Wikipedia talk:Civility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Civility page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
The initial Wikipedia:Civility policy was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history) before being copied here. -St|eve 19:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Contents


[edit] Accusations of vandalism

I added "accusations of vandalism" as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and added a link to WP:VANDAL. I was actually surprised to see that it wasn't listed here, or at WP:NPA. --Elonka 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that behavior a lot, it definitely should be mentioned here.--Father Goose (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that new bit which refers to WP:VANDAL is a good addition. Good place for it, and concise words. Just a thought; if there is nothing at Wikipedia:No personal attacks already covering it, further addition might be possible here or there (I am thinking) concerning the "posting (and removing) of warning templates", for instance, in cases where poor judgement might lead to templates being posted without due investigation and in error (which can leave a User unfairly branded and unhappy). Also if it could be worded decently, what further action is appropriate in the case of legitimate "warnings" being removed from a discussion or user talk page. Maybe these are matters for a guideline page, or are already covered in a guideline somewhere. --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, here. Can't say that I believe these should be used en masse for RfAs. It took me over three hours to answer them, and I didn't take anywhere near the time to proof my responses that I would have if they were so essential. :) That said, some of them are seriously good questions and would make a good launching point for further conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How should we deal with it?

I have seen too many great editors leave Wikipedia because of harassment. There does not seem to be a working policy against personal attacks and stalking, and that is IMO unacceptable. WP needs all the hard-working editors it can get. What can be done about it?--Berig (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would agree with you that the behavior guidelines need some better method for ensuring even-handed application. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that WP:NPA and WP:HARASS are deficient. Are you sure the problem is with the policies themselves, and not with a lack of enforcement? Dlabtot (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is probably the lack of enforcement that is the problem.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with it (documents)

There's been some tidying lately, of CIVIL, some headers were re-named, this was added to CIVIL :

Outing and harassment

See also: Wikipedia:Harrassment

...may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that editor, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that editor...

...An editor (User) who makes use of such personal information available concerning another user to harass that user, or who enables the harassment of a user, may be blocked for doing so...

(Remember, such information may not always be completely accurate, or may become out-of-date, and should be used with discretion.)

--> I think it is accurate, and that it helps, in starting to deal with it, here, if there are any particular wordings in the relevant guidelines, I have looked, but not extensively, so what do we know? --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is this guideline with this particular wording --

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

External links

...Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence...

<-- * --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote, Footnotes

[2] No, I don't think we need worry about two lists. There won't be many additions, I am betting, and we can weed out the ones that aren't any help. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the edit I reverted there were already two lists, one with the behavior and one with the examples of the behavior. No reason not to combine them instead of making footnotes out of the examples. It only follows that if that's the style, then not only should the examples of "insults" be footnoted, then so should the rest of the behaviors' examples. It would have ended up in two lists, making the reader go to the bottom for each one to see examples of each behavior. A consolidated list is better, including the examples with the behavior. Dreadstar † 02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This was the most recent addition to the "list", which was quite a good one.[3] I would like to see more additions like that, then any excess ones camn be culled. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to splitting the current list into two parts, keeping the "behaviors" in the body text, and putting the "examples" of those behaviors in the footnotes; as was started here with "insults". I think it's better to keep the examples with the behaviors.Dreadstar † 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is a good point; however, I think there could be also good reasons to separate some stuff out; (e.g.) "technical", stuff, and "jargon" might be best in the Footnotes [4], the text ought to have as little jargon as possible, for the sake of the general reader, and new Wikipedians. But what goes where could be in a state of "flux" as new ideas are submitted by editors, which is OK, I think, as long as CIVIL maintains stability. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It got reverted

User:Dreadstar made this revert in the grand old tradition of claiming consensus where none has taken place. I maintain that special dispensation for special examples is not only unwarranted: it is a serving the aims of Dreadstar who believes that the only interpretation of what should be included here is Dreadstar's. This kind of behavior is, frankly, disgusting and smacks of WP:OWN... all too typical of Dreadstar's behavior at such places as Talk:WTBDWK, for example. I only point out these things because I fear this policy page is being held hostage by an agenda-driven, disruptive and tendentious editor. Look at the sections he claims establish consensus. Neither of them do so: both just parrot his fantasies about the way Wikipedia should be.

Disgusting.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[5] Gee, that is a bit much, we don't need such comments on the discussion page for CIVIL, I am sorry to say. The point being made about the inclusion of specific "examples" may have merit though (in my opinion) - this ought to be sorted out through civil discussion, forgetting past enmities, and being a little more sensitive about using the Revert Option. Please carry on, and let's co-operate here at least, even if other pages are a minefield. Take no offence, none is meant. --NewbyG (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion derived from WTBDWK

I have spent months working on WTBDWK, and there was no instance of Dreadstar claiming false consensus. On the contrary he was instrumental in making great progress at different times in the article. I do not want to get involved in this, but I won't stand by and see this kind of false accusation made against another editor. This is wrong!(olive (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)).
You've spent months working on WTBDWK? And here you claimed that you didn't work on paranormal topics, getting me to back off from identifying your conflict of interest in editing this policy. I feel duped. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Gentleman: WTBDWK is a movie, and I delivered many arguments in attempts to have the article treated as an article about a movie and nothing else. Do not even begin to imply dishonesty. That would indicate a serious lack of discretion on your parts and a desire, to, as we say where I come from "drag a bush". I support Dreadstar's positive involvemnt in Bleep. I was there. Attempting to accuse him, or any editor of something that did not happen is anathema to me. Attemtping to then imply that I have somehow been dishonest in my statements is unfair, inappropriate and the very worst kind of incivility for it infairly attacks another editor's honesty, integrity and shows a lack of inclination to truly understand collaboration. You might note that I did not name SA in my comment on Bleep and Dreadstar but you however, did not pay me the least of that courtesy in your attacks. (olive (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
If I have a COI here, because I worked on the Bleep article, you are saying by extension that all editors working on Bleep have a conflict of interest on this Civility article. Please note who all of those editors are. That makes no sense to me at all.(olive (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
Whoever those editors are, none of them told me to my face "Whoa there! I have never edited a paranormal article, see no mention of paranormal in any discussion..." and got me to believe it. Yes, you were dishonest. Call this the "worst kind of incivility" if you want, but that doesn't make it true. Personally, I've seen much worse. I think it's far from forbidden -- in fact, it's quite important -- to point out where an untruthful statement has changed the course of the discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I started to point out the dissimulation, but we've decided that calling a spade a spade is uncivil, so I didn't. Now you know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion in spades

Raymond, speaking as one of the leading opponents of "calling a spade a spade", I have never suggested, nor do I begin to believe, that pointing out a false statement is uncivil. I don't know anybody who thinks that, or who has ever said or implied it, so I'm not sure what you mean here. What we've decided is uncivil is going off-topic to engage in name-calling when there's an encyclopedia we should be talking about instead. If you'd like to represent the pro-civility, pro-professionalism position as somehow discouraging you from pointing out a falsehood... then I would point out that you've got your own falsehood going. Careful there. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You and I seem to have a remarkable ability to misunderstand one another. To me, "calling a spade a spade" is telling the truth, even if that truth is uncomfortable for someone. I'll come right out and admit that I have no idea what you mean by "calling a spade a spade" in this discussion. My latest hypothesis is that it equates to name-calling, though to me that's a separate issue from uncomfortable truths. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I can agree with that first sentence, and I hope I understand it :). I'm not against telling uncomfortable truths. I'm against applying labels to people, and that's what the phrase "calling a spade a spade" is often used to justify. I'm not aware of anyone who's decided that telling uncomfortable truths is uncivil, and I'm frustrated to see people say that the community is somehow against telling the truth. If that's not what you meant above when you said, "we've decided that calling a spade a spade is uncivil", then I don't know what you meant. I don't think anyone's decided that any variety of spade-calling other than off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil, so I guess I'd ask if you could clarify what you meant by that assertion. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
( I agree with this bit, u:GTB )- I'm against applying labels to people. I'm against applying labels to people, and that's what the phrase "calling a spade a spade" is [often] used to justify. A ND the [often]'s are dealt with, every time, by applying common courtesy. Call spade a spade. Dont use name-calling, any kind of name-calling, for people. --NewbyG (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Which means that off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil.
Off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil.
Also, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil, neccesarily.
That is, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are necessarily uncivil.
That is, instances of name-calling of any kind directed towards any user or editors are likely to be uncivil.
Other than all the indents, does that make sense? --NewbyG (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies, here

GTB, your statement seems to imply that there was a dishonesty here. I don't know if that was your intention or not. However there was no dishoesty, and I am dismayed by the way in which Speere's misguided comments and I suppose R. Arritt's, have come to seem like truth, while tainting my reputation as an honest editor. This is truly remarkable especially given this page. I would like to reiterate that the Bleep article is not about the paranormal as many other editors pointed out at the time, nor did I ever consider it to be about the paranormal. It is, quite simply, about a movie. If it is possible for this kind of accusation to be made and seen as truth, then Wikipedia is indeed broken, and much work will be needed to mend it. Just a clarification.(olive (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Huh. I'm not in any position to say that someone is being dishonest. I can't distinguish, in another person's typed words, a mistake from a lie. Therefore, I don't try to. Your reputation, Littleolive, as far as I'm concerned, is impeccable - I've only ever seen you say intelligent and helpful things. I don't believe that "falsehood" = "lie". I was really just replying to Raymond's suggestion that anybody has ever suggested that pointing out falsehoods in uncivil - as far as I know, that's false. I doubt he's lying. I'll bet he believes what he's saying, and I'd like to disabuse him of that error. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Olive, my usual response to accusations of COI is to say, get the diffs. COI is all about POV edits, nothing more. It's really just a weapon to throw. And -let me get this straight, because it doesn't seem to make any sense- people think that working on certain articles means you have a COI here? Perhaps I got it wrong, since it doesn't seem to make any sense? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to thank ScienceApologist, for giving us, in his comment about Dreadstar's edit, a perfect series of examples of the type of behavior this policy exists to calm: "Insults, and name calling"; "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety"; "Rudeness"; "Taunting, goading or baiting"; and an example that "Comment on the actions and not the editor" may not be a complete solution, showing us how insults can be woven within comments on actions as well. It's a perfect storm of irony to find that kind of disrespect for a fellow editor and disregard of policy, on the talk page of this particular policy.
  • With that example provided here on the talk page, it seems advisable to list specific examples in the policy itself as well. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

There has been some reversions of inclusion of this issue and related behaviors recently. I can understand the merits of describing it somewhere, and of the dangers of undue weight of particular behaviors. However, a more fundamental question seems to be is this really an issue about civility or rather would it better be described under the broader term of disruptive editing (which incivility is too, of course). After some reflection, I would propose the latter, asserting that this behavior is related to civility more in that its consequences (intended or not) can be provoking incivility.

That said, without question this issue is a big problem and should be clarified somewhere. I note some stirrings on the project which suggest things may finally take a turn for the better in the near future, in this regard... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it all depends on definitions and perceptions. In terms of our basic definition of incivility, feigned incomprehension causes me much greater "conflict and stress" than someone using foul language. I'm a little worried that we go overboard on the obvious and superficial types of incivility while ignoring the tactics of the smart troll. But if others don't think WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT belongs here that's OK. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be better to keep with simple examples on this basic policy. If someone is an obvious troll you don't need that example on this policy to point that out, and when it's not obvious how do you define when someone is doing "feigned incomprehension"? If it means that someone is pretending to not understand something what they actually understand, I guess that's uncivil, but I doubt that writing it to this policy would help. I hope the concept of civility would not be made unnecessary complicated. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you tell feigned incomprehension from the real kind? How can you avoid false positives, which it would seem are worse than false negatives? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The real kind will become comprehension after a not so disruptively long conversation on the relevant page. The feigned kind won't. How long is "not so disruptively" may depend on the context, but in nearly all cases where otherwise intelligent editors cannot seem to comprehend something that is obvious to pretty much all other editors (with some minor technical jargon caveats), one recalls the Garden Tool That Must Not Be Named.
Good faith false positives can be made very rare by really assuming good faith, and not assuming that just because someone disagrees with you, that they are not listening. But it is when the word "just" no longer applies that we should sometimes critically ask why.
You actually have seen this: an example that has very high probability of being such a case is pretty apparent in the (now archived) discussion leading up to this exasperated edit by yourself. That's ironic, as you are arguably the most patient and civil editor on this page over the last couple of months or so (seriously), and it could have come off that your were defending or at least rationalizing even more extensive snarkiness by another editor there ("His reaction really isn't surprising, is it?"). But the basic implication you made is pretty obvious; "Well, duh" says volumes, although you were patient/civil enough to not explicitly accuse.
But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. That's a good example to look at, it seems. I am curious what "basic implication" it was "obvious" I was making. What exactly does, "well, duh" say? Do you think I was accusing Martinphi of acting in bad faith? I have personally made enough good-faith errors of judgment that I can't really do that. An error of judgment is very different from bad faith. Bad faith means you're not here to help but rather to disrupt. I have never doubted that Martinphi is here to help. Every POV warrior is here to help, because they think their POV is correct, and that it will help people, by enlightening them or whatever. Am I perhaps misunderstanding what you were reading from my frustrated remark?

Very high probabilities of bad faith should be dealt with as good faith anyway. Heck, even outright bad faith should be dealt with as good faith. That doesn't prevent us from responding effectively, and it keeps us clean, whether we're right or wrong.

Check out this example: a user asked a question at AN, and a senior Wikipedian removed the question with the edit summary: 99% chance of trolling. Rather than revert, I just answered the user's question on their userpage, and they seemed pretty content with the answer. The next few edits there, as well as some chat at another talk page, make for an interesting case. There was a very high probability of trolling, and yet treating it as good faith was the most effective way to deal with it. Even if it had been trolling, a clear concise answer would be the quickest way to neutralize it.

I'd like to see one example of a case where "calling a spade" was useful. My argument is not that it's rude, or even necessarily incorrect, but that it's invariably unproductive. I've seen the argument that it's "honest", and it's clearly satisfying on some level. Some argue that you have to be able to identify a bad editor to warn others, but I don't think I've ever seen an example of that leading somewhere good. Have you? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My feeling is that if you "call a spade a spade", you'll just end up with an angry spade. This is good if it's your goal to antagonize people, but that should never be your goal... unless you're a spade.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

I believe this is the most important policy to refer to here. Not as something else to add the project page, just something to point out here on the talk page. The bold, revert, discuss cycle has been subverted here by a group of editors with a common interest in subtly changing the way this policy applies to paranormal topics, making this page a battleground for paranormal claims vs. science. (After examining Olive's contribution to Talk:WTBDWK, I stand by my assertion that Olive shares that interest.) There will clearly never be a consensus to make such a change -- in either direction -- so leave this page alone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Leave this page alone". What are you saying? You go to Bleep draw your own conclusions, and do not assunme any kind of good faith. My contributions to the talk pages, which by the way you have no right to say, stay away from, have been to add something on a paradigm shift on civilty, comments on lying which led to thought on a new paradigm, and to respond to a unjust attack on another editor. The paragraph I wrote was not accepted, so I have removed myself from that discussion. I stand by the unjust attack on another editor.
Speer, I work very hard at being a neutral editor. You might have noted on the Bleep article the multitudes of times I agreed to changes I did not agree with to allow progress to be made. I am flabbergasted at your assumptions. You know nothing of my Point of View, and I do not air it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Please do not presume to know anything about it.
If this is a battle ground it is created by assuming to divide editors into two camps according to some presumed POV. Can editors, or people for that matter, be divided so neatly into paranormal believers whatever that is, and scientists.
If one deals with what is actually going on here, and on the edits, rather than attempting to label other editors at any time for any reason, things would move more smoothly. Such labelling might be construed as true incivility, and highly destructive to any collaborative environment, and that, if anything is my Point of View (olive (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
I am dealing with the edits, which is to note that they are being made against consensus. Fine, you're doing your part with "bold", but then you release these long diatribes when other people do their part and apply "revert, discuss".
It is a very important fact that you can't just divide people into "scientists and paranormalists". In the normal state of this page, you could not do so and there would be no need to. However, the way this discussion is currently going, you basically can, and it would be detrimental to Wikipedia not to notice the pattern. I am pointing out the pattern so that, hopefully, we can move on past the issue, and this talk page can once again be used to discuss actual shortcomings of the policy instead of electronic ghost voices and misleading movies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no patterns, unless you are creating them. I have not commented on this page for quite a while, but now this is part of a pattern . My means of exprssing myself may be longer than yours although not longer than some, but why would you disire to stick that in an editor's face as a problem. From my side this discussion is complete. I have no need to defend myself any further against unjust claims. You are welcome of course to your opinions. It has been a revealing morning. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again

( Repeated from section above for being a most pertinent observation ) --

But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it? (--per--Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, that is a good point to initiate discussion, surely. --NewbyG (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of examples

See also: Role of examples

Guidelines usually contain more examples than Policies and Role of examples during the creation process of policies and guidelines.

Those sections in the Civility policy which consist of lists are likely to attract additional examples. --NewbyG (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology: edit summary

I am working with an older computer with an old processing system that gives me some strange problems .... delays on text appearance and so on, so I sometimes don't see what is happening immediately. There must have been a delete in there I didn't see .... Anyway my edit summary was removed, for rv of SA's deletion but should have read: Please discuss since several editors agree on this inclusion .... sorry about that.(olive (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Recent deletion

[edit] Incivility at that page

Yes I was at Bleep so were you. I was editing an article about a movie. What were you editing? SA this information had agreement from several editors so please discuss with them before making such a large change.(olive (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm taking out your recent addition about terms such as "crank" and "woo-woo". That last term is one that only appears in paranormal-related discussions. This is undue weight. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my additions, Speer, but a revert to a version that had the acceptance of several editors. I was not involved. I reverted as per implied aggreement of those ediotrs . If someone wants to remove the terms, discussion first would be appropriate. I personally do not care one way or the other.(olive (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Uhh, the terms are uncivil regardless of who you use them on. I don't see this undue weight. (1 == 2)Until 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Who else would you apply the term "woo-woo" to? Shall we use the policy to list every name that has been called in every argument on Wikipedia? You'd probably have to start with a bunch of nationalistic racist terms. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would not apply the term "woo-woo" to anyone, it would be uncivil. (1 == 2)Until 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean you in particular. There are many things that I hope none of us would call anyone, but we're not listing them exhaustively in the policy. Because of the disagreements that users who have recently shown up on the page have been in, the policy is being drawn toward attempting to define what is "civil" when those who believe in the paranormal conflict with those who use the scientific method as a standard of evidence. And that will turn this page into a permanent battleground. I'd prefer that discussion happened somewhere more appropriate, such as Wikiproject Paranormal or Wikiproject Rational Skepticism or both. (And I would stay out of it.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


In broad policies like this one it helps to keep things general. Giving specific examples X, Y, and Z only invite people to respond "but I didn't call him X, Y, or Z like the policy says." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Raymond makes an important point. The rest of the article does, however, use examples to describe what is meant, and consistency should probably be maintained. If "woo-woo" does refer to an editor who edits a particular kind of article, "moron" seems more general as does POV pusher. As a compromise perhaps "woo-woo" could be taken out, but the other words left in place.(olive (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] and a revert

I was about to remove "woo-woo" but for an edit conflict ... please check the editing history. I am reverting as per several reverts by other editors, but hey, not going to edit war based on these discussions. I am alone in some ways, yes, because I am not the one arguing for either side here, I'm arguing for a compromise, but I also am not alone in reverting this material to its original state. I can sit here and discuss and do nothing else and we both know nothing will change in the directions I suggest, or I can and did rv and try to delete "woo-woo" as per the discusion I had, and see if you all thought it was any better. If there is going to be a discussion on this material, the material should probably be returned to its most original state and discussion for changes carried on from there, rather than deleted first despite the revert history of the section. This would be a neutral way of dealing with this contentious material.(olive (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC))
I added "woo-woo" because I've seen it used more than a few times. I've seen editors referred to as "woo-woo's" in the third person, and I've seen topics referred to as "walled gardens of woo", when in actuality they were valid minority-religion topics that survived AfD with snowball keeps, showing how far off the characterization was. And even if they didn't survive, that's not a civil or respectful way to refer to the work of volunteers on the project, or to the volunteers themselves.
It's not a big deal though, it's just one example, it can be removed. The examples in general though are useful because without them the idea of insults is too general; we need wording to indicate the particular kind of insults that occur in disputes. If we can do that with prose, OK, but as it's currently written, it's not clear without the examples.
Also, I agree with Olive, if there is an overall move to deprecate examples in the policy page, then we should apply that consistently across all the sections and bullet points, not only the one about insults. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I think examples are good. We should mostly be discussing exactly what words to use as examples, rather than whether or not they should be used. It gives a sense of the level of insults which are actionable. If we used "asshole," people would say "woo-woo" is ok. Using examples of this level helps to give perspective. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to include examples. If the only argument against examples is that, "people will respond 'but I didn't call him X, Y, or Z like the policy says'," that's not a compelling argument. Anybody responding in that way could simply be told that we weren't all born yesterday. It's not as if we'd have to say, "oh, gosh you're right, you called him a 'bastard', but the policy says only to refrain from calling him a 'moron'... carry on." It's true that calling people those names cited in the examples people are putting up is uncivil. Since none of us is going to do it, what are the grounds for objecting to it? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm deeply concerned with Martinphi's use of the term "actionable" as the motivation for including examples. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I recall that my push to get incivility defined as a poisoning of the environment didn't get anywhere. In fact, even my desire to expand the definition of civility to nastiness ostensibly leveled against groups, but obviously applicable to people who edit the article didn't get anywhere. If not either of those things, we're pretty much back to "actionable." Unless there are other suggestions. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Both of the points raised here by User:Martinphi are in fact adequately covered in existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --
The sanction against nastiness ostensibly leveled against groups, is covered by the normal process of reading our "rules" in a broad manner, if that is reasonable.
And -- Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of conflict and stress. -- is currently policy; the poisoning of atmosphere is not mentioned, that metaphor is not needed.--NewbyG (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. [And towards each other, singularly and severally, each and all to all.] Broadly interpreted, as is reasonable. I think --NewbyG (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit - DIFFs

I would agree with this -- In broad policies like this one it helps to keep things general. [...]-per- Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC) --
However if editors keep adding examples, the helpful ones will be kept by consensus.
Yes, I agree with User:GTBacchus that examples can be useful at this time, especially since there is an impetus for adding them, it is a list, after all. If they are helpful, they stay in by consensus.
I think I prefer for stylistic reasons that such "jargon" terms as POV-pusher and other all-caps links go into the Footnotes section maybe. It may be that such lists, or extensions of such lists are more properly in guidelines, rather than the CIVIL policy page. (this could also be discussed, see Wikipedia talk:Civility#WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again.)
There are options, that is good. Re-writing of little snippets of info. is easier if there are options, such as the Footnotes section., I think. --NewbyG (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[6] DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with the general consensus on the examples, whatever that consensus eventually turns out to be. Premature bold edits should be avoided. If I remember, the examples were in for quite a while (consensus), then one or two eidtors started to try and edit war them out. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[7] Well, maybe these are better done as proper shortcuts. --NewbyG (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[8] DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

[9] --belligerent is 38 entries after behaviour on page 67 of the dictionary I have to hand. (Behaviour with a u, but that's another story.) --NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well said

See Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6#Changes to this policy. The Rfc has been open all month (April). --

I found this very moving material in Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6 /Archive 6

I see no reason to accept any more incivility than we already tolerate. I have never seen a troll win an argument with a good contributor because they used this policy as a club. -per-Crum375 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is never a reason to be uncivil, ever. If the person you are dealing with is being crude or obnoxious, there are many ways of properly dealing with that, but none of them is to also be obnoxious or crude. Bottom line: be nice and kind to everyone, and firm with rule violators, but never uncivil. -per-Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The right way to handle both is by maintaining a cool, calm demeanor, being very clear about the content and behavior rules, and requesting help from the proper channels when needed. This is the way forward, not eroding our behavior rules in the vain hope that it will help influence someone or something. -per-Crum375 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Becoming uncivil yourself to defend yourself or prevent attacks will only backfire. Be nice and firm and you'll persevere. Be nasty and rude, even when "provoked", and you'll lose. -per-Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You move forward by being nice and firm, not by descending to the lowest common denominator. -per-Crum375 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is civil while trolling, or whatever, that would be handled elsewhere. The point is that there is no justification ever to become uncivil, regardless of the behavior of the other side. -per-Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Bottom line: be nice and kind to everyone, and firm with rule violators, but never uncivil. -per-Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said, all of it, --NewbyG (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest archive

(:Archiving due soon? --NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility. And many other editors said similar things. So I know from experience that what you say is not so. It is not adequately covered in existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If it were, something would have been done in the cases I have experienced. Reading of current rules in a broad manner is not done. One way or another, this policy is broken. I've seen editors simply stop editing because of the nasty atmosphere. Look on the Bleep talk page. Look even on this page, where people tried to eliminate olive because she edited at Bleep, and so had a COI (?????). Anyway, the current policy isn't applied. It's broken. This is a proven case, not something to argue about. The civility rules, if they indeed are as broad as you say, are not enforced. Indeed, I've edited here for about 2 years, and never saw or heard of what you just said. It's complete news to me. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. [And towards each other, singularly and severally, each and all to all.] Broadly interpreted, as is reasonable. I think --
Long discussions have been held before of previous events on other talk pages; that has not been helping discussion on this page. That is why we are archiving more often; Take Arbcom matters to the proper noticeboard; discuss edits, to this page, and not editors, would be nice. --NewbyG (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You're very correct that the policy is, broadly interpreted, good enough. It's just broken in practice. So, what do we do, say it's good enough in theory, so do nothing about the practice? Maybe the discussion of cases in point didn't help. Ok. Let's not use examples then, but all I'm saying is that the policy is broken. The policy doesn't work in the very places it ought to help most that is, in contentious articles, and relative to chronically uncivil editors. Do nothing? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If User:Martinphi you are saying that our dispute resolution process is broken; that also is a matter for discussion elsewhere. --NewbyG (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the policy "works" reasonably well. Given that this is a community of strangers interacting anonymously over the Internet, the overall level of civility here is remarkable. And violating the policy does have consequences - foremost among them a loss of credibility. That's the punishment for incivility. You get things done here by working collaboratively, and people who are chronically uncivil are only shooting themselves in the foot. The user to whom Martinphi is alluding is a perfect example. The policy is not "broken" just because admins aren't handing out blocks for "actionable" incivility. MastCell Talk 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it. I see editors be uncivil, drive the others away, and get to do what they want with articles. Especially on low traffic articles. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Lots of behaviors drive away good editors - tendentiousness, relentless advocacy, WP:OWNership, gamesmanship, edit-warring, etc. Incivility undoubtedly plays a role, but it's hardly the root of all evil, and there's no reason to think that this policy is more "broken" or in need of fixing than many others. MastCell Talk 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was more broken. The reason it's enforced more is that it's less broken. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guidance

It is easy to write good policy if you are managing uncontroversial subjects. The policy is mostly not used until there is a content dispute. Then, things routinely escalate to incivility. If the policies do not manage such situations, then the policies are flawed. What is the sense in discussing a civility policy if you are not going to see how well it works in content disputes? This is exactly the place to discuss civility in the paranormal articles. Tom Butler (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. You don't need CIV on non-contentious articles. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The holistic approach (recent)

See Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6#Adding Paradigm

As I mentioned several days ago I am interested in what the article would look like with some information on an over-arching paradigm. I thought I'd try this out to see what it looks like, reads like ... I am not attached to it, but thought we could look at something like this as a start to looking at the civility issue in a more holistic way.-per-(olive (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

And Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6#Workshop civility: possible addition and Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6#Don't give up on holistic

For the holistic approach, if there are any advances with that material, or thoughts. --NewbyG (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the holistic approach was shot down here. It was suggested by a forward thinking admin. that I do the thing first as an essay. I am moving in that direction. I am open to suggestions and advice.(olive (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
It was a really good idea. Maybe we could revive it, and everyone would jump on the bandwagon, and we could have consensus. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

NewbyG was hoping to keep fringe discussions out of this, but that is not going to happen: [10]. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you pretending it hasn't been happening? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets be perfectly straight here. Discussion of fringe came into this discussion with RSpeer and Science Apologist. I am not discussing the right or wrong of that, but simply that is where it started. Taking this discussion to this arena when the topic should be civility and how to deal with it creates a Red Herring of the largest size. I am truly puzzled by what can be accomplished by staying on this path. Certainly civility and collboration will be held hostage, and the article will not and cannot be served by such side steps. I would suggest then that all such comments be laid aside, and saved for private discussions and pages if they are deemed necessary. Perhaps we could continue to edit and discuss this very important policy, leave out discussion of fringe, save the damaging and hurting of other editors for hypothetical situations, and treat real people in the real life of this encyclopedia with respect and dignity. Not doing so while attempting to change this particular article can only be called hypocritical and a sham(olive (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
Yes, there isn't any need to bring anything fringy into it. Good ideas. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Contentious articles are best sorted out at the appropriate talk pages, and noticeboards; Protection and Admin/Incidents and so forth. Good luck! Incivility on this page should be kept to a minimum, and that includes reporting the insults of others, it is unnecessary. DIFFs, are good, diffs of edits to the project page, not of specific insults from another talk page, another battle. --

Disregard any canvassing that does not result in editing to the project page. Scrutinize those edits, and use common sense and courtesy. --NewbyG (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continued

Oh, I didn't report it as an insult. Why would I? Like I said, the policy is broken. I put it on this page because people here should know what's going on if suddenly other editors, all of a POV, started showing up. Sort of a "heads up, this is not ideal Wikipedia process!"
Maybe you're right. I just thought people ought to know. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a core policy page. If the changes being proposed are objectionable to a large number of established Wikipedians, regardless of what you perceive their POV to be, then they are probably not appropriate. On the other hand, if the proposed changes actually improve the policy, then having additional voices as part of the consensus will be helpful. No? MastCell Talk 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There are no current proposals for change on this discussion page. Who would want to change a core policy, except by small increments that are reasonable and reflect wikipedia's best interests. By proper editing to the project page, there have been some 'examples' added in Engaging in incivility. Some have been kept. Some in the Footnotes section. No specific proposals for change, just update as necessary, so fresh input to the discussion or page is welcome. --NewbyG (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not by a bunch of highly uncivil editors who are complaining that the CIV policy is being used against them- instead of just deciding to be civil. If they really can't help themselves being uncivil -and they say they can't- maybe this isn't the right place for them. But canvassing for the opinions of these editors in order to head off a pending consensus and influence a core policy page wasn't correct. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the policy be better respected if it truly represented consensus, instead of becoming known as the tool of a few editors of a certain mindset? It may be easier in the short run for editors to have their way unimpeded, but in the long run, if one truly wants the policy to be meaningful it needs input from others. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We aren't going to get consensus on CIV with editors who reject outright [11] or can't abide by basic civility. Those editors, of course, think themselves hard done by when civil editors try and get CIV enforced. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your diff is irrelevant, because SA was participating here before my post to that page. Are you objecting instead to MastCell's participation, since he's the only one who was brought in by my post? Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What is happening here to focussed discussion on improving the page? The argument has not led to nor can lead to good edits to the project page. And there are assertions, assertions of incivility and refusal to abide by consensus some of them stale or vague, and that are made mostly without Diffs, diffs of relevance to this page. --NewbyG (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When and why does incivility happen?

In other cases, it may be done on purpose: either to distract other editors from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project. --NewbyG (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that any experienced editor would disagree with Raymond's points about consensus. If I understand Martin's point correctly, he has some concern about canvassing which would however, "seed" the discussion with POV editors, skew consensus, and thus reduce effective true collaboration. Martin's point, like Raymond's, is well taken. The only real agreement or consensus I see here in the last day or so is towards discussion that focuses on the article itself, and that moves away from any discussion of fringe. That seems reasonable as a direction we can take and can succeed with.(olive (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
Okay, here is an instance of baiting and outright incivility by Kww on 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [12]
There is little doubt that he was talking about me. His edits seemed to show a very strong and determined intention to win his point, which I noted that he was "talking like a religious zealot" because he was basically saying that anyone who does not believe as he does is a charlatan. [13] Perhaps in poor taste and against the intent of the civility rule, but what followed was more interesting. rspeer came to his aid by admonishing me. [14] Is rspeer and admin? It is so hard to know. The page was immediately archived and I cannot find the Kww's Insult header in the archive anywhere, as if an embarrassing moment was swept under the table. Tom Butler (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It does no good raising stale issues at the vandalism noticeboard, nor at AN/I nor at 3RR. I dont see how they can profitably be discussed here. --NewbyG (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about with "It does no good raising stale issues at the vandalism noticeboard, nor at AN/I nor at 3RR." There was a request for examples and I gave one. I do agree that bringing it up does no good, unless it serves as an illustration. I will try to use fresher examples next time.
The question of civility cannot be selectively applied, and that is what some seem to be arguing for. If the policy does not work when it is put to the test, then it is broken and it does not matter where that test occurs. Part of a holistic view might be zero tolerance for any incivility, whether it is provoked or not. In my view, Kww and I should have been sanctioned. I was the only one sanctioned, which makes the policy look broken to me. Tom Butler (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no request from me for further such examples, I don't see them doing any good here. --NewbyG (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Where were you sanctioned for incivility? I see nothing in your block log. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
He means, everyone came down on him, but the editors being mean to him were defended. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Very confusing. So there was actually no "sanction" in terms of policy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The pruning begins (began)

[15] A particularly impolite user can also aggravate other editors into being impolite themselves resulting in non-constructive behavior further escalating the level of incivility. --NewbyG (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was too much pruned?

On that note, I would suggest reinserting the sentence reading "Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact." This was removed as part of recent pruning, but I think it's a reasonable description of baiting, which is an uncivil behavior. The part about "trolling" could be removed, since that's a fairly inflammatory word, and it could just be described as "not a civil way to interact". MastCell Talk 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, what could easily happen is that an editor may be doing their best, presenting arguments civilly and the best arguments they know. They don't agree with the other editor, and the other editor gets angry and uncivil. In this case, it's the first editor who gets blamed for the second editor's breach of CIV. All the first editor (and/or his friends) need to do is keep saying to the first editor "you're pushing me on purpose," and then call in a friendly admin to have the first editor blocked. This is just a weapon. There is no excuse for incivility, and this is just trying to create one.
Perhaps I'm wrong in this. If so, could you present diffs which clearly show a civil editor deliberately pushing someone to incivility? We're talking about the psychological state of the pusher here.... ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be misunderstanding me. This passage does not "excuse" incivility in any way; it merely emphasizes that baiting or provoking other editors is also an uncivil form of interaction. This represents what I think is a valid and widely supported general principle. It's not a response to a specific incident (and I find that trying to amend policy pages to address specific disputes in which I've been involved is unproductive), though this is perhaps a canonical example.

Since you apparently do have specific concerns - that this addition would be abused in bad faith by an editor working in tandem with a "friendly admin" - is that something you've observed, or a theoretical concern? MastCell Talk 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, good example (at least the soup thing). I've seen that a whole lot. How would we keep the thing within normal bounds though? I've seen it happen that one person refuses to "get" the argument of another, then starts using whatever is available to bludgeon the other user. Since person A doesn't get it, person B politely repeats and repeats. In this case, person A could use CIV to "get" person B- with the above sentence you suggest. How do we prevent that? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is a tricky little statement. In truth if you breach civility, its your own fault no matter the circumstances. We have to be responsible for our own actions it seems to me, as adults. If we breach civilty, we should take the consequences and not blame others. I guess this statement is a kind of "blame the other guy" one, which is not a behaviour that supports collaboration. Perhaps the statement could be reversed from "blaming" to being supportive with something like: Create an environment that supports other editors, and that does not encourage or support breaches of incivility.(olive (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

The 2 sentences reading "Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact." -- could indeed go back in. However the word 'trolling' is problematical here. I thought it better that this point be "covered" or included under "Taunting, goading and baiting" at #Engaging in incivility but if that is not enough then a rewrite and return of those 2 sentences could be a solution. I might try a re-write, although I think I favour leaving it out, it's already covered, probably. Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "trolling" should be omitted as it's an inflammatory and unecessary term here. It's probably most appropriate to put this under the heading of "Taunting, goading, and baiting" as you suggest. I'd favor a single sentence amplifying on "Taunting, goading, and baiting" - along the lines of: "Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This is an uncivil way to interact." MastCell Talk 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think instead of "trolling" we could use a word like "gaming". (1 == 2)Until 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[16] I tried this: Taunting, goading or baiting. Such actions provoke retaliatory instances of incivility, and do not contribute to the writing of an encyclopedia. --
In theory it might be best to consider converting the section into prose. Maybe. --NewbyG (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Things have been happening here so fast and I have not had time to read and think about everything as much as I hope I had. Among some removed things there were also some which I liked, but I might not have time to look at it more today. I think the sentence "deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility" would be clearer than "baiting" which I think is unclear, but could someone give me a link to one example where this has happened please so that I could have a look at it? Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 08:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that your pruning was appropriate. Taunting is the behaviour that is contrary to this policy. The essay on baiting (a link you eliminated) is not well written, IMO, so I'm fine with your shorter simpler version. Sunray (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pruned again, converted a sub-section to prose

[17] converted this section to prose. Any bits chopped probably belong elsewhere if they need to go back. --NewbyG (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reacting to incivility

Would it be productive to have a section on this page about what to do if you feel someone is being uncivil? I think it would be good to advise editors that the best response to incivility is neither incivility of one's own, nor even accusing the other editor of incivility. Should that be said here? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should. Perhaps with a link to Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. Friday (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well. Much better than my, "hey, your an adult grow up, eh?" Its a teaching point in a sense, and maybe wherever a new editor can be helped along well, that's a good thing. Linking as suggested by Friday above seems a good idea as well.(olive (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
I notice we don't ignore vandalism, or ignore disruptive editing, or ignore edit warring. May I ask why we should ignore uncivil behavior? It is rather possible that many people seek action to personal attacks and incivility not because they need to grow up or have a thin skin, but because they believe it creates and unproductive collaborative editing environment. Ignoring a problem does not always make it go away. (1 == 2)Until 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that personal attacks are unproductive and harm our collaborative environment. However, getting overly upset about it is also unproductive. The essay just tries to make this clear. IMO it's good advice and it wouldn't be bad to link to it from here. Friday (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's what is being said here... in layers. First, a collaborative environment means take resonsibility for yourself and the other editors. Make it as pleasant as you can. Collaborate effectively, with all that means . Then if you have problems with incivility this is where you go, what you do. I didn't think there was any sense of ignoring the situation, but rather of clarifying it, and then adding helpful information. My sense anyway. (olive (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
Very good ideas here, GTB's orignial suggestion, Friday's link, olive's summary above. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that getting overly upset about anything is unproductive, I think a reasonable response to incivility is often labeled as excessive. That is not to say that all reactions to incivility are productive. (1 == 2)Until 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that incivility be ignored. I think it should be responded to, just not with more incivility, nor with accusations of having "violated" a policy. The best response to incivility is increased civility, and diplomacy, and focused dispute resolution behavior. If someone is being uncivil, that's an opportunity to identify what's making them upset, and address that concern.

Until(1 == 2), when you say that a "reasonable response to incivility is often labeled as excessive," what do you mean? What kind of reasonable response is that? More generally, what does a reasonable response to incivility look like? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that one should tell an uncivil person they are being uncivil before reporting? Should you warn them if you are about to report? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does that make sense?

I wouldn't report them. It's not a crime.

I'd ask someone else what they thought of the situation, preferably via WP:3O, assuming it's a content dispute. I wouldn't tell them they're being uncivil, either. I'd respond to what they actually said, civilly, and in a way that firmly dismisses off-topic, personal comments, while refocusing the discussion on edits. If someone else comes in and says that the person seems uncivil, especially someone unrelated, that's much more powerful than if you say it yourself - you, who are after all involved in a dispute with them already.

Does something like that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see what is wrong with pointing out that a person has violated a policy. If someone is uncivil then you tell them not to be in a polite manner. Of course you don't violate the civility policy when enforcing it, but not accusing the other person of incivility when that is what is happening is just denial. If someone becomes more uncivil because they have been asked not to, then that is a problem that goes beyond how we enforce the policy. (1 == 2)Until 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you find to be the most effective response to incivility? We're after best practices, not just practices that we don't see what's wrong with, right? I said I wouldn't tell them they're being uncivil, because I would prefer they come to that conclusion themselves. That fosters better collaboration with that person in the future. I think it's better, so I aim for it. Does that seem wrong? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I would say the best practice would be to inform them of policy and ask politely that they follow it. They may not be aware of the policy, or they may not be aware what they are doing is uncivil, it is even possible that they know it is uncivil and against policy and don't care. The correct action in all three cases is to inform them of the facts. (1 == 2)Until 03:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Having tried various approaches, I find that the best, in my experience, differs from that. Do you suppose I'm mistaken? Is it possible that there is a better means of de-escalation than telling someone that they're breaking a rule? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well often they don't know this crucial piece of information. (1 == 2)Until 04:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, my mileage varies from that considerably. I find that most people know that we (as humans) are to treat each other right. Most people who don't do that are slipping, and would realize it pretty quickly if it's made apparent. The gentlest way to make it apparent is to let them see the stark difference between their tone and yours, without outright accusing them of anything. An explicit rule-call puts egg on their face, so they're now embarrassed, in addition to whatever they were already being uncivil about.

The cause of most incivility is not that people don't know that it's a rule. We've all known that for a long time. For those who don't know it, they should hear about it from a third party, not from someone who feels offended about something they've just said. It's better that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am strange, but I love a good flame war as much as the next guy, but when I found it was against the rules here to be uncivil I chose to respect that. I have also seen others do the same when they learn of the policy.
Also, many people may know about the policy but not realize that how they are acting seems uncivil, yet again it is a service to inform them of this. (1 == 2)Until 04:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty well convinced of the unproductiveness of flame-wars, which does a lot to extinguish any enthusiasm I might feel otherwise. I agree that it is a service to inform someone when they're being uncivil. I maintain that the best way to do this is not in explicit words from someone who is offended, in response to the remark by which they're offended. I can think immediately of three better ways of letting them know: someone else, or later, or more subtly. Whatever's clever, right. I just think that saying, "you're being uncivil, please read our civility policy," is often suboptimal. Not crap, but suboptimal. There are better ways of doing precisely what you say: informing them. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is always room for a sparkling personality to bring a breath of fresh air to any exchange. (1 == 2)Until 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We request a reasonable degree of civility towards others

Ignoring a problem does not always make it go away. But Ignore does form part of our strategies, and arsenel of techniques for dealing with various problems. --

There are sound reasons to ignore inadvertent or minor personal attacks against oneself, just as we BRIgnore long-term vandals and socks and spammers; different reasons in each case, but Ignore is part of our strategies. One of the best reasons for ignoring personal attacks against oneself, is that it provides the opportunity for consensus to be observed in action, as an uninvolved editor may well take the opportunity to weigh in, and give a polite well-reasoned admonition to the editor who made the uncivil statement or post. --

There are also very, very good reasons to deal with on-going and blatant incivility, and to deal with tendentiousness, WP:OWNership, edit-warring, soapboxing, and other transgressions; because they creates an unproductive and not a collaborative editing environment. We must take action, reasonable action as a community, and make it clear in this documentation what the community expects, by way of a reasonable level of civility. --NewbyG (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that minor or unintended incivility should be shrugged off. I also fully agree that it is important to deal with ongoing and blatant violations. (1 == 2)Until 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with all of that. I think that when incivility first occurs, the best response by the victim is to refrain from reporting the person, or saying, "don't be uncivil", and to take de-escalatory steps. I think the best response from an uninvolved observer - or even better, from someone who agrees with the uncivil party regarding content - is to react to the incivility, and say, "hey, I don't think that was fair". If the uncivil party persists, then the best action for those involved is to request that outsiders look into it. For those outsiders, the best response is to issue stronger warnings, or possibly to talk about or issue sanctions.

In general, as the scope widens, harsher measures become appropriate - for those close to the incident itself, greater stoicism is preferable, so as not to start a fire.

If I say that I think one response is "best", I don't mean to imply that other responses are somehow illegal or something to judge people over. A wide variety of responses to incivility are quite natural, and part of all of our job is understanding that, and working to get past the less productive reactions. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is no need to escalate such a situation, which I did not mean to imply in my previous post. I think a useful addition could be made on the topic of dealing with incivility, or ignoring minor incivility, is that it? --NewbyG (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't think you'd implied that. I was just thinking aloud. I agree that something useful could be said in the policy about dealing with incivility. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no, but you see, I thought that I may have implied such, no matter. Yes, do write something in that vein or continue on the talk page. ([18] 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)) --
I do hope the Rfc or some other scrutiny results in welcome input. --NewbyG (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The examples are important as an illustration. The point is that some assume that these things are not a problem. However, if the policy does not deal with that kind of situation, then there remains work to be done.
I like the idea about. "... give a polite well-reasoned admonition to the editor who made the uncivil statement or post." That was what was missing in the example I gave. It was also missing when the "moron" example showed up. In fact, efforts to find help only produced more "moron" comments from those sympathetic to the offending editor's view.
Back to the question of Wikipedia culture, public opinion is important, and it would be an excellent outcome if editors showed their intolerance for incivility. I do not know how you can write a rule that says editors are responsible to show their intolerance, so that goes back to Olive's holistic approach. Right now, there is something of an "alphabet soup" of rules addressing interaction amongst editors. Perhaps we need to look at the terminology we have for telling an editor he needs to be less offensive. And yes, without backing the editor into a corner. I think the holistic approach can help change the paradigm."We are our brother's keeper" works for some people. Tom Butler (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outing

I removed the word outing from this page since I can't see any reference on the page to revealing a person's sexuality. In fact. other than in the header the word nor an explanation of the term is present in the page. It is therefore unnecessary. Hiding T 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is "outing" in the sense of revealing a person's off-wiki identity, not sexual orientation.Kww (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to use common language rather than Wiki-jargon, e.g. "revealing personal information." Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Outing in the context of Wikipedia refers to revealing or pointing to information about a person's real-life identity. I was glad to find this section, because I've never been quite clear whether it's okay to refer to a person's real-life identity as long as the person has revealed it him or herself elsewhere in the wiki. I gathered that it was frowned upon, but this is the first time I've seen it written in policy. Before reading it, I was considering whether to reveal something a person has revealed, or acknowledged, on other talk pages about his/her identity that would directly contradict an assertion that person has made about COI; after reading the section, I won't hazard referring to that information, although I think it is relevant to the making of a neutral encyclopedia that that information be more generally known.
At any rate, almost half of this section refers to outing, and I wouldn't have read the section for information about outing if the heading had simply said "Harrassment." It doesn't matter that the word "outing" doesn't appear in the text; there are at least two paragraphs that are entirely about outing. (edit conflict) But I wouldn't insist on the word; if the heading said "revealing personal information" per Arritt above, that would be okay with me too. Woonpton (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hang on. Are we saying it's somehow bad to reveal an editor's real name? Hiding T 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. You didn't know that? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit taken aback on this as well, Hiding. I thought you were a fairly senior person around here. Revealing someone's name that chooses to hide behind a handle is considered to be a very serious act. It comes from the fact that people confuse privacy with anonymity. I fully support privacy, but think that anonymity should be discouraged. That's why I use my name, and think everyone should. Still, in a system that is set up to support anonymity, breaching it is a serious offense.Kww (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I forgot it. I remember contact details being bad form to post, yes, but real names? Age may be catching up on me. Hiding T 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Crum's reversion; while Hiding is right that there was some brief discussion here about an explanatory phrase perhaps being better in the heading than the word "outing" which may not be understood by everyone, I think the solution using the explanatory phrase along with the label "outing" is even better because it covers all bases. I'm not sure I understand why there would be any objection to that.Woonpton (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My objections are based on style issues and the need to repeat a link within the same line, something we actively tend to discourage. Hope that clarifies for you and you find my edits amenable. I'd also be interested if anyone could point me to any discussion as to the revealing of a personal name being harassment. (comment added: 16:56, 27 April 2008 Hiding (Talk))
Well, for starters, there's the fact that WP:OUTING redirects to WP:HARRASSMENT. Then, on the latter page, there's a section titled "Posting of personal information" that starts out, "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment." Woonpton (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I meant discussion on adopting it as policy. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Hiding T 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that personal information should never be divulged or repeated, no matter how it became available. Biographical information is a very different matter. I do not personally chose to use a fictitious persona in Wikipedia, but I am willing to honor the decision of an editor to do so and I understand there may be important reasons that have nothing to do with how the person edits. But if the person has revealed his or her identity and biographical information that pertains to how he or she contributes to Wikipedia, then I think it should be available to all editors. How else can they judge a potential conflict of interest? The appropriate thing to do would be for the editor to say what he or she is willing to reveal in the personal talk page, and let that be the boundary.

This is not a civility question unless it is done to harass or in some way harm an editor, but I do think that a "no outing" clause should distinguish between biographical and personal information. Tom Butler (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good point: to distinguish between biographical and personal information. I think I go along with that. Not sure if the place to do so is on this policy page or another or guideline page. Perhaps this section is the most appropriate place, if anyone has any ideas. Thanks. --NewbyG (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points. To be honest, I can't really see what level of harrassment can ensue from teh revelation of your real name. It's the extra information attached to your name that can be construed as harrassment if revealed. On another point, does the use of brackets in a section header bug anyone else but me? Hiding T 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For most people who have a visible presence in the real world, revealing the real name is essentially the same as revealing the other personal information, because a click or two of the mouse will easily lead to business address and phone number and other contact information. I think it would set a bad precedent to suggest that revealing someone's name is any less bad than revealing any other personal information.
There was a recent instance I happened to observe where someone mentioned, in two different places, the name and biographical information of a scientist (not contact information, but his university, area of expertise and number of publications) who had given enough information about himself that someone had deduced who he was; the person who posted that information (not as an intentional outing for the purpose of harrassment but just to make a point that the person was an established scientist who might have been treated a little more politely than to be scolded for not understanding procedure and kicked out the door) was warned to remove the biographical information, and when he removed it one place but forgot to remove it in the other place --a user talk page-- the remaining personal information was removed by an arbitrator. This is considered, I gather, a very serious breach, and if I've picked that up as a newbie, I'm surprised there are more senior editors unaware of it.
Having said that, I do agree that it serves the purposes of those who have a hidden COI and want to keep it hidden, that it is considered a breach of etiquette to reveal biographical information even if the person has revealed it themselves; it seems that it would serve the community to be able to share that information more widely, as Tom says above, when it relates to editing. But in addition to the example I just referred to, I've seen a couple of other instances where people have been warned even for sharing, on user talk pages, biographical information (not personal information) about someone else that the person being talked about has shared or acknowledged themselves on their user talk pages. I like the way it's worded in this policy, that if the person has revealed the information themselves, and if it serves the encyclopedia to share what you've read on someone's talk page, then it might be revealed. Oh, I see someone removed that paragraph again. Without it, there's nothing in policy anywhere (that I can find) that suggests that there might be any justification for sharing any personal or biographical information about another person, for any reason other than a formal COI investigation. Woonpton (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The widest meaning of the word "outing" in this context would mean to "revealing private information about someone that they do not wish revealed". I think it fits in this policy. (1 == 2)Until 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors have the option of not being editors if doing so might endanger them or their job. I certainly do not want responsibility for their well-being. At the same time, if the editor is going to be abrasive and a bully in Wikipedia, then he or she can expect to have others want to retaliate in kind. The thing about a social experiment is that you need an effective feedback system and social disapproval is one of the best.
All of the subject matter experts I know are public in that their contact information is available via university rosters, publications they have contributed to and professional organizations. That is part of the world for them and that is an important way for them to grow their reputation. I am associated with one of the more alarming fringe subjects and it draws criticism from just about every corner of society, including the offended religious and the offended scientists. Even so, I have never been harassed in any way that seems to be feared here.
I am not advocating that people mine the Internet for biographical information. If an editor wants to put the information on the personal page, then it should be considered public knowledge. Wikipedia publications in which the editor has publicly divulged biographical information should also be public. Tom Butler (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time with the idea that repeating information that has been revealed by the affected editor on Wikipedia is a problem. My userpage reveals quite a bit about me, and, if you dug around my posts on talk pages, you could probably figure out shows that I watch, books that I have read, and products that I have designed. By saying those things on talk pages, I've made them free game for Wikipedians to discuss. There was a case where an editor successfully linked me to my corporate identity, and revealed the name of my corporation on Wikipedia. No harm done, but that was, in my mind, a form of outing: I had never mentioned it, she had to do some minor detective work to discover it, and it didn't have any relevance to anything under discussion. The repeating of on-Wiki information on-Wiki is not a problem, the revealing of off-Wiki information on-Wiki is.Kww (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps civility is not the place to make the distinction. As we are talking now, there is personal information such as tax id, bank account number and perhaps even the name of family members. Then there is biographical information that has been made public by the editor and that has not. Of the three, the only information that should be considered pertinent to the business of Wikipedia is biographical information made public by the editor. Even then, it should be seen at best to be in poor taste to use information that has nothing to do with the article. For instance, I am an ordained Spiritualist, but that is irrelevant in a discussion about the speed of light, for instance. In such a hypothetical case, use of the information can only be seen as an effort to somehow discredit me as an editor. Tom Butler (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, this section of policy is meant to be a sanction against disclosing private information about someone that they do not wish revealed, or disclosing publicly such information which could likely lead to harm to them and Wikipedia if it were disclosed. According to Wikipedia:User page#What may I have on my user page, contributors are allowed to provide some personal information, and that is done for the purpose of assisting the process of writing the encyclopedia. --

Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. (If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to and are by no means required to emulate this.)

I think most of the points made above here in this section by most users are sensible, and could probably be incorporated into working text for policy, if that was needed. Perhaps WP:User page has got it coverered though, for most purposes. --NewbyG (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

:"Perhaps WP:User page has got it coverered though, for most purposes." I understand and agree, but that is my point from an earlier discussion. It is really hard to find things in Wikipedia. A person almost needs to know what the guidelines are called before they can be found. Even more fun is following related links given in the introduction--round and round in tight little circles.

Is there a reference that could be given at the top of each related guideline? A decision tree or a table of related content would be nice. When I began to edit, it was not long before people were hitting me with NPOV, COI, SNPOV ... as if they thought they were communicating real information. I am seeing the same thing here but in the light that this and this and this article covers parts of that point. It may be that there is no integrated view that is causing the trouble. Tom Butler (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formulation problems

While I agree that the core of WP:CIVIL is reasonable policy, that core is covered in WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. As it stands, this is a behavioural guideline mixed in with things that could never, and should never be enforced, such as "Balance criticisms by providing a constructive comment as well." - hence essay.

I think this needs divided in two. This page would include the behavioural guideline-level discussion, another, new page, say, WP:How to improve civility would cover all the essay-level suggestions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


By the way, this is clearly a behavioural guideline, but WP:HARASS should be policy, to match WP:NPA - those are the core policy issues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been very, very bold: Let's see whether it sticks =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

([19] BOLD DIFF)

01:11, 28 April 2008 Shoemaker's Holiday (Talk | contribs) (12,511 bytes) (Clearly a behavioural guideline BASED ON important policies such as WP:NPA and WP:HARASS.)

[edit] What problems?

I am not seeing any problems, nor particular problems with the edits so far.

Wikipedia:Five pillars

Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project:

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 2,407,562 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

--> Wikipedia has a code of conduct Be civil and Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. No problems there, --NewbyG (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Civility is important, but so are other guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:MOS. The hard "policy" parts are WP:NPA and WP:HARASS, and by no means should those be weakened, indeed, we almost certainly fail to emphasise them enough here, and should work to increase their prominence. But the page as it stood before I got bold claimed to be policy, which is defined by {{policy}} as firm rules which almost never should be violated - then included a section of feel-good suggestions like "remember to say please and thank you" - good advice, but not really actionable rules =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether WP:CIVIL is a policy or a guideline is 1 issue.
Whether WP:CIVIL is well-written throughout is 2 issues.
Whether WP:HARASS is a policy or guideline is 3 issues.
I would say, probably, 1. don't care either way. 2. Yeah, some could be split off. 3. Dunno.
I would welcome further input. At the moment, some trimming of WP:CIVIL has been underway. It may be best not to implement radical solutions, but to proceed with updates as necessary.
These sorts of decisions would generally attract comment from a number of editors, as part of the consensus process, which is of course begun by editing the page. --NewbyG (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Aye, if consensus goes agaisnt me, that's fine, but WP:CONSENSUS does suggest being bold as a first step, then seeing what happens =) Just.. please don't revert the edit that fixed it so that calling a good-faith but awful edit vandalism in an edit summary was no longer implied to be worse than racist attacks =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure- As to your second point, Look, the list in #Engaging in incivility can go in any order, they are not on an increasing scale of any sort. And there can be inclusions or deletions. Maybe the section is better as prose. --
As to the first point, consensus is always forming, always formed. (See the visual aid, or flowchart at Wikipedia:Consensus.) -- NewbyG (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not in any particular order now, but it used to be divided into two lists, and the division between the two lists was rather eccentric. Maybe the racist attacks item was added after the poorly-judged "more serious" label got removed. I haven't checked. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday, I doubt that "be bold" means disregard consensus or at least discussing your intended changes before making them. In effect, you just took ownership of the article until others have had a change to consider the changes. (How many time will other editors refer to this article before consensus is reestablished?)
Since I lost track of the changes, I will assume the text is yours. The first two items in "Engaging in incivility" are now redundant. Is that your intention. If it was your intention to take "could never, and should never be enforced" items out, can you tell me what you mean by "Incivility creates a hot, unfriendly space and a sense of threat..."
There is much more. It would be good if all of us took Newbyguesses' lead to discuss changes first. Tom Butler (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, that isn't mine. I just rearranged that section a little bit to fix some funny sorting. I think all my changes have been pretty edited by now =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the list

OK, we've sorted that out for now, WP:CIVIL is policy, as it amplifies WP:5. --

Sorry if all of these edits seem confusing. If editors make additions to the list, they ought to stay if they are good. Yes, there is some redundancy in the list at Wikipedia:Consensus#Engaging in incivility, which is probably better at this time than arguments over what has been left out. At least four items could be combined, I think, they say much the same things, (but in slightly different words which may make it easier for different editors to understand, maybe). Perhaps then it would be easier to convert the section to prose, if anyone has any ideas. The policy has to remain stable, that does not mean that minor improvements/changes should always be resisted. --NewbyG (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think making some other things into prose was a good idea, but not this one which is easier to read as a list. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Odd items

"Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user)." - it's not clear what "requires technical help" means here, or what difference there is between IP contributions and user contributions.
"Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)." - not actually possible at all.
--Random832 (contribs) 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:How to be civil

Some 3 sections recently removed from WP:CIVIL went to a new essay, Wikipedia:How to be civil which now appears in the See also section. This material is not gone, but it needs work. --NewbyG (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to have it as an essay, but I have a feeling I've been thinking enough of policies for today. :) Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The sections spun out to the essay have been restored to the project page. [20] Either way could work still. --NewbyG (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe a different arrangement of sections

The current article seems to be a patchwork of ideas. The sections are:

  • Co-operation and civility: a discussion about some of the reasons incivility may occur
  • Engaging in incivility: list of examples
  • Why is incivility inappropriate?: a discussion about why incivility is not good
  • Harassment and disclosing personal information (Outing): a special form of incivility
  • Arbitration: if all else fails
  • No legal threats: one no-no
  • Removing uncivil comments: last resort treatment of uncivil comments

I would suggest a more organized story something like:

The definition of incivility

Dictionary-style definition: Discourteous; rude; any comment that attacks the person and not the issue.
As used in Wikipedia: Statements intended to disparage another editor, individual outside of Wikipedia or groups of people. Any statement that intentionally places an individual in a defensive role as an editor.

Common circumstances of incivility

Disparaging remark that characterizes a belief, viewpoint, argument, group of people and/or attitude in an unpopular light; may be a colloquialism in poor taste such as a reference to people of a different culture or system of belief.
Disparaging remark intended to characterize a belief, viewpoint, argument, group of people and/or attitude in order to gain editorial control of an article; the inference that an idea or people can be ignored or freely insulted because the majority view should dominate.
The inability of an editor to dominate a content dispute may result in escalating characterizations of the opposing editors.
Harassment against a person with an opposing viewpoint.

How Wikipedia is harmed by incivility

Obstruction of the business of Wikipedia
Drives away editors
Hurts the image of Wikipedia as a community experiment
Creates a "poisoned" atmosphere conducive of more rapid escalation in future disputes

Responses to incivility

Avoid provocation
Ignore if possible
Ask the person to stop or restate in a more appropriate manner.
Removal of offending remarks

Things to avoid when dealing with incivility

Responding in kind: Incivility is not acceptable whether provoked or not.
Threatening retaliation--legal or editorial

The examples should be embedded in the section they apply to. Please feel free to edit this. It is only a suggestion. Tom Butler (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[21] I swapped these two for now. This approach looks reasonable, User:Tom Butler it isn't policy changing. Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the policy is a moving target, but perhaps you could create a page like Wikipedia:Civility/New draft and do the actual rearrangement, trying not to add or delete or change the wording in the first version. That way, editors could check that it's really just a rearrangement. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
John, if it seems like a good idea to try a new layout, then Wikipedia:Civility/New draft sounds like a good place to begin. It certainly would be better than the confusion we must be causing with the current article. Would other editors say if they agree or disagree before we unnecessarily create a new page? Tom Butler (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably a better idea to do a page in user space, such as User:Tom Butler/Civility/New draft. Other editors can edit as well, without necessarily linking to the WP:CIVIL page until it's ready. --NewbyG (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad - user space is better. If you do create it there, please drop me a note - I'd be happy to do some copyediting/cleanup to help it read smoothly, while trying not to change the intent (and since I've not been involved in any discussions about changes, above, perhaps I'd been seen as somewhat neutral.) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Yes, a good idea to create a new "working" space. Recent changes have been extensive but also hard to keep up with. It may be easier to follow changes if they are completed in a working space and put up on the Civility page all at once ... although appreciative of the large amount of attention given to this article in the last weeks.(olive (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

I think it would be best if I did not host an article on wiki policy. I believe that one of the editors most vocally opposed to the civility article counts me amongst "certain people" whom he seems to believe live only to torment him.[22]

Many of you have complained about content disputes spilling over to this article. Moving a rewrite to one of my pages would only aggravate the situation. Thus you see the effect of "poisoned atmosphere" and driving away editors. It is time for me to concentrate on a new research project. We are funded now, you see [23]. Tom Butler (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A workshop page has been created using the above material. Wikipedia:Civility/Workshop. --NewbyG (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section

New section. [24] DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User pages

[25] (Restoring April 28 version)

[26] restoring 'User pages'. --NewbyG (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

  • Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs.
  • Using derogatory language towards other contributors or in general referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, or others in a derogatory manner.

While I agree Racism, sexism, and the like is a biggie, aren't these two statements approximately the same, except that the first is directed racism/sexism/etc, and the second directed or general racism/sexism/etc? Seems like they should be combined. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Combining those two ought to work. And making the list a bit clearer, that seems to be going well. --NewbyG (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, civility really does mean that we shouldn't be rude

Is there some argument in favor of rudeness that I missed? We already have enough problems with editors pretending they don't understand what civility is. Let's not make it easier for them. Editors at Wikipedia should not be rude. Dlabtot (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is tendentious editing uncivil? I happen to think so, and that's not covered in this policy. However, instead of listing every behavior by name that could possibly be considered uncivil, this policy will more likely be read if we keep it simple. Antelantalk 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what your comment has to do with mine. Are you arguing in favor of rudeness? Dlabtot (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me make it more obvious, then. Like rudeness, tendentious editing is uncivil. However, tendentious editing is not described in this policy. So, one thought is that we could add it. Another is that, since there are so many uncivil behaviors that we could name, such as tendentious editing and rudeness, we could make this article into a list of behaviors that are uncivil. However, if we want people to read this document and learn from it, we should actually name very few of them. Instead, we should project the general idea of civil behavior. Thus, it is unnecessary to specify "rudeness" in this document. Antelantalk 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is tedious filing such duckish RfCs. Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that you still don't know what my comment has to do with yours? For the record, I take offense at the assertion embedded within your question (are you arguing in favor of rudeness?). From my prior statement, that was very clearly not my point. Antelantalk 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it means we should not be rude. However, I think "rudeness" is yet another word which should be defined closely. So why use it if we don't need it? "atmosphere of conflict and stress" is enough, and includes rudeness and more than rudeness, including tendentious editing. I don't see a need for another word in there.

The word "rudeness" is a fairly recent addition. I don't think it's needed. However, "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." is longstanding [27] and I think it makes things clearer and should be kept. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Should Wikipedia's Civility Policy urge editors to avoid rudeness?

Should Wikipedia's Civility Policy urge editors to avoid rudeness? Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather pointy RfC, given your rude question to me, above. This entire RfC is based off of an incorrect belief. Not a single person, to my knowledge, has advocated that the WP:CIV policy remove all reference to rudeness. One of these many mentions of rudeness is being contested as superlative, since it is mentioned several other times on the page. Antelantalk 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Insofar as I use the language, "rudeness" and "incivility" are synonymous. Most of the behaviors described as examples are rude. The policy as a whole urges readers to avoid such behavior, so I'm not sure what specific change is being proposed here. MastCell Talk 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What is being proposed is that the policy not be changed to one that does not discourage rude behavior, edits that I objected to, and then attempted to discuss, above. I object to the idea, expressed in edit summaries, that rudeness is just a 'minor' incivility that should not be actively discouraged. I believe just the opposite, that editors should actually be polite and not rude; that's just simple sense and the essence of this policy. The edit was made by someone who does not actually believe that civility should be a policy. I welcome the wider input that an RfC will bring to the question. Dlabtot (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history to the WP:CIV mainpage, I think you'll see where this stems from. Basically, disagreement about one word in one place on the page. Why it merits an RfC, I don't know. Antelantalk 02:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it seems unnecessary. Raymond Arritt (talk)
I do object, though, to coupling "rudeness" with other, stronger behaviour like racism or indecent suggestions. Rudeness implies minor incivility, and so coupling it with things like that seems to imply that they are less minor than they are. Also, characterising my opinion that Civility should be a behavioural guideline, with WP:NPA and WP:HARASS as the policy parts, because it seems to fit into behavioural guidelines (must be followed generally, but there are commonsense exceptions - I mean, we do say "reasonable degree of civility towards others", not "best behaviour at all times") better than policy (Things where there are almost never appropriate exceptions - such as WP:NPA and WP:HARASS) as "thinking civility shouldn't be policy" is degrading and I ask Dlabtot for an apology.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor incivility, medium incivility, major incivility? What are these but subjective value judgments about which there will always be debates? We ask our users to behave civilly, and we say that it is not an option but an expected behavior, period. Bust the line and you will get dinged. Is that simple. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

...Oh, come on. WP:NPA and WP:HARASS are the blocking policies (or near enough) related to WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA lists the things that are never acceptable. in this section. Hence these distinctions are policy-sanctioned Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Incivility is, IMO, a stronger form of rudeness implying negative intent. Rudeness, OTOH, is subjectively determined, where one might think something rude when it was not intended to be rude. For example, ignorance of words considered rude in certain cultures does not point to negative intent. For example, in Australian "root" is a synonym for sex, but in the States, it simply means "to cheer"; therefore, a person using root in the "to cheer" sense illustrates no intent to be rude to Australians. However, it would show intent to incivility to tell an Aussie to go root themselves. Faith (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it should urge editors to avoid Rudenes. Removing one example of the word "rudeness", poorly placed, is not the same as removing all examples. Particularly, in the phrase "personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress" the words "and rudeness" coupled with the specific "personally-targeted, belligerent behaviour" seems bathetic - it's an imprecise word shoved in next to a precise definition, and, because of the vagueness of the word, it removes all intent from the definition. Rudeness can be entirely unintentional; given enough cultures pushed together, there's going to be unintended slights. It has no place in a policy-level definition; leave it with the precise definition that includes all aspects of rudeness that we desire to include within it. The word is not of long-standing. It was added in just over two weeks ago: [28] This is not the reversion of a long-standing phrasing, it is the return to the long-standing phrasing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Being civil essentially equals not being rude, and anyone with any common sense will avoid being rude. It's in the spirit of the policy, and you could also say it's in hte word.--Serviam (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another."

I think this is rather repetitive, and the second paragraph almost immediately says "After that, we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and is a reasonable way to distinguish acceptable conduct from unacceptable conduct." - which seems to me a much plainer statement of the matter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bunch of bad writing. Why not take the current lead and sandbox it and we can make the writing better without changing the POV at all? Then put that in the article with consensus, and afterward talk about changing the POV. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A little bit of repitition in this lead section is good. The sentences quoted just above are worth saying. --NewbyG (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Shoudln't we say " A reasonable amount of civility towards one another"? If we're going to use must, we should include some qualifier as to amount, as academic debate is not going to proceed with perfect civility. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well this is actually a policy intended to promote civility, so why would we use it to say anything otherwise? What exactly is the argument in favor of telling people, in the civility policy, that they are not actually expected to be civil? Dlabtot (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Because this is a policy page. Not an essay. It's supposed to have precise language, setting out exactly what is expected of users. It is not supposed to contradict itself, and should delineate suggestions from enforcable policy clearly. At the moment, none of that is true. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we could repeat "reasonable amount of civility" there, I don't think it needs it. Reasonable, civil, acceptable, those good words are all in use in the lead section. It's good if the meaning comes across. --NewbyG (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some extremely rude users are reasonably civil. Indeed, I've never seen a case of incivility that wasn't reasonable. That's because civility and incivility are emotional evaluations. How about just changing it to "don't cause so much offense that some admin who likes the other guy better will come in and have an excuse to block yo ass?" How about "Make sure that you're telling the truth before you call someone something which you know is going to cause them to report you" and then we can set up a jury to decide if the insult was true or not. Or maybe we should first define "reasonable," and then define civil around it. You know, have a Vulcan Civility Standard. Or maybe, just maybe, we should just stick with "be civil." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case mentioned

An interesting way to win a content dispute is to try to take out an editor with an opposing view via wiki-legal action. This is an important form of incivility harassment in that it is one editor threatening another by, in essence saying, "If you don't agree with me I'm going to tell the teacher."

You all should know that Shoemaker's Holiday is in the process of "telling the teacher" on Martinphi [29]. He has also accused Olive of being Martin's meat puppet--without offering evidence. Tom Butler (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forum-shop specific interpersonal disputes on this policy talk page. MastCell Talk 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Butler, Martinphi has specifically said he's editing this page in order to get at ScienceApologist:
For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility
Anyone who knows a thing about the Martinphi/ScienceApologist arbcom case knows who he's referring to. That is a gross abuse of editing policy pages.
As for Littleolive oil, I apologise for mentioning the observation, since I honestly don't know how to check for mesatpuppetry, so should not have made it publicly known. I was concerned by her joining in an edit war to get additions of highly-biased "actionable example words" added to the article, that seem to be chosen because people MArtinphi didn't like used them (per above quote). However, she also edits other articles which Martinphi does not, and since I've never looked into meatpuppetry before, I don't know how much of such types of edits show meatpuppetry, as opposed to simply agreeing with the editor on points. So I withdraw the accusation and apologise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. This can be pursued further in the appropriate venues; let's save this page to discuss specific changes to WP:CIV. MastCell Talk 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Reducing the impact

I have restored (and edited and trimmed) this section from the original version of this page. I didn't bother to dig through difs and find out when it was removed. IMO the civility policy has been steadily creeping in the wrong direction - rather than applying it to thwir own actions and trying to be civil, and attempting to calm, rather than escalate, uncivil situations, people have been using CIVIL as a stick to attack others with. This is the Wrong Direction. I welcome suggestions for getting this moving in a more productive direction. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good move Killer - diff was here. I don't think 'how to be civil' is an essay and looking at the history, that section was in for years. Consensus may change - but are we now saying the guidance regarding how to be civil has changed? I support it's restoration and any attempts to making this policy more robust and not a charter for the faux-injured. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If this is supposed to be a policy page, then we shouldn't include a huge section on suggestions which could not and should not be enforced. Do any other policy pages have anything at all similar? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Where was the consensus for your removal of the guidance? It stood in this policy for yonks before it was removed. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It was part of a WP:BOLD move, to see if it stuck =) I guess it didn't, so let's just say at the top that it's suggestions and then I can be happy =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure we do - right off the top of my head, NPA - instructs editors to comment on the content, not the contributor. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And has an entire section for Responding to personal attacks. Perhaps we should try to edit Civil to be more like that - more about how to respond and less about what is against the rules - thoughts? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Standards of civility are subjective and whether one may take offence to a particular comment will always remain so. We should acknowledge that people of different ages, cultures and (frankly), class respond differently, and the opportunity for misinterpretation and consequent 'taking offence' is acute on wikipedia where face to face contact is not possible. The presumption should be to AGF and assume misinterpretation in all but the most obvious of cases. 'Gaming' WP:CIVIL - taking offence for the purpose of advantage, rather than actually being offended - should invoke disciplinary sanction as much as violation of WP:CIVIL - but I can't see how that would be proven. My thoughts anyway. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think gaming tends to be fairly obvious - trying to get someone punished over something trivial or accurate is going to be met with great skepticism by all but the most irrational admins. The problem really comes about when someone genuinely is incivil, but is not generally so, and his or her opponents try to get him punished and warned for that. Perhaps something along the lines of "Except in the most excessive cases (see WP:NPA and WP:HARASS), incivility should not be judged from a single post - editors are, after all, human, and it is when incivility is part of a pattern of behaviour that it becomes most troublesome. However, a pattern of taking offense over very small perceived insults, or insisting that someone immediately revoke and take back justified criticism is also highly disruptive, and is also detrimental to the project." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and added a little bit to the lead about scope. Let's see how it holds up against other editors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes "justified criticism" is "you're a complete ass and you should leave the project and go through a few years of intense psychotherapy." So I don't think the accuracy of the post should be relevant. But I do have a question for everyone here: does "personally targeted behavior" include insults which are obviously about people present, or groups who will see the article "Those idiot evil AIDS denial people," or is it always about direct insults? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's be pragmatic and say it would depend on how good of a case could be made against the group. For instance, you could make a good case that AIDS denialists are dangerous, but you couldn't make a similar one about, say, blacks or Jews or women. There's not going to be a bright line rule on this one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
We simply can't have "justification" as a good reason for incivility. The fact is, that it is 100% justified to call some people morons, idiots, asses, anything you can think of. With perfect, provable justification. The way you have phrased it "treating justified criticism as an attack is also disruptive" means that if I call an AIDS denial person a dangerous true-believing idiot who ought to be shot so they don't endanger society, and they go and report me, then they are disruptive. Because that's perfectly justified what I said. At least from a lot of points of view. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it ought to read "constructive criticism". Telling someone that one of their actions or comments was counterproductive for reasons X, Y, and Z is constructive criticism. Calling someone an idiot, regardless of whether they are in fact of subnormal intelligence or sophistication, is not constructive. Is that the distinction you're getting at? MastCell Talk 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought that was covered in the fact that it was said to be "criticism", not "insults", but, fair enough change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I put that in before seeing your post (; Cool. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of lies

I removed the new "accusations of lies" bullet point. This sort of rule would prevent speaking plainly about real problems, and simply would promote camouflaged speech. Accusations of lies, especially when well-founded and fact-supported, are not uncivil. They are, invariably, a reflection of undesirable behavior: either that of the accuser, or that of the accused. But this edit here makes an awfully incorrect prejudgment. Hence my removal of it. Antelantalk 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, the act of bringing an accusation is not in itself in any way uncivil. Dlabtot (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End of lead

I think the addition of "taken out of context" to "Insisting that an editor be sanctioned for a single minor offense... is also disruptive, and may result in you being warned or blocked." has the effect of implying that in context, it must not be an offense at all. I don't think that's true - any behaviour that insists on a punishment far out of line with the offense is disruptive. I've tried a compromise by changing "single" to "isolated", since I think "isolated" gets the intent of the "taken out of context" bit without going further. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The context of uncivil behavior certainly should, and in reality is, examined by administrators when examining charges of uncivil behavior. What is the argument against examining the context of charges of uncivil behavior? BTW, the implication that you assert, does not exist, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, at the least, it's not necessary for an isolated, minor offense to be taken out of context for someone insisting on the editor being reprimanded over it to be turning a minor incident into a major one. I don't really see the need, if we're only offering two examples, to limit the scope of the examples more than necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I find your response to be incomprehensible. The question put to you is, why not examine context? Your rather novel and totally wrong-headed view that 'minor' incivility is allowed seems irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to argue in favor of allowing 'minor' incivility, you should do so explicitly. Dlabtot (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, if I clarify: Examining context is good, but saying it's an "isolated, minor" offense already sets up such constraints on the context that talking about it further is confusing. We could add words along the lines of "or taking another editor's words out of context in order to mislead", but that seems like something that would normally go beyond using WP:CIVIL as a weapon, and into the realm of outright incivility, which would be more of a main-article thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, your viewpoint that minor incivility should be allowed is not actually a part of this policy, so attempting to use it as the basis of your argument is not very productive. What would be more useful is if you would address the question of why you think actions such as a single breach of civility in response to a disruptive, tendentious editor, unresponsive to rational discourse, should not be examined in context. Dlabtot (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is also false to suggest that a full examination of the context of a dispute, rather than the isolated examination of individual diffs, is in some way a constraint; in fact it is the opposite. Dlabtot (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the dividing line between 'minor' and 'major' incivility? Dlabtot (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no bright-line division. But, obviously mild rudeness is much more minor than a threat of violence, and if you cannot see the difference, that's a problem =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean you are unwilling to make an argument to support your position? If you wish to do so, the floor is yours. Dlabtot (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought I had: I fail to see what "taken out of context" means in the context of that sentence. Perhaps you could explain what you intend it to mean, if something more than isolated? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List to prose

I've converted the section on Wikipedia:Civility#The_community.27s_role_in_reducing_incivility (Well, that's what it's called now...) into prose, and expanded it a little bit. I think it's a lot clearer now. We are writing here for users, not admins, right? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strongly object...

.. to massive changes to a policy page. If editors want to change consensus, go slow and request abundant feedback. jossi - 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, it was just a rearrangement for clarity. No real policy changes happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to support Jossi's revert here. This is a rather major policy. And quite a few changes. Let's at least discuss the sections. - jc37 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Right. let me try to detail the only real sections:

[edit] Preventing incivility within Wikipedia

  • Prevent edit wars and conflict between individuals (the project sets editing constraints — essentially a community answer)
  • Force delays between answers to give time to editors to calm down, and to avoid further escalation of a conflict (protecting pages)
  • Use positive feedback (praising those who do not respond to incivility with incivility)
  • Apply peer pressure (voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens)
  • Solve the root of the conflict between the offender and the other editor(s) or the community — or find a compromise.
  • Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in Wikipedia). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict.
  • Have certain users refrain from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility.

This becomes


Several policies and guidelines seek to lessen the disruption and drama caused by incivility and problems with editors not listening to each other. Policies such as our No Personal Attack policy, and Harassment policy set firm lines in the sand, which anyone crossing cannot expect to escape retribution for. The three-revert rule seeks to place firm limits on edit-warring. Blocks allow disruptive editors to be prevented from editing, and topic bans allow otherwise productive editors to be prevented from editing the few pages or topics which regularly incite them to disruptive behaviour.

For broader issues, page protection allows admins to stop editing on an article in heated and unproductive dispute (to allow editors time to calm down), and the the mediation cabal and other forms of dispute resolution exist to step in and attempt to solve the root of problems between editors, or suggest compromises.

Reasoning Surely this policy is not meant to be written solely for admins. By presenting it this way, we provide the same information in a more user-friendly way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of uncivil comments

The following is added to the start of the section

Where the incivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact:

  • Where someone is taking offense at your comment where none was intended, calmly explain what you meant.
  • Strike them out (using <s>HTML strikeout tags</s>), to show, publicly, that you withdraw the comment.
  • Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil - Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone took offense to it. If someone has taken offense already, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, Comment removed by author.
  • Simply apologise. This option never hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologise for the offense caused.


Reasoning Thre rest of the section is on removing others' comments. We surely want people tro deal with their own comments as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


The other changes were purely rearrangement of sections. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sentence for now

I couldn't really make sense of this sentence, so have removed it for now until someone can either explain it re add it with a context for meaning.(olive (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

oops ... just in case you're wondering what the sentence actually is:(olive (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

"it is not appropriate to make another editor appear to be more courteous than he truly is."

[edit] Incivil remarks without naming any particular editor

Sometimes editors make remarks like "I'm sick of all these idiots making stupid edits", referring to undesirable edits from various people. It isn't a personal attack because no one person is being targetted, but it still seems to breach the general principle of civility. Comments? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that definitely this kind of incivility is unacceptable because it destroys a general environment. The ultimate best collaborative environment depends on the behaviour of all editors, and how that behaviour affects not only individuals, but groups, and the working environment. Civility, I think should define how one contributes to the group process as an editor both in how one treats other editors, but also in how one attempts to manage the working environment.(olive (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
Certainly unacceptable on an article talk page, less so if it was done on a user talk-page (who was not one of the "idiots") Of course, unacceptable and actionable aren't the same thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I guess "actionable" could mean various things, from the perp being blocked, down to being given a gentle reminder about the ground rules. The former would be rather excessive in most cases, but the latter certainly would not be. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course. I was thinking of the higher end of the scale =) And, of course, like anything, degree matters - venting about IP vandals is not a problem, declaring (in seriousness) that all editors who oppose you are evil, deceitful members of a conspiracy lead by the CIA and the milk marketing board... that's crossed some lines. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with connexion

Hi! I Have some problem to connect at Wikipedia. I can't acces to wikipedia. I'don't know the reason. I say to french admistrator, because i edit lot of in wikipedia french language. Please resolve this problem.I must change my computer ton acces to wikipidia. Excuse me but my english is basic. Thank'you.--Great11 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language edit: "as such"

Any objection if I replace this line:

This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and, as such, are to be avoided.

with

This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and, therefore, are to be avoided.

?

The first is improper use of "as such"--see for example [30] Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you're right ... go for it... should not be a problem since its not a change in actual policy wording just a copy edit.(olive (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC))