? How *is* one supposed to deal with libel? At the very minimum, I would think a link to the proper document would be needed. TMLutas 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the way to 'deal with libel' is to hire a lawyer and sue the person who libeled you. Am I missing something here? Dlabtot (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What should I do?

Like others I have been disappointed by the amount of incivility I have seen (not directed at myself, but I have seen it).

Here's the most recent example I saw:

  • A user wrote on his own talk page that he wouldn't be at Wikipedia much longer.
    • Another user replied: "When? We can celebrate your departure in an appropriate manner."

I think that is uncivil. Do you agree?

Should I leave a note on the uncivil user's page that he was uncivil? I'm not sure that I have ever seen a warning - and there is no standard warning - about incivility and I don't know that it would do any good. If the community had an ongoing campaign against incivility and admins were prepared to actually do something about it, then warnings might accomplish some good. But if I am the only guy issuing such warnings then I might just be tilting at windmills.

Is there any prospect of community-wide action against incivility? Jimbo's recent comment, "Many good admins have lamented to me lately that there is a real problem with civility in Wikipedia", is somewhat encouraging but are there any signs of action? Sbowers3 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your response was a classic example of what not to do, and has earned you a civility warning of your own. Practice what you preach is my advice to you. FeloniousMonk 03:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
FM and I are having a civil discussion on my talk page about civility matters somewhat related to my question. Sbowers3 06:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(uindenting) Whatever flaws I might have, I still would appreciate replies to my original questions. Sbowers3 06:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sbowers3, I would agree that the post you cited was uncivil, unprofessional, and unbecoming the dignity of our project here.

Pointing out to someone that they're being uncivil without being so yourself can be difficult. One wishes not only avoid hypocrisy, but also to ModelDesiredBehavior. I think the best way to do it is to approach the editor in a different context - on their own talk page, or via email, if you trust them in that way. A good thing to say would be something like,

"Hi, while I understand that you feel frustrated by this editor, I think there's a better way to express that than by saying, '[foo]'. Please remember that the world is watching us here at Wikipedia, and that we aspire to treat each contributor with dignity and respect, even those with whom we disagree. Remember also that personal attacks wear away at the collaborative atmosphere, as well as tending to provoke more personal attacks. Thank you for understanding."
If it's a newbie, then you might add links to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but if not, I'd remember the wisdom of WP:DTTR.

If you really set a high standard of class and civility, then many people will react by rising to it; conversely, if you allow yourself to make derogatory or insulting remarks, or to respond to conflict heavy-handedly, then you may well inspire others to do the same. If you are vere professional and polite, and they come back at you rudely, then getting someone else to look at the situation is probably your best bet. Needless to say, saying anything insulting about anybody is a Bad Idea. I hope that helps. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your example wording. That's good and much better than anything I thought of. I probably would have linked to WP:CIVIL but the user is not a newbie and I forgot about WP:DTTR. As it happens, circumstances have changed and I probably won't follow up with this particular user but your words will be very helpful the next time I see incivility. Sbowers3 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory messages?

WP:ICA says that unfounded accusations of impropriety are incivility. Well and good. But three lines down it says that accusations of slander are incivility. Which is it? If someone complains that X has unjustly accused them of impropriety they are de facto accusing X of slander. To read this document, complaining that one (or a third party) is the target of incivility is itself incivil. Egfrank (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The operative word here is 'unfounded'. Unfounded accusations of impropriety are incivility. But just as truth is an absolute defense against slander, truthful accusations of impropriety are not incivility. Dlabtot (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reform is needed here

Reform is needed for this guideline. Yes, it is very important to be civil. Yet this guideline has been abused many times by editors. A simply disagreeance over something on an article can be listed as "uncivil", rather than truly uncivil comments, such as "I hate you, go away." and the like. This guideline needs to make it clear that a disagreeance, misunderstanding, etc. is not uncivil, but comments such as "I hate you", just about anything target to (someone/some people) that uses a swear to describe them, or having no care at all for respect of human values are uncivil. Otherwise this guideline will get further abused. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the guideline too lenient. For example, the guideline says religious slanders are out of line, but I just had an experience where someone insisted that it was OK to make deeply offensive remarks about a religious group because (a) they were only on the talk page and (b) in the editors opinion they were true and WP:NPOV doesn't mean no point of view and (c) the editor has a right to express his opinion. Hence it didn't count as religious slander.
I can readily understand making an offensive claim with the intention of discussion its inclusion in an article. Wikipedia WP:NPOV doesn't mean nice point of view. On the other hand, I can't comprehend how such statements are considered civil when not specifically connected to proposed (or challenged) article content. If they are tolerated, IMHO, it is practically like hanging out a sign saying "Warning: Edit war ahead if you say anything positive about the denigrated group". Even if there is something notable and citable it will never get said. Most polite people stay away if they sense an edit war. And most people who voice negative statements about a group aren't about to go looking for counter evidence to their own beliefs. Egfrank 22:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility in user warnings

I'd like to add a line or two to the policy indicating that even justified warnings must be worded with care and civility.

I recently observed a WP:WQA where a user complained about the civility of a warning. Rather than deal with the civility complaint, one or more of the Wikiquette volunteers began attacking the complainant. They justified their behavior by claiming that the wording didn't matter because the warning itself was justified.

Common sense (and parenting/teaching/management 101) says this kind of reaction is unhelpful . The goal of a warning is behavior change. A warning's message is most likely to be effective if the warned editor is not distracted by overly emphatic, rude, disrespectful, or otherwise impolite wording.

I don't have a specific wording in mind, yet. Any suggestions or discussion? Egfrank (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

article talk page

Hi. I need help about this editor who suggested discussing further a topic at a certain article's talk page.

Last night, I read up on the editor's proposal to discuss differences of two variants of a topic, and when I cited WP:NOT#FORUM, the editor suddenly responded in a manner akin to a personal attack. It may have bordered somewhat on biting, even if I have been registered for nearly one year. He asked me to compare each other's contributions then told me to chase down something else...even criticised my talk page as, quote 'virginal,' unquote. I haven't seen that guy's contributions and I don't intend to anytime soon, lest i inflate his ego even more than it is right now.

I made a small reply and studied the civility procedures (was even tempted to erase the response because of WP:CIVIL violations), but I was visibly irked because some Wikipedians are acting holier-than-thou, just because what, they have made tons of contributions and archived a bunch of threads on their talk pages? Sounds like arrogance. I'm at my wit's end. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Eaglestorm (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Eaglestorm:
  1. This is a discussion page for the WP:CIV policy; not the place to report violations of that policy.
  2. The first step in any dispute is to attempt to discuss the problem with the individual. You have evidently tried to do that without success. I note, that you quoted WP:NOT to the user. Sometimes quoting policy to a user who is trying to propose something will get a strong reaction.
  3. If there is only one instance of a breach of policy, it is often wise to let things cool off (for a couple of days) before proceeding with it. You might even decide to let it go.
  4. If you think that this other user has committed a serious and repeated breach of policy, you could report it at: WP:ANI. I wouldn't do this unless it is a serious breach — something like repeated personal attacks, rather than a mere lapse in civility.
  5. Your approach of asking for help or advice is good. You would need to give more details such as the name of the other user, the talk page in question, and specific examples using diffs.
  6. If the situation escalates, you might wish to follow the dispute resolution policy.
Best of luck. Sunray (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

proposing articles for deletion without attempt to improve them is uncivil

While many consider word ignorant to be uncivil, proposing articles for deletions is somehow always a civil act.

It happens so often that people propose articles for deletion on topics they know nothing about, or think they know something.

Maybe suggestion of civil behavior could be before AfD, try to add what you think is missing.

Thanks for considering adding something along these lines into the policy.

Lakinekaki (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this applies to the policy on civility, which addresses the way in which editors interact with one another. Perhaps, take a look at deletion policy and see if it isn't covered there. If it isn't, you might wish to make your proposal on the talk page of that policy. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the policy it says "The offended person may realize that the words were not always meant literally, and could decide to forgive and forget them." does this mean it's okay to use strong language but the person who cops it has sto accept it? To me, it seems contradictory to the article, in a way.

On another point, at the reference desk, an editor used "bloody" and "crap" in a heated negative response to someone who passed on an anecdote about a psychic they met. The responding editor was in favour of being factual while accusing the person in the story this way, "If we continue to believe all of the lies and deceptions from people like this woman, we'll forever be in the dark ages."[5] The lack of NPOV and the aggression on a reference desk spun me out. I commented about the argument and the tone but I don't feel strong enough to tackle the uncivility thing, so what to do – just let it happen? Julia Rossi (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first point: No, I don't think that this line in the policy means that one must accept strong language. To my mind the sentence simply says that this is one possible response (and by mentioning it, implicitly condones this response), without making it a requirement.
Regarding your second point (and I don't think this has much to do with improvements to the WP:CIV policy): You and the other editor had a fairly heated exchange with respect to his rant about psychics. For what it's worth, my reaction is that neither of you violated the WP:CIV policy. Sunray (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Impropriety"?? - needs to be clearly defined

Wikipedia:Civility#Examples lists among "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment"
"Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)"

"Impropriety" is stated here to be important and inappropriate, yet is left wholly undefined.
I assume that "improper" behaviors here are assumed to be those which violate Wikipedia policies -- Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No legal threats, discrimination (religious, ethnic, or other) or racism, slander, etc, (See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Personal_attacks for lists) -- and that we can just link the use of the word "Impropriety" here to an appropriate page or pages.
At any rate, let's define this so as to eliminate misunderstandings.
Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You make the point that we should, perhaps, explain what is meant by "impropriety." My first reaction was that this makes sense. Your point seems apt that it would generally be defined in regard to Wikipedia policies. You list several of the behavioural policies. These do seem to define the field of impropriety.
However, perhaps there are other things implied by the word impropriety that need to be covered as well. These would include other kinds of wrongdoing, perhaps including ones not spelled out in WP policy. For example one editor might accuse another of committing illegal acts or other misconduct. This would be included in the present wording, but might be missed if we define impropriety too narrowly. So my second thought is that good policy sets out the norms in broad terms rather than in detailed statements of rules. It is nigh impossible to include every example.
Bearing this in mind, if we were to try to define impropriety further, the way to do it would probably be to give a couple of examples: "... accusations of impropriety, such as violations of Wikipedia policies, illegal acts, or other misconduct." What do you think? Sunray (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need define common English words that are in everyday usage. If someone don't understand the term 'impropriety' they can always look it up in Wiktionary. Dlabtot (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)