Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 16

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Clear and simple definition of civil?

"Civil is how you'd like your best friend to behave with your mother or grandmother, or how you'd behave on meeting your boyfriend's or girlfriend's parents for the first time."

Guys, if you like it, put it on the page! It won't take up much room, and I think most people could relate easily to it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't like it for one very simple reason; in those kinds of social situations you would avoid discussing anything potentially contentious like religion or politics, but here discussion of topics such as the Muslim cartoons of a couple of years ago or prominent right-wing politicians is inevitable, and sometimes equally inevitably acrimonious. Malleus Fatuorum

Concur. Additionally, "common sense" definitions are inadequate because what's considered civil/uncivil is highly culturally dependent. Gerardw (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's something which could be worked towards, though - as an ideal. Consider the situation where you might discuss some controversial / contentious issue with someone like that, and work from there. It should never be impossible for any intelligent, literate person with decent language skills to discuss any topic at all with (for example) someone's highly-intelligent ad well-educated grandmother. Bit of background: one of our old family friends was (as far as I recall) the first woman to take a double-first from Oxford; a family member was in MI5, and other family members and friends were prominent journalists, authors and broadcasters. I remember many, many very in-depth discussions between them, when I was a child - and every single one was discussed in a way that could be done "in front of the children / mother / mother-in-law / other guests". We even had a Cardinal to dinner one day. It's really not that hard; all one has to do is want to be civil as well as having the high-power discussion. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding: there seems to be an awful lot of discussion, over the wiki, as to whether the civility thing "can" be done. Of course it can be done — it's not the ability which is lacking, it's the desire! Step one is just to want to do it; step two is then to look at how to do it; step three is then to do it — and to insist on it. It's that simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple. The hardest step of all is wanting to do it, for some people. What we have here is a small minority of editors who seem to get a great deal of pleasure or entertainment from being uncivil, combined with a vast deal of apathy about addressing the civility issue. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it would be possible to discuss a great many things in the way you describe with "highly-intelligent and well-educated" people. But we're talking about Wikipedia here, where the average user seems to a rather poorly educated 14-year-old incensed because you won't include or removed a section on the film V for Vendetta in an article about the Gunpowder plot, for instance. Or because you dare to suggest that an article on 9/11 is incomplete if it doesn't at least link to the various conspiracy theories that surround the incident. Malleus Fatuorum 14:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to which there is a very evident hypocrisy in an editor who is so vehemently attacking another for incivility in another venue posting something like this. The ineluctable conclusion is that incivility is only what others say, never what you yourself say. Malleus Fatuorum 14:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please post a diff where I have been incivil. Gerardw (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that I was referring to you? Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I inferred from the phrase "ineluctable conclusion" that your statement was meant to be universal. (After looking up "ineluctable" on wiktionary). Gerardw (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you inferred incorrectly. The "ineluctable conclusion" is that anyone who makes a posting such as the one I linked to and yet still berates others for incivility is in a morally indefensible position. And though admittedly not "universal", there is certainly a great number of such editors. Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec of ec) Or perhaps you wrote poorly, with the antecedent of "you" being unclear. My point is the failings of some editors doesn't invalidate the concepts/ideals of civility or incivility. Yes, there are many editors who believe incorrectly that other editors' behavior changes the standards for their own behavior. Gerardw (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps you simply misunderstood the meaning of "ineluctable". My point is that many of those hysterically screaming "incivil, burn the witch" are among the most incivil of all but never recognise it in themselves, only in others. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it seems to me that Malleus simply failed to spot the irony of the post. (The discussion was about whether offence can be given or merely taken: the response "okay then I can call you an asshole or a bitch and it won't be offensive unless you consider it so".) Well, no one is perfect, and it illustrates the pitfalls in relying upon irony and wit to convey a point. Geometry guy 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your apparent quotation is rather misleading. The actual posting was "Depending on your gender, that attitude makes you either an asshole or a bitch — which, of course, is your choice". That hardly seems ambiguous to me. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I paraphrased to reflect the likely ironic intent, given the context. A diff taken out of context (as your own posts frequently are) can appear unambiguous. However, here there is a sudden change from opposition to incivility to a provocative personal attack. Do you really still not see the obvious ironic intent? I thought you were more savvy than that. Geometry guy 01:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but I've seen too many those opposing incivility employing it themselves to care about the difference. There's a condition called decision fatigue, which supermarkets take advantage of by placing low-value goodies by the checkout. And I think something similar is at the heart of the content editor vs. civility police battle. After debating with the nth editor of the day who thinks it's vitally important to include a lengthy discussion of a mask or whatever in a historical article like Gunpowder Plot, and repeatedly being told that you're an elitist bastard as a result, it's little wonder that the facade sometimes crumbles. You have to be involved in building articles to know just how demoralising and soul-destroying it can be. I'm not saying that you aren't, but most admins aren't, hence they focus on the wrong things, like naughty words said in frustration. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Gerardw, would you quibble semanitcs like this when meeting your girlfriend's parents for the first time? Just saying.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, I misread who you concurred with above. Ignore the implied criticizm, but It is part of what's wrong with the OP's definition.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm not "vehemently attacking" (or if you consider that I am, then so are a lot of other people). Nothing I have said there is / was uncivil. What I am attempting to do is to encourage another editor to see that there's a problem, and to address that problem. I think you might be hard-put to it to find a diff where I'm actually uncivil to anyone. With regards to dealing with an incensed 14-year-old, just because they may be uncivil doesn't mean that we should be in return. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here, as I never said you were vehemently attacking anything or anyone. This is what I linked to, and the editor I was specifically using as just one example of what I'm talking about.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(facepalm) oops, yes, my bad! Totally misunderstood you! I haven't had a day off in over a year, and that, combined with chronic pain and intermittent morphine, doesn't make for overwhelming clarity of either thought or responses! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The heart of the issue with content editors is that civil discourse is being held at a higher standard than respect for content. Thus, any definition of civility should not only include civil discourse, but respect for work put into building articles. So, for instance, you have someone who decides to use acceptable language your grandmother wouldn't mind hearing, but the heart of the comment goes something like this: "This article is lacking and not neutral and I can see you've made up a lot of the facts here so why don't we change A, B, and C, and add X and Y, and no, I have no sources and I won't make any effort to get any but if you protest the addition of my suggestions, you have a problem with WP:OWN." Which goes on for weeks or months. Allow me to illustrate.

I have the patience of Job to take this kind of comment on, but my patience wears thin after doing this for 5 years and 30 articles...kind of like the patience of God.

So to redefine civility for Wikipedia: Civil Discourse + Respect for content (where respect=bringing excellent sources with any complaints or suggestions) = Decent Civility Policy.

With this should be the broadening of admin actions where the riffraff who refuse to engage on a meaningful level can get warned then blocked just as easily as if I tell someone they're too stupid to pour piss out of a boot. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There can never be a precise definition of "civil" because there is no word or phrase which is always off limits, and there are cases where consenting adults should speak frankly to each other without a passer-by issuing blocks with no understanding of the underlying issue. In my ideal, WQA would have teeth and if, following discussion, some small number of designated people advised an editor that they need to desist from uncivil commentary, that editor would be subjected to escalating blocks on repeats—without some other admin taking it upon themselves to unblock. Likewise, some central noticeboard should be able to easily remove those who are out of their depth, yet who persist with pointless bickering over article content. The problem is the community's inability to deal with moderate disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps the problem is to do with the definition of "disruption". If the aim of this project is to build a quality encyclopedia then the only disruption that matters is that around article pages, not petty spats around historical irrelevancies like RfA or talk page arguments. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree—there should be a lot more focus on the primary purpose of Wikipedia, namely the development of good encyclopedic content, and less tolerance of those who are repeatedly discussed at noticeboards. However, there are lots of minor articles where "quality" is hard to define, and discussions involve irreconcilable differences. While some editors are capable and willing to defend themselves from abuse, others would just go elsewhere if rampant incivility were allowed to spread from the Internet to Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not as black and white as some try to paint it, and has very little to do with "rampant incivility". For instance, it might be a good idea if editors who advertise their poor knowledge of English grammar in their signatures don't try to pontificate on the grammar used in a potential TFA, as a follow-on to a festering sore about the quality of Brazilian monarchy articles (diffs on request). "Incivility" is far more than saying "fuck you": it's about respect, not words. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is inherently gray, but as long as there's such a wide variance in interpretation we're going have ... well what we've been having for years. It's in our best interest to make it more black and white. And, yes, WP:ICANTHEARYOU is a form of disruption equally harmful as overt incivility. Gerardw (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've learned a few things here, the most valuable of which is Tony1's insights into writing skills. But I've also seen the result of putting kids in charge of an encyclopedia project, which has been that content is ignored in favour of civility. Good luck with your civility project children. Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility vs content is a false dichotomy. I'm not aware of a significant majority of folks saying that content is less important than civility -- it seems to me they're orthogonal. The ideal is that we achieve a civil environment, so editors are not put off by a foul environment without language police jumping people's throats at insignificant infractions.

The difficulty is and remains the the deviation in what Wikipedians consider tolerable is so wide that the usual consensus mechanism doesn't seem to work. The "I can't define incivil but I know it when I see ~~Malleus~~ it" just isn't working.

Coming to a consensus on this is going to be hard. If it was easy we would have gotten there by now. We need to focus more on principles, convergence to consensus. We need to provide concrete examples and guidelines, and then consistency of application. It's not an area where WP:IAR works very well, as recent wheel wars, deadlocked Arbcom cases and Jimbo talk page wikidrama provide evidence for. Gerardw (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with a few facts then. Who are these many new editors that User:Kaldari claims I have driven from Wikipedia? Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of getting into a spat amongst ourselves (which is what seems to happen so often when people discuss civility!), why not just focus on getting some level of as-clear-as-possible definition here? I really do understand the problem with intransigent editors who just don't seem to be able to understand the importance of quality content. However, resorting to incivility doesn't actually improve their levels of understanding in any way whatsoever. I know how tempting it is. Real life background again: I'm full time carer for a frail elderly parent with rapidly progressing dementia. Sometimes I get seriously frustrated (especially with the passive-aggressive thing). Sometimes - just sometimes - I lose it. (Along the lines of "which part of "Stand up" did you not understand?" when said parent is doing their utmost to throw themselves on the floor ....) But the only way to deal with "losing it", really, is to walk away for a while. Any individual one of us is not solely responsible for the content of any one article. Let someone else take over with the explanantions while you get your cool back. Work on a different article, if you can't maintain your standards of civility. And, no matter how much baiting and total-failure-to-understand you encounter, become "the editor who can't be baited". You are never, ever, ever going to encounter an un-blockable editor who can be as intransigently and infuriatingly stubborn as a previously-extremely-intelligent person with rapidly progressing dementia. Trust me on this.

Adding: Remember this is an encyclopedia. It's only an encyclopedia. I'm not saying quality isn't important - of course I'm not! But we have to maintain perspective - it helps with civility. Nothing that happens here, which isn't extreme vandalism on (for example) a BLP (and pretty much instantly revertible and subsequently blockable) is ever going to have the genuine danger content of a frail person attempting to hurl themselves on the floor in a fit of pique whilst standing close to the top of the staircase. Nothing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Essay - feel free to link

After much thought: User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Essay_on_civility. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thing is Pesky, things are not always what they seem - yes there are (1) genuine people who are unflappable and civil and are able to move on with a dignity etc....and then there are (2) people who lose it and deal with friction with other editors with abrasive, sarcastic, demeaning comments etc... and then there are (3) those that put on a polite face but behind the scenes they do not forget - subtle opposes on policy/RfA/RfB/RfC, supporting other editors in conflict with the original antagonist ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), backchanneling etc. The real fun is picking how well someone is gaming this with a well-thought out and "thoughtful" tactical comment.....("Who me??? No, I'm not making an ad hominem comment? Never! I think the person is a great editor but/the proposal has merit but......")

There are lots of games going on here, and I propose that group (3) causes more trouble as group (2)....and that there are a higher proportion of people in group (3) than one might think. I'll take blunt and honest over polite and two-faced any day of the week. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I totally understand where you're coming from there; I think, if an editor has been around for a good while, we can usually (not always, granted, but usually) spot which kind of person they are. But no matter which kind of person they are, it's never really impossible to keep one's own personal rage issues off the wiki (and, believe me, I have my share of personal rage issues in Real Life! I generally take it out on the garden, or obsessive-compulsively clean the house, or blitz-clear undergrowth from the woodland with an axe - very therapuetic, that last one! :P Particularly if the axe in question is the real weapon-of-utmost-choice - something along the lines and size of a Viking war-axe is terrific fun to use ... hehehe ...) We can't "fix" other people - but we can all choose to improve ourselves, I suppose is really what I'm getting at. We can rage and scream all we like about another editor in the privacy of our own homes or heads, just so long as we keep it there and don't preserve it for posterity in our written words here.

Adding, of course "blunt" is not the same thing as abusive! And one can be blunt and civil with it (they're very good at that in Yorkshire.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: Fluffernutter has done some excellent copy-editing on it, and it's been de-wall-of-textified a bit :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

An example of incivilty

This has spilled over more pages than I care to link, but minding my own business, with two days and nothing to do, I'd planned to write content. Instead I have to deal with these kinds of problems. Someone will probably be blocked for using bad language; the admin who pulled the content writer away from writing will have no consequences, but in my view has been very rude without using a single bit of profanity. We need to get a handle on these kinds of situations, imo. This is why we lose editors. The ones who write. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a brief "cool down" note over there. It might (or might not) help. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You addressed it to the wrong person. But this is always the problem. People see the bad language and overlook the bullying. Anyway, I've had more than enough of this place for a good long time. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually address it to anyone in particular - just a general pouring of ice-cream with chocolate sauce onto troubled storms in teacups! On the subject of bullying, just don't "rise" to it. They can't actually hurt you. You're a volunteer - do which work you want, when you want, and how you want. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right of course. Here's the problem for me and perhaps others share the same issues: when I'm trying to concentrate, am reading a particularly difficult source that needs to be summarized, and I'm interrupted by a message on my page about something that needs to be done, which is then followed up by a list on a page I tend, it's very difficult to keep my concentration. So the original article is abandoned to attend to the wishes of someone else which inevitably results in bad moods all around. It's a very low level of incivility, but it happens frequently and something we should recognize. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pile on or anything, Pesky, but your response is an excellent example of how admins do not understand what they are doing to attain the ideal civil atmosphere actually makes matters worse. On the face of it, leaving a short cool-down comment seems like a relatively low impact course to take. You didn't direct it at anyone, so you're not singling anyone out. What harm could be in that? Unfortunately, by not taking more time to read what is going on on the talk page and not directing cool-down directions to anyone in particular, you end up chastising people who are working hard to keep their tempers and surreptitiously reinforcing editors who are using nice Grandmotherly language to demand changes be made to an article by templating and tagging it without bothering to start a discussion about what that editor sees as the article's deficiencies. For hotheaded content editors--myself included (I have my moments)--someone popping on the talk page who doesn't appear to have spent any time reading the article or understanding its issues is condescending, like taking criticism about your driving from someone who doesn't drive. Many times it's simply unbelievable.

While the open-editing nature of Wikipedia makes it possible to put tags and templates all over an article, it is in many cases not constructive to do so. Particularly when that article is of high quality. This strategy is used by POV warriors and editors of all stripes who don't have enough detail or knowledge to directly and constructively criticize an article. They do it just to intone doubt in readers without doing any of the work to determine what really needs to be clarified. This is a passive aggressive and highly disruptive behavior that is emotionally draining on many content editors. It's disheartening that many editors who don't produce a lot of content don't recognize it. If high quality articles need to be improved, this should be addressed on their talk pages.

In this discussion then, I'm trying to impart the urgency that admins who wade into potentially uncivil discussions should take some time first and understand how to cool tempers down. It's often not with a low impact comment. --Moni3 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I take your general point, but Pesky isn't an administrator, just an interested observer. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I know. General point and all. Should someone have employed a block there, that would have sent the discussion up shit's creek without a paddle. --Moni3 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the general effect of a block in my experience. It's high time that the ability to issue blocks was removed from administrators, particularly for so-called civility issues. Hell, as a group, administrators are the most visibly incivil group of all. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But it started last night at Template talk:Ernest Hemingway, and an editor reverted the template 5 times with nary a ripple, despite bright line and all that, and then was very aggressive on my page. The fall-out? Ceoil gets two warnings for incivility, I spend hours doing crap that could have been any time, and the pages I'd bought books for and wanted to work on fell by the wayside. Btw - Moni, I'm in awe of your writing and ability to communicate. Me? I just want to spit and end up sputtering. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The "bright line" talk you see sometimes is just more administrator bollocks. Ceoil will be just fine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously bright line either applies or it doesn't just as civility either applies or it doesn't. I'm not worried about Ceoil - he can take care of himself. I don't understand though why it's okay to pull someone from editing to cater to demands. I've never ever demanded anything of anyone here - maybe it's time to start. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't OK. I feel rather similarly about the ugly tagging of articles that's so common here, which is equally saying "somebody should do something about this, but I can't be bothered". I consider that kind of thing to be incivil, not being called an ignorant arse or whatever. That's just sticks and stones, but defacing articles affects the quality of the product. Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, for some reason I can communicate clearly when it's not my article at stake. When it's mine, I frequently turn into a lunar freak-o-naut. --Moni3 (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't so much care about the article, I very much care about the time wasted. I think to your point above and to Malleus': the low-level incivility is just draining. To have spent 24 hours because of a single edit I made to a template, to have spent 24 hours defending work I've done in the past at the expense of work in progress is what turns some of us away. Maybe this just isn't the right place for me. Dunno. But I think focusing on language and not focusing on these kinds of incidents is wrong. Last summer because of a talk page dispute about sources on another highly viewed page I ended up being written about on an external website where I was called a "weird neo-nazi nun" with links to pornographic images. That kind of stuff is not cool. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Stick to your guns and let the sources do the talking. I reckon without the weeks of bullshit I've dealt with here I could have written another FA. It's draining but eventually, if their arguments are baseless, they'll clear off and do something else. Parrot of Doom 01:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Truthkeeper88 I'm sorry you got sucked into such silliness. I didn't comment at first because I missed the genesis of the whole thing (I was looking at the Hemingway page history instead of the Hemingway template.) This was a classic example of misapplying WP:MOS while totally ignoring the larger Civility -- specifically respect for fellow editors and consensus decision making. I'm not aware of anything I can do to help the situation but let me know if I can. Gerardw (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I do see (and appreciate) all the points above. I read through quite a bit there (and yes I do read at the speed of light!) And I can quite see the kind of sweet-as-honey bullying. Yep, that's a problem, and it can make everyone (me included!) very ratty. I find getting distracted a real bummer, too - but the only thing you can really do there is dig your heels in and be stubborn as a mule and say to yourself "Nope! I'm working on something else just now!" As a fairly regular NPP patroller, I admit to tagging-as-I-go (though I also frequently wander in and fix stuff up), but I do try not to over-tag, and I always go over to the creating editor's talk page and drop my standard spiel of hints, tips, how-to on refs, and point them at the Reflinks tool (which I find quite incredibly useful) before I consider that I've "finished" with that page. Fix a bit, tag a bit, hand out some tips ... and if they then come back to me on my talk page for more info, I'll get more involved with them, on the whole. The Hemingway thing - yes, that was just wrong. Truthkeeper, take heart, you're bloody useful, don't let others run you down, and if another editor reverts something 5 times, point them at 3RR, and rather less sweetly (if they persist), get an admin to give them a short sharp shock block for it. You're entitled to do that one. Adding: being civil is not equal to being a doormat! You're allowed to ignore demands from another editor that you should drop what you're doing and jump through hoops for them. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(Jeeze, yes, it's me again!) Just had a thought; when I did History of the horse in Britain and it DYK'd, a few people dropped some helpful ideas onto the talk page ... another way of approaching this kind of thing is to say "Hey! Thanks for your input; feel free to wade in and fix that / those thing(s) (provided that you insert references as required, of course!)" Drop the ball back into their court. They'll either fix it or go away. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to bring this here not so much to seek advice but to show that the lack of civility extends much beyond a quick outburst of profanity. The profanity is easy to see and easy for administrators to think they need to police when in fact much more complex situations are playing out all on pages all over the project. I'd like to see those with blocking power to take more time to fully analyze a situation before a warning or a block is issued for perceived incivility. Gerardw, you're right that this was a situation where respect and consensus building were thrown out the window, aided by an admin who went on to admonish and escalate. I really think this a classic example of the type of situation the community needs to learn to recognize and address. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to someone who drops a shopping list onto the talk page, can I suggest the use of a strategically-placed {{sofixit}} tag? :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, if you don't change what I want you to change--something I remember seeing once in a book or maybe a dream or worse, the History Channel--I'm going to put several templates on the article you wrote to indicate how poorly written and not neutral it is, and a few more that I won't really be able to come close to rationalizing. When you take them down I'm going to edit war with you then report you at 3RR. When you complain about me I'm going to refuse to engage with logical arguments, somehow intoning that I'm an expert and you will never be, malign the concept of Wikipedia and portend its imminent demise if stubborn people like you are in charge of it. I'll do that at ANI too, reveling in the feeding frenzy atmosphere. I hope to be able to persuade other editors to my side by giving them barnstars and complimenting them on their swift decision-making skills. Should you attempt to get input on improving the article by taking it to GAN or FAC I'm going to reiterate my arguments as reasons why the article should not be promoted, but never will I ever look up a fact in a book or discuss any source material. You wrote the article. You take care of that. Wikipedia is, after all, a community effort. You do the writing and I do the complaining. --Moni3 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, you meanie! Yes, we will always have problematical editors. BUT ... when it gets that bad, there's always dispute resolution, third opinion, protection / semi-protection, and (if needed) the more severe actions one can take, such as RFC/U, AN/I, and eventually (and if necessary!) Teh Arbs! Me being me, I would do my utmost to remain as civil as possible, bring the matter to the attention of any relevant WikiProject, and (if it really got too much for me) take a day off in the woods with the afore-mentioned 12lb Vixing-war-axe substitute. (Saplings=legs, small branches=arms, twigs and weeds = fingers and toes .... ) A huge dose of endorphins combined with the satisfaction of having metaphorically reduced the editor-substitute (undergrowth) to dog-food, with associated "Arrrrrghhhh! Take that, you bastard! See how you like it!" verbalisations, at least gets some of the residual angst out of the system. There's something very cathartic about extreme physical violence :P P.S. You probably don't ever want to see a real badass granny in that mode - you would die laughing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: are you trying to convince me that the various processes on Wikipedia that already exist will come to my aid when I need them? And necessary followup: if so, is there some approach to content editing you think I've neglected to consider in my 5 years of experience here? (Don't you think I've asked for assistance before? Do you think it worked in such a seamless manner as what you are portraying? How many times would you wager I got chastised for bringing an editor to an admin board and the problematic editor got nothing (or, worse, was encouraged to continue)? How many people who frequent ANI or other admin boards can actually understand my perspective here?)

I've been to dispute resolution. It was a farce. Third opinion? That was useless too. Otherwise, I don't know why you're referencing dog food. The rest of your reply is confusing. --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I've confused you! These things are supposed to work, sure, but at present they just don't always work. That's mainly, I feel, because there's very little commitment to actually enforcing civilised behaviour - and by that I mean much more than "civility'. To get any kind of policies and principles enforced, we're going to be fighting apathy until there are enough people prepared to stick at it (in relay teams if necessary to avoid individual burnout). And to be able to do it in a way which won't recoil on them. Take a look at Ironholds' essay in Signpost. That's what we're dealing with; it applies in so many areas. But at some point we just have to have enough faith that we can succeed (eventually)to bolster us up in our own continued efforts to get this stuff to work. Sooner or later, the real disruptive tendentious editors drop themselves in it, in one area or another. Yup, and then we get a whole new generation of them! That's the way it goes. As one ASBO-contender gets blocked, another appears over the horizon. The community needs to learn, gradually (I expect) to take these things seriously. It will be a long process - but it is worth fighting for, and in the meantime finding an outlet somewhere off-wiki for obsessive rage does actually help. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Let's not confuse the issue. Wikipedia's processes for resolving content disputes rely on a quality editor base. They fundamentally depend on the assumption that sane, reasonable, encyclopedically-focused editors outnumber unreasonable, agenda-driven obsessives. Unfortunately, we've lost the former and gained the latter at such a rate that RfC's, third opinions, etc. no longer function. "Enforcing" civility wouldn't improve the utility of these processes - in fact, a misguided concept of "civility enforcement" has probably accelerated the decline in the quality of the editor base that's rendered these processes useless. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult, certainly. But it's perfectly possible to be sane, reasonable, encyclopedia-focused and civil. I think part of the major trouble is that the agenda-driven types shout the loudest. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of this continuing discussion, Pesky, is that in the current miasma of admin process and the way the majority of editors think--placing content at a low priority--it is not perfectly possible to be sane, reasonable, or civil in an atmosphere that prioritizes something else over content, whether it be civility or openness or something else. If you think it is, you've not had the experiences we're talking about. I think we're illustrating our experiences pretty vividly, but you seem very keen on making sure we're happy and getting along without addressing the heart of the problem. This is why content editors are continuing this discussion. There is no happy and getting along when content is being used as a way to disrupt articles. Something needs to change: the definition of a disruptive editor, the definition of civility, how admins address arguments and disruptive editing, and the mindset that someone else is going to fix problems in articles.

I'm not sure the editors reading this discussion truly understand the concerns of the editors who focus on content. It seems to me that changing the civility policy to something that can address the problems we're having across the encyclopedia would be a fairly simple thing to do if everyone involved understood the problems inherent in the system. What's the disconnect? Why can't this be changed? --Moni3 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, it can be changed. It just needs enough people to agree that it should be changed. And quality content and civility are not mutually-exclusive concepts. I care about content quality. The original creator of The Meermin slave mutiny and I were in lack-of-agreement about the article, but we stayed friendly enough about it, and it's a GA now, and both of us are happy. Obviously it's not the level of disagreement elsewhere, but caring about quality and civility is perfectly possible; it's a shame, really, that we have the myth that editors can only care about one or the other. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have a lot of editors who only care about civility and not content. In fact, we've codified that set of priorities. Admins (and even the Arbitration Committee) are supposed to "enforce" civility and other behavioral policies, but are restricted by both the letter of policy and by longstanding precedent from dealing with content violations, no matter how egregious. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Concur that content or civility is a false dichotomy and civility goes far beyond individual interactions and includes Wikipedia:Tendentious editing et. al. In my opinion, the difficulty is Everyone agrees Wikipedia should be civil but few agree as to what that means. Gerardw (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who writes content in one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia (gender and feminism-related articles) I'm not sure I understand what the problem is specifically. Whenever a misguided "men's rights activist" (or 12) show up at feminism, I just explain the policies, point people to previous discussions establishing consensus on various issues, or participate in new discussions if enough people want to change something. In the end, the article usually ends up being stronger despite the influx of clueless editors. If the debate gets heated, the article can be locked. Why is this not adequate? What would people prefer happen in these situations? Surely, we can't just block people for "being wrong" or "arguing vociferously". What if we semi-protected featured articles by default? Would that help? Are there any technical solutions that would help? I just don't see how redefining civility is going to solve the problem of content disputes. Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem, as you yourself know, is that some editors and administrators use civility as a weapon to beat others into submission; so long as they themselves remain within some arbitrary threshold they can safely goad their opponents to step over that line, resulting in a punitive block. Job done as far as they're concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus thinks it's deliberate action causing this conflict. Some of it might be (or some of it might be just for Malleus), but I believe that most editors and admins are too lazy to read sources. Kaldari, imagine I'm a giant asshole (done and done, right?) and I know you wrote Nashville sit-ins and didn't include some sources. In the current atmosphere, I can place a POV template on the article, or unreferenced or whatever improvement template I can shake up to allege the article is poorly written. I can make vague comments on the talk page and not do any work myself, demanding you fix all the problems I'm coming up with. I'm here and bored so I can let this drag out for as long as I want. I might be a little crazy too...no one one the internet knows you're sane, you know. Explain all the Wikipolicies you wish. I can continue to oppose you and malign your efforts. When you get tired of that and think it wise to refer me to another admin board, I'm going to circumvent you and report you first. I might have friends I cultivated on IRC. Or socks. Who would know right now? I am disruptive and I will control the article and the talk page and no matter how much work you do, you will never be able to resolve the problems I can devise.

Now imagine what that might be like if all admins understood what a disruptive editor is. And the next jackass who decides to disrupt an article you wrote got blocked for 24 hours for trying it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's largely deliberate on the part of editors and laziness on the part of administrators, but that may just be my jaundiced view. I have one specific example of an article that became an FA two or three years ago, which was recently tagged with an update tag because it didn't use a book published in 2010. Which didn't add a great deal anyway except for some mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus stuff on spells and such like.[2] Obviously I have no objection to anyone asking on a talk page "Have you considered this new source" or whatever, but to disfigure an article in that way is completely unacceptable, and I think incivil. But nobody would ever be blocked for that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious tagging and drive-by edits are definitely a problem. Personally, I usually just leave whatever crap is dumped on the page and open a discussion thread to establish consensus against it. This takes a few days, but works 9 times out of 10. Problem is, it requires some patience, leaves the article in a bad state for a few days, and feels like a waste of time, especially if you're in the middle of trying to improve other articles. One idea I had was to implement a "delay protection" system for good and featured articles (as well as especially contentious articles). Under such a system, edits by non-autoconfirmed editors to certain articles would be delayed from anonymous viewing for 24 hours (or some threshold) giving established editors time to reach consensus on the change before it went live. If an established editor made an edit before the time period was up, that edit (including the new user's edit) would go live. This would allow the established editors to silently revert or approve the edit, but if they didn't, it would eventually go live automatically. This is similar to pending-changes, but doesn't set up any new work-flows or require any extra interface. And it's less severe than semi-protection, so it could be more widely utilized. Does this sound like it would help any? In the case where consensus cannot be reached, this solution doesn't help, but neither would redefining civility. In those cases, it is rarely clear who is "disruptive" and who is simply "standing their ground". Kaldari (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's just pending changes by another name. The problem really is incivility: how else do you describe tagging an article as crap because it doesn't include your favourite theory/book? Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe header tags should work like PRODs—anyone can remove them and they can't be restored without consensus. Does that sound like a good idea? Kaldari (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a better idea, but they ought not ever to disfigure the article page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A few of them should probably just be deleted outright, like {{orphan}}. Kaldari (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That's one I always delete on sight. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're exactly right GerardW; it keeps coming back to how we define civility. For instance, here's a recent exchange I was involved in that resulted in my (briefly) being blocked and a potential ArbCom case.[3] At its heart is an FAC on a Brazilian topic in which I was rather critical of the quality of the writing, therefore the Brazilian editors decided that arguing with me about correct English on other articles was a good way to get their own back. And it's continuing even today, but no administrator gives a monkeys.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What we're seeing here, in the last few comments, is the issue in a microcosm. If some editors believe strongly there isn't a problem and other editors see a what they consider valid ongoing serious problem, then as a community we are strongly divided. And we need to decide how to fix that. It's that simple. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that a huge number of editors don't care enough about quality, and a huge number of editors are uncivil, and that a lot of our "correct ways of resolution" don't work terribly well. Or sometimes, it seems, at all. However: being uncivil doesn't work either, it just ramps up the problem into a snarkfest free-for-all

and everybody walks away wounded or growling unstoppably. I know, trust me, I know how tempting it is just to lash out in frustration at something. But that's the time when we have to choose to walk away, cool down, if we really need an outlet for all the pent-up aggression, find somewhere off-wiki to let it out. Because doing it here not only doesn't work, it's also against policy, and someone is definitely going to turn your cannon-balls around and fire them straight back at you. That is not the way to win a battle. When you just can't take it any more, walk away. Let someone else take over. You're not the only person who cares. And eventually, if you consistently do the right thing, the right thing will happen. Sometimes it takes forever - well, that's just the way it is. After all, it's our fellow-humans we're dealing with here, with all our faults and glitches and odd kicks-in-our-gallop. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Me rambling again: The Meermin slave mutiny resulted from me getting irritated. Irritation can inspire me - I'm odd like that. To be overwhelmingly honest, and admitting fault left right and centre, what I did there was really just a very extended pointy edit. I knew the article had enough substance to be an easy GA, so instead of keeping pointing that out, all I did was think to myself: "Fuck it! Okay, I'll bloody do it, then!" It took me two days to make my point (real life kept getting in the way!), and another few for it to pass. It was frustration which drove me, pure and simple. But it was an acceptable way to have a disagreement and make a point. That's the difference - redirect the aggression. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess many of us have done something like that. User:J3Mrs and I recently took MediaCityUK to GA as the only way to stop the incessant bitching over its structure and content, but it's a tedious process when you're fought every step on the road. Multiply that by all the other GAs and FAs you've written, which you have to defend against entropy each and every day, and it becomes rather a draining environment. The more you write, the more stressful the environment becomes. Malleus Fatuorum 10:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure many people have done that! (It would be nice to see more people - especially literate, intelligent newbies - doing some stuff like that. With the right mentoring, they could.) The Meermin thing began here! Yes, it's incredibly tedious, but heck! We're volunteers! We actually chose to do this stuff .... hmmmm. Maybe we're all masochists. I haven't felt inspired enough to do much real creative content work (far too much Real Life stress, etc.), I do go into new(ish) pages and tweak them about, but on the whole I don't watch over things much; if something drastic starts happening where my pawprints have been, someone will usually bring my attention to it anyway. Some of us could do with some stress relief ... a personal masseur/euse with some soothing aromatherapy oils, perhaps. One can only dream ... :P Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Drive by templating

There have been a couple of threads above where people have compared the incivility of some people's language with that of others behaviour, and specifically the drive by taggers who in some cases template articles and even template bomb them with multiple tags but do not improve articles. Personally I see them as two different problems, and though I consider the drift from improving articles to tagging them for others to improve as much the bigger of the two problems, I don't see why we can't work on both. I reckon to remove more tags than I apply, and where I do tag it is usually an admission of uncertainty if not failure. I'm not sure how we encourage taggers to actually fix articles, but several of the maintenance templates such as {{orphan}}, {{deadend}} and {{uncategorised}} could simply be replaced by hidden categories. This would restrict templates in articles to things that we want to warn the readers about. Automatically generated hidden categories would also be more useful to us Wikignomes as they would disappear when resolved, and could be made more specific - 0, 1 or 2 links to other articles for example. Do people agree that the wiki would be a more civil place if we did this? Ϣere SpielChequers 06:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be a small step in the right direction. Malleus Fatuorum 13:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the general idea -- it's aggravating to go to an article page and see a three year old tag at top -- but I think we should have a small, unobtrusive hint to the reader there's something they can do. As a conceptual example -- I'm not template or graphic savvy:

Help wanted

Aquamarine is a novel by Alice Hoffman, published in April 2001. A film adaptation was released in 2006, although the plot of the film bears little resemblance to that of the book.

Compare that with existing Aquamarine (novel).

What I'm thinking would be a unique icon (not the trout), with a blue linked "Help wanted" or equivalent, that could be expanded to show the blah blah templates, in less than full page width box. Of course some templates, for example "Disputed" need to be explicit. Gerardw (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue has several sides. I agree that old tags are generally unnecessary, and I totally agree that drive-by tagging is often unhelpful and antagonistic. Particularly in articles that are essentially good, and which are maintained at least to some extent by good editors, drive-by tagging is often accompanied with aggressive and extremely unproductive attitudes that can easily drive off good editors. However, there is a case where tags are a helpful weapon: in a new article that is essentially a puff piece promoting some product, tags are useful to highlight problems that really do need to be overcome. There are not enough good editors to engage patiently in many such cases (particularly because the topic is often of very limited interest). I'm not forming an opinion at the moment, merely stating that ugly tags can have value in some situations. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Selectively targeting problem sentences by strategically placing tags such as {{says who}}, {{synth}} etc. can sometimes avert edit-wars by informing editors about the weak spots of their edits and point to the conjunctions where synth is present. They also alert the reader that there is a problem with the tagged paragraph and shows them where exactly it is located. Granted it looks ugly but it is not uglier than some particularly obnoxious synthesis and original research which if left unfragmented by the placement of localised tags would affect the credibility of the encyclopedia. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's not what we're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Your example is quite different. I just wanted to point to an exceptional case. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely support converting {{orphan}}, {{deadend}} and {{uncategorised}} into hidden templates that just add a hidden category. Perhaps someone could start an RfC on this. Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for the idea of reducing the size / obtrusiveness of tags. Sometimes all an editor can do, realistically is tag (when they don't know much about the subject but can see there's a problem), but massive pile-on tagging of an article that is clearly pretty good is just "not cricket". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reducing the size and changing the tone would help and I'm sure each template can be argued over and any bloat challenged. But IMHO the most effective way to reduce the size of those templates that we don't need is to make them a hidden category. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Past attempts to do this have foundered either by going too broad or because some people think the templates work. By going too broad I mean stretching this to the templates that warn the reader that the article is in some way less trustworthy than the norm or is vulnerable to deletion. Folding them all into a "help wanted " bar would reopen that debate, as would broadening this to all templates. The argument that they successfully persuade readers to edit can best be countered by getting some stats done to see if there is a measurable effect from these templates of encouraging newbies to edit articles. I'd expect the answer to be no, at least as far as Orphan was concerned. Happy to have someone file an RFC now, or if people are patient we could try and get that research first. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If we want any chance of success, such a proposal should be narrowly defined. If it is successful, the scope could be broadened to a larger proposal. Kaldari (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As something of a test case, I've proposed changing the orphan template to be a hidden category rather than a header notice. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

olive branch

I asked at live chat, but I think they referred me to here.

In the following text from the Civility section, a diff is a specific Wikipedia thing, but an olive branch isn't. That is just a peaceful overture, of some sort. Maybe an example could be given of an olive branch that could be offered on Wikipedia.

If you click on the olive branch link, it just takes you to a general definition - interesting, but with no mention of Wikipedia.

But if you click on the diff link, you see a nice example of a diff, although I haven't learned how to do one, yet, much less send one to anyone.

"You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead."

My edit would be to:

      put in an example of an olive branch,
        in a link, so that the two links will be equivalent in informational content,

      or, alternatively, take out the olive branch wording,
        if it's not a technical term, like diff.

Thanks very much for listening,

                  Entwhiz

Entwhiz (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

examples changed, should go back

Please see [5]]. The two examples previously present are qualitatively different and should both remain; removal of the less obnoxious comment implies a change in what is acceptable that has not undergone community discussion. 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

I agree that they're qualitatively different, but disagree that the removal "implies a change in what is acceptable". The actual rule, as currently written, would allow the removed example but disallow the remaining one. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing it myself. Let's agree to disagree and see if any editors have opinions. Gerardw (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the example should go back in, personally. There's an awful lot of "belittling, demeaning" etc. stuff that gets written into edit summaries; for an editor to see that his work has just been described as "rambling crap" (or similar) might very well put them off wanting to contribute at all. That's not the way to make an editor want to improve his writing. "unencyclopaedic content" instead of "rambling crap" would at least give the original editor a better idea of precisely what the problem was, and point towards what improvement was required.

Describing someone else's input as crap, bullshit, fanwank, drivel, etc. is not going to help them to improve it - all it's going to do is upset them and make them think "Why bother?" What we need to be doing, to encourage better editing by more editors, is be less derogatory of their input. Critical is fine, obviously; suggestions for improvements fine, obviously - but snarkily derogatory will not ultimately help us train, retain, or attract editors. For the real long-term benefit of the project as a whole, what we need to be doing is encouraging our less-able editors to learn, and to be happy to learn - not driving them away. We have to think long-term; we cannot afford not to think long-term. This is the ultimate purpose of the civility policy - making this a project where people want to stay, to improve, to collaborate. Leaving a snarky, derogatory edit summary might relieve one's immediate irritation - but it doesn't help the project. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As I think this is so important for the long-term wellbeing of the project, I have boldly reinstated it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly, is "unencyclopedic content" any better than "rambling crap"? If you tell someone what they wrote is rambling, that's a lot clearer - particularly to a newbie - than saying it's "unencyclopedic". Furthermore, I see no significant difference between removing stuff with the edit summary "rm fanwank" and tagging it with {{fancruft}}, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

People's feelings are affected differently by words like "crap" and "wank" than by words like "content". Human nature.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Then change the example to "snip crap" and leave it at that. The current example is inappropriate for demonstrative purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it demonstrates that a comment that contains a fair criticism ("rambling") alongside an empty insult ("crap") is still inappropriate. --Kotniski (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not when expressed as a simple example without explanation, it doesn't - you'd have to explicitly explain that distinction. If you'd like to add some verbiage about fair criticism vs insult and how to distinguish, then do so, but as it stands the page is conflating the two. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate the challenge here - but we definitely need, in that little section, an example of both a hypothetical user-talk page comment and an edit summary. Perhaps think of a better example of the kind of edit summary which is unhelpful? "Zapped unsourced drivel", or whatever? The "unsourced" demonstrated the problem, but "material" instead of "drivel" is clearly better. Or something. I'll try one. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gone with "removed useless drivel" as an example - hope it works. (And added, per Nikkimaria's very good point, "In edit summaries, it is important to make the distinction between objective, constructive criticism, and insult.") Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling useless drivel useless drivel is not incivility. "In edit summaries, it is important to make the distinction between objective, constructive criticism, and insult" does not mean what I suspect you think it means. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It may, however, needlessly offend an editor. A less charged / more detached edit summary would be more conductive to collaboration, unless the content was added in bad faith. (Though in this case, using 'rambling crap' as an example would work just as well.) wctaiwan (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

For sure. But our civility policy isn't a "best practice" manual. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, Mkativerata; but making a derogatory remark about someone's good-faith effort will only offend them, and not point them towards improvement. "Unsourced material" is just fine, "undue weight" is fine also, perhaps "unnecessarily verbose" with a link to this essay - in short, anything objective, rather than objectionable, is always going to be better. Again, the long-term view is that we want to help potentially-good editors to improve, rather than pissing them off (excuse the bluntness!) and subsequently driving them off. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking the long view, it ultimately pays us to remember that the sixteen-year-old we upset and drive away today could well have turned out to be a truly outstanding content editor in a few years' time - if only we hadn't made them feel so unwelcome and unappreciated here. We have to be careful to educate the next generation, and not to alienate them, wherever possible. This doesn't of course, apply to blatant vandalism and POV-pushing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This policy, often enforced by block, is not the place to achieve that wider objective. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's (relatively) OK for us to have to occasional one-off snark (though ideally not too often, and not too many of us at one newbie!). Sanctions should only really apply to things that are way beyond the pale, or to "persistent borderline(and beyond) offenders". We do, all of us, need to remember that as editors we have a dual responsibility to this project. The short-term and endless cleaning-up, and the longer term attraction, retention and training of the next generation. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I really can't think of anything more to the point to add here on this particular subject (edit summaries). Those who can see it, will see it, and no amount of repetition is going to help those who don't see it to see it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Mkativerata isn't saying that aiming for a higher standard of civility isn't desirable, but that the civility policy isn't the place to advocate a such a goal, especially since it's enforceable by blocks. To a certain extent I have to agree. This is what we expect of every editor, not the standard we aspire to. wctaiwan (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey wctaiwan! Yes, I think I do see that now. Of course the whole area is shades of grey. Something can be instantly blockable, never blockable, or sanctionable only when constantly repeated.

Last words: We have to be able not only to teach the next generation how to "do" - we have to be able to teach the next generation how to teach the one after that. Otherwise, this project is unsustainable. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion here is converging to the fundamental conundrum; is a policy page an exemplar of desired behavior, or the minimum standard below which blocks will be issued? My observation is that a single "remove rambling crap" is extremely unlikely to result in a block; this is precisely the place ~~to advocate such a goal.~~ provide a "best practice" manual. Gerardw (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Gerardw (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The existing policy explicitly states editors are not blocked for minor incivility. Gerardw (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw, what "goal" are you advocating? It's not clear to me whether that comment refers to your question, or the statement that immediately precedes the goal clause, or something else entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hehe! I get days like that - much of the time! I find when I encounter a noob-edit (or page) where someone could clearly use a bit of assistance, just whizzing over to their talk page and pasting this in:

...is almost effortless, and usually very well received, and means I can be entirely objective in ES's Feel free to steal it! (I keep it on a TextEdit doc on my desktop for ease of access.) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay

I would like to add my thoughts at User:Buster7/Incivility to this discussion. How we treat each other and how we allow others to be treated in our presence is vital to consider. Buster Seven Talk 15:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

removed addition

Removed [6] due 1. WP:CREEP, and 2. lack of consensus / discussion. Nobody Ent 10:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's something which was mentioned at ArbCom - that user talk pages would be sensibly expected to have a different standard from article talk pages. Two Arbs voiced approval of the concept, and what discussion there was on it was approving (with the obvious exclusion of personal attacks). Could we put that one back in, as it seems to have support over at ArbCom pages? I think it's an inherently sensible distinction to make; a user's own talk page is a bit like his kitchen – nobody has to go and read it, and if it's not to some people's tastes they can just avoid it, but the user themselves, and those who are happy on the page, can continue to use relaxed-style (pub style?) language if they're happy with it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom workshop is not a forum for discussing changes to the civility policy. ArbCom does not create policy. Nobody Ent 13:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know that :o) Do you have any major objections to that going in, though? I think it's sensible for people to know that user talk pages are likely (and kinda expected) to be a bit more colloquial / informal etc. than article talk pages. I don;t think it's necessary to get consensus before each and every change; just if something's likely to be contentious, etc. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a necessary addition; less is more. Nobody Ent 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In some cases less is more, but I think there's a need for editors (particularly newbies) not to be led to expect the same type of interaction on user talk pages as is (supposed to be) on article talk pages, or they may get upset when they step into a more informal area; this leads to unnecessary dramahz just because they didn't understand that user talk pages are a bit different, and expected and permitted to be different. A couple of lines just stating that this is the case could save a lot of misunderstanding and hassle. We seem to have got into a you vs. me situation here (unusual): can other weigh in, please? This is what I added (and think should be here):

Standards of civility are expected to be higher on article talk pages, which are more open to public view, than on users' own talk pages, where the discussion is generally less formal; however gross insults and personal attacks are not permitted anywhere.

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on the change. It seems to reflect common understanding, but I'm not sure it's important enough a distinction to add another paragraph to the policy. Kaldari (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I still thing the whole darned policy needs a focussed effort to clean it up (by a small team of really good writers, from all areas of the spectrum) and get the messages across in an unambiguous way! There is a big difference in the ambience of different types of pages, and it's a long-standing tradition that user talk pages have more leeway. Trouble is, newbies don't know what the long-standing traditions are, by definition. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[Pesky indulges in crone-like cackling] Tell you what, why don't we have an RfC on it ;P Maybe we'll get 444 editors commenting and be unable to reach a consensus with loads of people, instead of just one or two! One of two things will happen: we'll either get an answer, one way or the other, or it will illustrate beautifully to ArbCom the total impossibility of attempting to change or clarify the civility policy one weary sentence at a time :D Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I imagine it would be a repeat of the WP:V fiasco—endless debates with virtually no useful effect on the project. From my own attempts, I've found it virtually impossible to generate consensus to make any substantive changes to the core policies, but who knows? Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually succeeded in making changes to two nutshells – wow! Now that was an achievement! And when we've failed to reach consensus after a month or so's RfC on this one sentence, then maybe in six weeks or so we could do it all over again, with another sentence! That would be such fun, don't you think? ;P As far as getting anything significant done in making our core policies absolutely clear, and dead easy to read and understand, goes, we first need to get away from the lock-in problem. As far as "the community, the whole community, and nothing but the whole community can write the policies" ethos is concerned, up to a point it was all well and good. But, to quote directly from the lock-in page, "The process of escalating commitment is also known as "entrapment", the "sunk-cost effect" , the "knee-deep in the big muddy" effect, and the “too-much-invested-to-quit” effect." There comes a point at which "the community" can't effectively do this any more. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment we have one for, one against, and one neutral ... shall we give it a week to see if anyone else feels either brave enough to join in, under the current circumstances, or isn't already so disheartened by the impossibility of making any clarifications that they might consider sticking their heads above the parapet and getting flamed? I don't feel that we yet have a statistically significant sample of the community to draw any conclusions from ;P Then we can draw straws for who feels brave / insane enough to open an RfC ... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is fine as it, trying to address all situations is policy fallacy. Nobody Ent 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(>**)> Hugz! hehehe! OK, so you know where I'm coming from, I know where you're coming from, Kaldari knows where we're both coming from, and we both know wherre Kaldari's coming from :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Irony of Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer was lethally and beautifully uncivil. Is he quoted for irony's sake? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what is meant by the quote on the project page, I mean wax?, but it sounds impressive. If Schopenhauer was uncivil in person, it would not be the only case in philosophy of someone's personality being the grit in the oyster which resulted in the creation of words which were of higher moral tenor than the lived life. Thanks for bringing that up, not everyone looks at the visual or graphical elements of the project page. NewbyG ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to 1a per the perennial discussion of language gags

Per the perennial failure of language gags, I have clarified 1a from:

1. Direct rudeness
(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;

to:

1. Direct rudeness
(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity directed at another or indecent suggestions;

based on the most recent failed attempt to form a language gag, to indicate that the problem with profanity is its direction at others. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Insults and gross profanity don't have to be directed at anyone in particular to be uncivil and disruptive. A recent example: someone telling a crude joke about women being raped at Talk:Pregnancy. I can think of much worse hypothetical examples, but I'm sure you get the idea. Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure you read the closing statement or contents of the discussion you are citing. It was about banning 'foul language', not about whether or not incivility must be directed at specific people. Plus your edit to 1a basically makes it the same as 1b. Kaldari (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this is the lack of definition of "gross profanity"; one person's "gross profanity" is another's everyday drop-in word. Though how one can deal with lack of adequate definitions is a complex project (albeit a much-needed one). Fifelfoo has a point in that or'n'ry everyday swearing in the course of language is not the same as swearing at someone; and there was definitely an agreement that we shouldn't have a "language gag". Let's think about t his, and other areas where there's a complete lack of adequate definition, and see what we can come up with. We haven't even defined "rudeness" here - that's another one to go! Name-calling could be made to cover a multitude of sins; maybe we just need a few examples there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a language gag. I can say fuck and shit all day long and no one cares. If, however, I say something like "All these fucking dumbass idiots need to shut the fuck up and learn to write a coherent English sentence or get the hell off of Wikipedia", that's a different story. Context, tone, and intent are what really matter, not the use of dirty words. If you read the policy carefully, it says "The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment." That doesn't necessarily mean that swearing is a violation of the policy. Kaldari (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The dirty words in and of themselves are just letters thrown together. Only a rare few have a real bite when isolated from the millions of other choices. Its the intent that serves them up as a "blue plate special" of incivility...Buster Seven Talk 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I support Fifelfoo's proposal and would go further to say that we also need to emend or remove the 'indecent suggestions' clause. While common sense says that obscenity is likely to accompany some types of incivility, it's not actually profanity or indecency themselves that constitute a problem. Suggesting otherwise in a guideline is a great disservice to the community because it just provides ammunition for equally belligerent and arguably far more disruptive behavior. The discernible intent of an individual is what needs to be addressed here. — C M B J 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior is what needs to be addressed here. The discernible intent of an individual is not exactly the issue; we needs to address here, and discern, whether disruption has been occasioned, or an edit war, in which case action by sysops is probably warranted; or/as well as if incivility by or to an editor is occurring, which probably means if unresolved off to Wikipedia:Etiquette or Dispute resolution, also same if it is a content dispute. NewbyG ( talk) 07:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between User X who espouses a colorful vernacular, a bawdy sense of humor, or an offensive minority viewpoint, and User Y who engages in flagrant personal attacks that are accompanied by the use of expletives, or User Z who employs controversiality as a tactic to inflict maximum collateral damage while on the fast-track to getting blocked. It is invariably unacceptable for User Y and User Z to disrupt the work of even a single contributor, whereas no amount of disconcertion or popular outcry should necessarily qualify User X for disciplinary action. That's the empirical characteristic I had in mind when referring to intent, and it's important to make such a distinction, because we must draw a line in the sand and reaffirm that we're not going to selectively censor people at a whim. — C M B J 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above clarification, thank you User:CMBJ, is an excellent investigation and summary of some important aspects of this very matter, concerning incivility, disruption, and the need to prevent as far as possible and on each occasion possible the potential disruption of the work of even a single contributor. NewbyG ( talk) 19:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexual innuendo

I replaced "sexual innuendo" by something descriptive of contemporary practice

sexual harassment, for example, sexual innuendo that is directed toward a particular user, particularly after a request has been made that such comments are unwelcome. The distinction between sexual harassment and brief sexual banter among adults (e.g., which may have been humorously interjected to reduce tension) should be clear to an impartial reasonable observer. Of course, frequent sexual innuendo, by a user or on a talk page, is inappropriate.

and was reverted. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with KW here. "Sexual innuendo" does not necessarily construe any sort of incivility, indeed an entire series of films were based on innuendo. KW's suggestion that the problem comes when sexual innuendo is directed at a particular user makes sense to me. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored the edit. Nobody Ent 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your re-consideration.... The prolixity remains a problem, however.

In the civility enforcement case at ArbCom, one reads more discussions of persons "having balls", i.e. courage---with no objections. I suppose further mention of sexism as a bad thing might be made.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

"Sexual harassment" has replaced "sexual innuendo". This seems to be a consensus decision. Is it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Too early to tell; certainty it's to open to continued discussion. Nobody Ent 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable, to me. Pesky (talk)

"Disrespectful"

The other change that was reverted was my change of "disrespectful" to "disrespectful to an editor". Is ArbCom member Risker in violation of civility because she voiced disrespect for RfA? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, other problematic areas of disrespect which may border on incivility could include disrespect to a group of editors, to a social group, to a set of religious beliefs, to a good faith wikiproject, to a BLP... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Disrespectful comments need not be directed at a specific editor to be incivil. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See this section just above. It seems to *me* that the topics are similar. Currently, consensus seems IMHO to coalesce around a number of positions.

1> Wikipedia does not have a language gag.

2> Instances of sexual-talk, or gross profanity directed where and when it is not appropriate towards a particular user, and which a reasonable number of responsible and reasonable editors would also find inappropriate can result in WQA reports, or other action to counter the disruption, or dispute process.

3> Instances of insult or profanity, directed not towards a particular user, but at a social/racial/political group, particularly where there is a pattern of behaviour, also tend to result in disruption, or else an inhibition of our abilities to work together on the project/encyclopedia, and are therefore counselled against, in the WP:Civility policy.

4> As with all policies, there are some tensions between the problems of achieving ALL of our wants and aims, and the ability to expend an appropriate amount of our collective energies to achieve them.

*I* would ask, by way of example, for any insightful comments on the following hypotheticals:

1. a user posts to a talk page I hate admins

2. a user posts to a talk page, and repeatedly elsewhere all admins are [m.dicks|]

3. a user posts all women are stupid

4. a user posts most men are idiots

5. a user posts F*-- the chinese

6. a user posts if you are poor, it’s your fault, you should just die

Difficult to know, until a level of consensus is discerned, what action could/should be taken; obviously context matters. For *my* own part, *I* consider that general cases of gratuitous invective, aimed at a group can be considered as incivility for the purposes of the Civility policy, however *I* would think the policy page is OK about these matters, and wouldn’t be editing in any changes, though we may find that other editors want to update the policy page, and that is also fine. NewbyG ( talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion-points

Discussion of hypotheticals

That most men (embracing women) behave stupidly is undoubtedly true, so why does it advance discussion to write a triviality. "Idiots" is poor word choice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Any phrase such as "Some X's are Ys", provided you have a big enough sample of X's, and the two things are not mutually exclusive, basically has to be factually and absolutely accurate. Some cats are white. Avoiding "all" or "most" is helpful. Expressing feelings? Depends. I hate the idea of becoming an admin. I hate admins? I wouldn't say that; there are some I like. Even if I'd never encountered one I liked, I'd (personally) be unlikely to say it unless I had encountered all of them sufficiently to pass judgment on how I felt about each and every one of them. Racism, sexism, all the other -isms which are distasteful, no, not on. "The Brits are too coarse" is not on, but "The Brits are too coarse for our nation's delicate sensibilities" is OK with me, as it's a comparison with a given, not just a generalisation. And anyone saying F*-- the Chinese just makes me giggle, as I'm an HFA. Consider it literally and you'll see what I mean. [What?! All of them?!] Here's an HFA one for Kiefer.W; most men (embracing women) are only stupid if the woman / women in question didn't want to be so embraced. ;P Pesky (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"The backward Brits are too coarse for a civilized nation's sensibilities," perhaps? Nobody Ent 18:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh! Yes, that one would be going too far. Could be countered quite civilly, though, with "The emotionally-mature Brits have sufficient insight not to cherry-pick individual words, place the worst possible construction upon them, and then take offence." Pesky (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I am going to throw open the wild conjecture that the page wp:civility is *not* primarily about being “nice”at all. The first priority is to distinguish between disruptive editing, tendentious editing and personal attacks. If it is disruptive then administrative action is required; personal attacks or incivility of that order or ilk and disrespectfulness are to be dealt with through Wikipedia:etiquette and if necessary dispute resolution ^{to be continued} NewbyG ( talk) 13:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am going to add into the mix that if good faith were assumed more often, there would be less incivility. "Disrespectfulness" triggers my HFA-literal thing; I can hold someone in the deepest disrespect, but provided that I don't attack them, belittle them, demean them, or act uncivilly towards them, then that's just fine. I don't have to respect them; respect is how you feel about someone, not how you deal with them. And I just love the phrase "With all due respect," because basically it applies just as literally if they're not due any respect whatsoever! NewbyG, you have some good points in there, just above. Pesky (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Feigning incomprehension

Under Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility

(f) feigning incomprehension, forcing other editors to explain obviously addressed issues to the point of mental exhaustion.

has been added. This seems out of place among the others as it seems difficult to distinguish between actual ignorance and feigned ignorance. Hyacinth (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC) It also seems out of place because the complement, giving a poor explanation, could be added, creating a loop. Hyacinth (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted, for a couple reasons. 1) The implication that an editor can "force" another editor to explain anything is false -- in fact, the best response to feigned incomprehension is to ignore it. 2) This behavior is already addressed at WP:IDHT Nobody Ent 02:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the editor who started this thread (and I am commenting on the contributions, especially edit summaries – or lack thereof – and talk page comments – or lack thereof), I am assuming that the purpose is to "hide" it from the incivility spot, thus making it more difficult to point out their incivility. Hyacinth, you are also dangerously bordering on WP:HOUND. I am reinserting this per last discussion, which I cited in the original edit summary. To Nobody Ent: the fact that it is discussed under disruptive editing does not mean it should not be mentioned under incivility, as the two are not mutually exclusive. Also, WP:IDHT does not cover everything "feigning incomprehension" covers. It could be as simple as asking "What do you mean?" after having every possible angle addressed in the clearest manner possible, in an attempt to discourage the other editor from finishing the discussion that is needed to form consensus – if you simply ignore that, you lose. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How does one tell, and presumably later prove, if an editor is or isn't feigning? Hyacinth (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Additionally, the previous 10 behaviors reference the editor being incivil -- this proposed addition is referential to another editor, the one "being forced to mental exhaustion." So A does (f) to B. 1. we have to somehow determine whether A is game playing or just stupid/clueless. 2. accept the premise that B was "forced" to do something, and 3. determine whether B is mentally exhausted or not. Accordingly I'm taking it out and I'd ask Heafourmewesique to initiate an WP:RFC if they wish to generate more community discussion. The 2009 discussion is not sufficient per consensus can change. Nobody Ent 13:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove in the first place, therefore I am reinstating (the initial removal was WP:BOLD, hence the WP:BRD cycle requires the line to stay). Additionally, when you explain several times, in the clearest manner possible, and get the same questions in return, it is clearly feigned, and if it is not – well, it becomes an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The removal was two years ago - a new status quo has been established. And WP:BRD doesn't require anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is that status quo you speak of? The removal did not follow a consensus, therefore it still needs to. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, how does one tell, and presumably later prove, if one is explaining in the clearest manner possible? Hyacinth (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, how does one prove that one has been 'mentally exhausted' by another user? Hyacinth (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, how can we be sure, absolutely, that the individual involved is, well, "faking it"? Particularly regarding matters of belief, both religious and in some cases political, there are individuals, and presumably editors, who might otherwise be apparently competent but are perhaps fanatical enough that they might honestly be incapable of actually believing anyone could honestly disagree with them. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not at all what I was referring to. The example was: you reason yourself over and over again on the talk page, but keep getting reverted without edit summaries, and only after a couple of nudges the other editor bothers replying on the talk page with "What do you mean?". You explain just to be civil, the explanation is ignored with another silent revert, and after another nudge on the editor's talk page you get another "What do you mean?" type of question... and over and over and over again. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The behavior you describe is improper, and it's already covered under "be responsive to good-faith questions. ". If you're stuck in a one on one situation without an uncooperative editor who refuses to communicate it's best to seek assistance via the WP:DR process. Nobody Ent 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite... I am not necessarily talking about non-responsiveness, but rather selective responsiveness that deliberately inhibits the discussion. It's behavior that appears civil according to all the basic standards, but is in fact destructive and meant to cause discomfort to the other editor. It may also include remarks such as "Why are you being inappropriate?" or "I am the one who compromises and cites policies" when the edits in question do not call for it in the first place. In other words, trolling. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't even need a disagreement over a controversial issue. For example, one may argue that one was concise and thus understandable, while someone else may argue you didn't give broad enough coverage. Conversely, one may argue that one gave broad coverage while someone else argues that you where too verbose and hard to understand.

More importantly, no editor can 'force' another editor to "mentally exhaust" oneself. One always has a choice whether to engage or not, and whether to continue or not. It seems like the first response to someone who filed a complaint regarding this issue would be "Why did you keep talking?" not "How horrible for you!" Hyacinth (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So... are you saying that the adequate response to such behavior is to simply revert and ignore (assuming that the editor engaged in said behavior keeps reverting)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am saying this is a poorly written attempt at policy. It is difficult to understand, would be difficult if not impossible to implement, and is out of place. Worst, the complement could be added (both incomprehension and explaining poorly; as if we had policies against posting slurs to another user's talk page and having a slur posted to one's talk page), creating a loop of incivility where both the victim and perpetrator get blamed and punished for the actions of one person, none of which may actually be incivility. Hyacinth (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not what I was asking. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Imagine if we where supposed to impose sanctions on you for every time you asked a question or didn't answer one... Hyacinth (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No weaseling around please, answer the initial question. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it would be wiser to add "forcing users to answer questions" to the list than "refusing to answer a question". Hyacinth (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Answering good faith questions (like the one you still haven't answered) is an integral part of having a discussion. However, playing dumb by asking what 2+2 is and expecting an answer (like you keep doing to me)... well, that's plain childish and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing edits to the civility page, not continuing what appears to be] long standing conflict between editors. Nobody Ent 23:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I added a guideline which was removed without consensus, and Hyacinth came into this article out of nowhere just to challenge that addition. So... to reiterate my intentions: I came to readd a guideline to the Civility policy. What is exactly out of place here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to Hyacinth John Carter, Nikkimaria, and myself have expressed concern with the edit. The local consensus here and now is quite clear -- if you'd like further community input I'd encourage you to open an WP:RFC. Nobody Ent 19:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look

How do we feel about putting the below into the policy, in some prominent position, to try to over come the current unjustness of how the policy is sometimes currently used:

Enforcement

In general terms, blocking for incivility should only be considered as a last resort, after all other attempts have failed. Dispute resolution, wikiquette assistance, and community comments on user conduct should all have failed before a block would be considered. Blocks are for prevention, not for punishment. Only in the case where an editor's incivility rises to the level of causing disruption and all else has failed should a block be considered; and then not without consensus from the community. The more established an editor is, the more important this becomes. There will, of course, be some instances where a user's transient incivility may have been caused by intoxication, in which case a twelve-hour block would be sufficient to prevent the immediate problem. Editors are advised not to edit while intoxicated! On occasion, an out-of-character incivility spree may indicate a Real Life problem. If possible, suggest to the editor that they take a short (unenforced) break until they are calm again.

Nobody is exempt from the requirements in this policy. Administrators, in particular, are expected to maintain a very high standard at all times. An administrator should never reprimand, sanction, or block another editor for any behaviour which they themselves have also exhibited, or for any behaviour which they would have tolerated in a different user.

Unfairly-applied and ill-judged "civility blocks", without consensus, can result in sanctions for the blocking admin. The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon.

-Please take a look over at Ched's civility sandbox, where a few of us are talking over possible improvements / clarifications to the Civility policy. It seems to be the case that one of the biggest problems with the policy at the moment is unequal enforcement. Pesky (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I very much admire your democratic and peace-seeking attitude, user:Pesky, and so as per our best principles, I will indicate that your suggestions here may in some cases be a little too idealistic. In some cases, we simply must unfortunately accept less than ideal situations because either we know not how to rectify the matter, or else the effort to obtain a minimal improvement will simply be too costly. EG- in the fourth sentence of the draft – “and then not without consensus from the community” – this is not always going to be possible, in a timely manner. When there is an “emergency situation” (however that is determined), admins are authorised to take unilateral action.

Such unilateral admin action is given positive sanction in advance since the community adheres to a consensus that sysops/admins are required in en.wiki and their duties are specified in community-agreed documentation derived from formed consensus. AND, such unilateral actions, if challenged in a particular case, are subject to scrutiny by the community, and a forming consensus at that later time.

Nobody is exempt from the requirements in this policy. This is the most cogent sentence in the draft IMHO. Thus, I think that the final sentences referring to the responsibilities of admins/sysops are perhaps a trifle over-stated, although not wrong in principle. Thank you NewbyG ( talk) 09:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How about replacing "in general terms* with "In anything other than an emergency situation" ? Pesky (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good improvement. (Of course, we then will somewhere have to "define" what is an emergency situation, in terms of cyberspace that is. ) NewbyG ( talk) 09:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, that would cover things like transient intoxication, or a possibly-compromised account, where behaviour is immediate and ongoing (or the situation is rapidly escalating). In other words, something really bad which has to be stopped immediately. Pesky (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on content not on contributors

This is really one of the most important concepts about civility to get across. Everyone says it, but very often it gets ignored. This phrase used to appear on this page, for quite a while, in the bit about edit summaries is where it goes. It is absolutely vital to de-personalize our discussions as much as possible. It is unfortunate, but there are cases where praising an editor has led to conflict. We have to avoid conflict, and edit warring, which means we have to reduce every opportunity for conflict to occur. I will be re-adding this long-standing concept as soon as I find the correct spot, and assuming no counter arguments are lodged.

An alternative wording would be "comment on edits, not on editors". That may even be better, since the original phrase has been repeated so many times that editors may be just not seeing it or reading it any more. So let's try that then. NewbyG ( talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There, it has been added. I used italics to set it off in the text a bit. If the italics look wrong, or any other improvement can be made, please update as necessary. Then report back here, say for instance, the edit of such/such has been reverted, or whatever. :Please, do not come back and say Ï reverted your edit" - That sort of language is neither accurate nor helpful, especially when it becomes habitual and is exactly what we want to avoid. Really think about civility - there is more to it than just pouncing on dirty words. The word your has probably caused more edit wars on en.Wikipedia than any other word, even Evolution, or Darwin or Global warming. Your is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, for our purposes it ought to be avoided at almost any cost just as we avoid using you or your or I me mine in articles. Don't believe me? Just watch a few edit wars and see how those words contribute to the un-needed drama. NewbyG ( talk) 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello NewbyG, I've reverted your edit for two reasons: first, the section on edit-summaries doesn't seem the place for this type of notation; second, I strongly disagree with much of your rationale for the edit. De-personalization of conflict is helpful; de-personalization of everything is not, because it removes the potential for collaboration that is vital to Wikipedia. You should keep in mind that editors are humans, not robots; praise and conversation cannot be outlawed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is where the original phrase was in this policy page for years. Look in the article page history, for instance. There is much discussion in the archives. NewbyG, I've reverted your edit, No, NewbyG, Yes, I've reverted your edit, ~~NewbyG,~~ ''I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit. Whatever comment on editors, not editors. Goodnight, sleep tight. NewbyG ( talk) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about? It was your edit, made by you. Are you seriously suggesting that Nikkimaria should have said "A user account known as 'Nikkimaria' has reverted an edit made by a separate user account known as 'Newbyguesses'"? That increases collaboration how? The thrust of "comment on content..." is that saying "I reverted your edit because you are obviously too stupid to grasp the concept" is the wrong thing to do. Franamax (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not convinced Easy-peasy. NewbyG ( talk) 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not Law. We do not out-law anything. The talk page guidelines are for guidance.We are expected to use common sense. NewbyG ( talk) 20:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, which is why your above posts are really really confusing - particularly the one of 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Do *you* know how to read a Help:Diff? NewbyG ( talk) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Do you know how to indent? You appear to be replying to yourself, and as you're addressing someone else it seems unlikely that that was your intent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Indents are nothing much. Use common sense. No, ~~You~~ *I* am not replying to *yourself*, and as *you're* addressing ... that was not *your* intent$. NewbyG ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

NewbyG, you're getting disruptive again. Please stop it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Five colons??? Yes, I mean no, I would like to think about this for a few days. I have no overall comprehension of the topic, and will not need to reply to any further comments here. Have a nice day. NewbyG ( talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless/until LiquidThreads is implemented, indenting is how we can follow conversations - in this particular instance, it was unclear whether you were addressing Franamax or me. And you can stop parroting me now, because I'm aware that I'm using personal pronouns, and I have no intention of not doing so. Now, did you have a reply to the substance of my initial comment? You've argued placement based on status quo, but haven't addressed the second point at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Five? colons) Thank you I would like to think about this for a few days. Um, you did not address the bit about page history and archives. Look in Page History, you will find that the "comment on content" wording lived on the project page, at that spot, for a v. long time. i cannot address all your further points at this time. Liquid threads died didn't it? Or might it be revived? The extent of MY lack of knowledge astonishes ME. NewbyG ( talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Liquid threads, if interested. NewbyG ( talk) 11:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"wording lived on the project page, at that spot, for a v. long time" When, specifically? The section appears to have been added here without corresponding discussion that I'm able to find. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good sleuthing! That is 2009. That is a long time in wikipedia space. Now, I am not sure, but I think it came from another guideline page. The concept goes back to before talk pages were available, and all comments had to be made in the edit summaries. Before my time, just. The idea of a new para, or sentence linking WP:FOC to this policy page seems entirely helpful at this point in time, if it ought to be followed up upon. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 02:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems that it should be an entire paragraph at the beginning of the "Avoiding incivility" section. It should summarize WP:FOC and emphasize how avoiding personalizing discussions will avoid incivility. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some history

The box at top of this talk page has information about the early history of this policy page. Originally, it was a page called "Incivility" at the meta site. A poll Wikipedia:Civility/Poll was held in 2009, and contains interesting reading, including a section which suggests that "Civility harms communication". And a nearly final comment here : I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. <Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)> Over the years we have worked from the idea of defining a negative Incivility, to trying to define a positive "Civility", however much of the original material remains, since it is cogent to our current circumstances. HTH NewbyG ( talk) 04:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposing bold addition edit

Equity of Enforcement

Blocking for incivility should be considered only after the recommended conflict-resolution policies have been followed. In general, the concern of this policy is with patterns of incivility have not included otherwise blockable offenses (such as personal attacks).

At least one related forum (Dispute resolution, wikiquette assistance, or community comments on user conduct) should have reached consensus that a pattern of incivility constitutes WP:disruptive editing before a block should be considered.
Blocks are for prevention, not for punishment. An "emergency block" should only be applied in instances of current and ongoing or escalating situations, and should last for no more than 12 hours in the first instance.
The greater the contributions of an editor (in quantity and quality), the greater must be our concern with the first three pillars of Wikipedia besides the fourth (civility).
Editors who infrequently but repeatedly display incivility are often reacting to Wikipedia stressors, such as spiraling conflicts with unctuous provocateurs or less clue-full discussants, or real-life stressors. A few minutes investigating interactions, particularly on the user's talk page, often reveals that the editor has become focused on a conflict; in such cases, a gentle admonishment that everybody should relax and edit other areas for a few days often resolves conflicts. If no provocation is visible, then it may be useful to ask an well-respected editor who has good relations with the uncivil editor to investigate the problem by email, perhaps after leaving a good-humored but firm comment on the editor's talk page, such as "I couldn't help but notice that you seem irritated. Why don't you write me and tell me what the problem is. In the meantime, perhaps it may be good to take a break from editing and to go for a walk." Good-humored notes often work wonders; admonishments with even a hint of sanctimony or condescension often escalate conflicts and should be avoided.
Nobody is exempt from the requirements in this policy. Administrators, in particular, are expected to maintain a very high standard at all times. An administrator should never reprimand, sanction, or block another editor for any behaviour which they themselves have also exhibited, or for any behaviour which they would have tolerated in a different user.
Unfairly-applied and ill-judged "civility blocks", in non-emergency situations and without consensus, could result in action being taken against the blocking admin. The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon.

OK, having thought about some tweaks to the wording above, I'm proposing to add the following section into the policy. Please leave comments and suggestions below, and feel free to tweak the wording around. I think that something along these lines is important to overcome the major problem with the policy, which is that it is unequally and unjustly enforced at times. Pesky (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, no!. This is wrong from start to finish. Blocking is not a last resort after all other attempts have failed, it is a tool to prevent disruption. Admins don't need a prior consensus to deal with a problem like an out-of-control editor, we appoint them on expectation that they'll use their discretion to keep order. We do not weigh an editor's popularity and political clout before deciding whether they're allowed to be uncivil, civility policy applies equally to everyone. We definitely shouldn't encourage collateral attacks against admins who enforce civility policy by formalizing a charge of hypocrisy. And threatening admins with sanctions for good faith efforts to deal with problems is just obstructionism. For heaven's sake, civility isn't that complicated. Just behave and don't antagonize other users, if you do you're a disruptive user like many others and we have means for dealing with that. Unequal and unjust enforcement of civility is an empty claim. The only real objective is to keep Wikipedia civil, not to apply some kind of parity in the way we get to that point. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, sorry user:Pesky, but I am going to have to say that in the main I am in agreement with these comments of user:Wikidemon at this time. To be more clear, I actually agree with some of the sentiment behind this draft above BUT the wp:civility policy is probably not the place for this material.

There is only one sentence here where I may be of other mind than user:Wikidemon and it is this one -- Unequal and unjust enforcement of civility is an empty claim. -- No, not sure what action or discussion is appropriate, but I think I disagree with teh just-quoted bit other than I wish it were true. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, although I see where you are going. I would agree that there are steps that may be effective in quelling incivility from some editors in some disputes, and it is worth trying the "this is getting heated - how about everyone go and have a cup of tea" step. I have to say it rarely works though, only when two normally calm editors are getting heated. I also agree that if blocks are required to prevent civility issues escalating, they should be very short. However, I also recommend that you go and read through some old RFaR's, to get a flavour of real incivility problems. Try here , [7] , [8]. Incivility is more than saying the odd rude word, it can be a means of systematically bullying and belittling one's opponents, making false allegations against them, consistently downgrading them and their edits etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:civility, Irony-free zone ?

The irony of a proposed civility policy calling people "unctuous provocateurs" is...palpable. I think this goes in a completely wrong direction, sorry to say, Pesky. This policy would strengthen the ground of people who are persistently uncivil by giving them more walls to hide behind ("you're required to run an RfC, so all my friends can come attack it! If you haven't done that, you can't touch me!"), rather than the fewer walls that true equal enforcement would give. Think about it - if established users, especially admins, truly are running around being persistently uncivil, your proposed policy makes it more difficult, not less, for civility guidelines to be enforced upon them by requiring a number of bureaucratic, unpleasant steps before anyone can so much as tell them that a block may be an option. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the "unctuous provocateurs" bit wasn't mine! I take on board these points; OK - so someone else's turn to come up with some ideas to try and ensure that some editors aren't either (a) picked on more than others, or (b) blocked by an admin for something less uncivil than that admin does ... ;P All brainstorming welcome. Pesky (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
And I thought that "unctuous provocateurs" was one of my better Wikipedia contributions in days! ;) Perhaps that Wikibreak cannot be put off any longer...? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi KW, "unctuous provocateurs" is sophisticated and hilarious, thanks for that. Not suitable for the project page, WP:CIV obviously, but laugh, oh yeah a real good one, almost deserves a sub-header. NewbyG ( talk) 20:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check whose it was, but, come to think of it, there was something kinda familiar about it ... ;P

Seriously, though, guys, Teh Arbs said that Teh Community needs to come up with something better, more reasonable, less open to multi-level and differing interpretations, and to address all the problems that we highlighted with the current policy. So let's try and do something Meaningful And Constructive with it, yes? Pesky (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Everyone, if you look over here, there are some ideas being floated (admittedly, mainly by yours truly) whcih might provide some starting thoughts. Many of the things mentioned here are brought up over there, and I'm definitely not thinking of civility as bad language. For example see below ... Pesky (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

First do no harm

There is no excuse for being deliberately hurtful.

The editor(s) you're communicating with have feelings, which can be hurt even if you didn't intend to do so. And if you did intend to do so, then slap your own wrists! Intending to cause someone hurt or harm is about as uncivil as it gets.

On the whole, most people are self-aware enough to know perfectly well when they're doing something downright nasty, or with a downright nasty hidden agenda. Don't do it. Take a break; walk away; let someone else fix the problem (if there is one.)

In the simplest of terms, "civility" consists of just three very basic, easy, and easy-to-remember rules.

Be kind.
Be patient.
Be understanding.

If what you're about to say or do isn't kind, patient and understanding, then don't do it that way. Even if you find yourself having to call for action against another editor, do it as calmly and neutrally as the calmest, most level-headed person you can think of would find possible under the circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk • contribs)

I like this. I think it may be a little weak - I can think of a number of other things to elucidate here, if we're making a list, like "Do not edit if you don't think you can control your emotions on an issue" and "If someone tells you your words or manner are hurtful, listen", but your version is a solid baseline, assuming users can understand how to apply "kind, patient, and understanding" to their editing patterns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The unforgivables – intentional harm with malice aforethought!

Deliberately "setting someone up" or trying to get them into trouble
Provoking someone until even a saint would snap, and then reporting them for snapping (baiting, in other words)
Making false accusations about someone.

These actions, once you're found out (and eventually you will be) are viewed extremely dimly by the whole community. And quite rightly so, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk • contribs)

If I were running things, I'd strike out numbers one and two on your list ("getting someone in trouble" and "provoking") - not because they doesn't happen or because they should be allowed to happen, but because it's too easily gameable as you phrase it. Being baited is not a license to be uncivil, and your proposition sounds like it's making it one. All editors are responsible for their own behavior - if someone is being baited, they should report that - it's incivility! - but being baited doesn't give anyone a dispensation to attack back. Ditto for someone trying to get you in trouble - the way to deal with that is to refuse to play along, not to double down by doing whatever it is they're accusing you of doing. So I'd replace 1 and 2 with a combined exhortation that "No matter what others do, you are responsible for your own behavior. If you feel that someone is baiting or attempting to provoke you into misbahaving, you are not excused for your behavior if you give them what they want".

Along a similar line, I would like to see something about "upping the ante" on this list, though I'm not sure how to phrase it. The upshot would be that if you're asked to tone it down, and you respond by ramping it up (because you're offended, because you think the person is being immature or oversensitive, because you think you shouldn't have to self-censor, whatever), you've now moved to intentionally attempting to hurt and made your behavior one of the "unforgivables" (needless to say, the word "unforgivable" shouldn't make it into any actual policy here - not forgiving isn't something we want to enshrine. Perhaps calling it something like "Single-chance issues"? What we're trying to communicate is basically that if you do one of these, you're no longer entitled to a good-faith assumption that you didn't know what you were doing, because it's obvious that you did - right?). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)sorry, have to run out to a doctor's appointment now - might have further thoughts later today

Right, ok, back at the keyboard - the point I was wandering around wordily before I had to go before was that I think your first two points can be summed up as "You are responsible for your own behavior". A user who is baited is not excused by that when they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait is taken. It's unbalanced to say that provoking someone is prohibited, unless we also make clear that responding to provocation nastily, rather than just walking away or responding calmly, is also unacceptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are great points. Do you want to play around with the wording that's up there, adding stuff as appropriate? Pesky (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A completely different perspective

I was asked at my RfA. This is more or less my position. There is only a minimum definition of civility that we can deploy - and I don't for a minute think it includes kindness, patience or understanding (sorry Fluff). Those are very soft western views of ideal behaviour. To my mind, bullying and aggressive behaviour is far more of an issue, and our civility policy should be focused on preventing it.

All we can "legislate" on is a minimum standard - do not directly insult people, make false allegations, bait or goad, do not denigrate people, particularly with racist or sexist insults, do not SHOUT, do not cuss all the time, do not be provocatively vulgar, express provocative views in a threatening way, do not be aggressive towards other users or use threatening language or hate speech.

And then I would say that when enforcing civility, look at the whole picture not just the last set of words, intervene early with warnings, do not block for one-off expressions of unhappines, do block for one-off threats and hate speech. Warn early for bullying and aggressive behaviour, and tackle problems as they arise rather than pushing sufferers into endless loops of RfA/dispute resolution.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry, those proposals were Pesky's and I borked the clarity of that when I added my thoughts. Fixed it now.) I think you're basically on the right track here with your minimum standard, but I think Pesky also has a point in that if users are able to internalize the goal of being kind/patient/understanding, it would inherently cut down on occurrences of the things we can specifically legislate against. Hers is sort of the big-picture, "IAR"-style way to go about civility, where users are expected to understand how interactions work best, and model their behavior to match that; yours is the nitty-gritty, we-need-specific-rules-to-point-to sort of approach that so often ends up being necessary here on Wikipedia. The two approaches aren't inconsistent - it's possible to say "You should strive to be kind, patient, and understanding. Some ways to do that include not insulting people, not baiting or goading people, [and so on with your list]" and lose nothing by using both of those descriptions. Whether it's of any additional value to spend words on k/p/u when we know what will end up being cited and used is the specific prohibitions, I don't know. It may confuse things more to have the vague wording in the policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a goal (kind, understanding, patient); and also some very clear do's and don'ts. (Bullet points are clearer than paragraphs, in many instances; see my Do's and Don'ts for edit summaries in Ched's sandbox.) It's always important to look at the whole picture (I should have made that clearer in my enforcement spiel). Failing to look at the whole picture (and especially if the history might go on for longer than is originally obvious, or is highly complex), if it's done by a blocking admin, strikes me as wanting in competence. I have other thoughts over at Ched's sandbox on both avoiding incivility oneself, and gaining a better understanding of others, and de-escalating, and so on. I may port some of those across here. Or not, depending. Asx Teh Arbs have told Teh Community to fix this stuff, we need to be working on it. Frankly, it's a bit of a mess at the mo, and causes problems. P.S. Elen: cool answer!

A++ from me Pesky (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My advice to people dealing with complaints has always been "make sure you start from the beginning, don't just look at the last note on the system." However, I fear I am opposed conceptually to 'kind' and 'understanding' (don't have so much problem with 'be patient'). If you ask me to be kind, you are requiring that I entertain particular feelings towards another editor. If you ask me to be 'understanding', you require me to engage with their feelings. This is asking too much. We simply cannot require this of editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick reply ( user:Fluffernutter said just above that- it's possible to say "You should strive to be kind, patient, and understanding. Some ways to do that include not insulting people, not baiting or goading people")- and then maybe, given that real estate at wp:civ is kinda precious, we leave it at that. Or maybe put it this way - Don't disrupt the formation of consensus by making attacks on other editors, or by taking no heed of their concerns, or by continuing to repeat arguments which can not lead to worthwhile action in the specific circumstances which are currently under consideration, such as making edits to a page. NewbyG ( talk) 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's moving closer to what I would support. I also think we can reasonably ask editors not to disrupt the project by I didn't hear that tactics and wall of text monologues, but I'm not sure that belongs in WP:CIVIL. If we had Wikipedia:Collegial editing, it would most certainly belong in there, along with a requirement not to misrepresent what other editors say, the need to take an initial good faith stance, a prohibition on wikilawyering to win a content dispute, and a few other things....Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I added a bullet point to the nutshell on the project page; unfortunately Template:Nutshell is hard-wired for a maximum of three bullet points apparently, can anyone fix that so that four bullet points can appear? NewbyG ( talk) 19:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would probably break the thing so hard it would ever after only display the solemn words "the Internet is for porn" Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehehehehe! WoW ;P Pesky (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My fave. Never understood why Mousecorp haven't taken it down. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Software is indestructable, or so I was told back when the Commodore 64 came out. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Every good boy deserves fruit. A policy in need is a policy indeed. A great truth is a saying such that it's opposite is also a Great truth. Don't count my chickens, until they chirp. NewbyG ( talk) 23:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we're somehow back in the grey areas of differences in interpretation of language, again? My suggestion of "Be kind" was as in the opposite of "Don't be unkind / cruel", rather than suggesting any level of affection, etc. And the "be understanding" was in the sense of "avoid misunderstandings", and so on. I think quite a number of little spats arise from nothing more than misinterpreting / misunderstanding what the other editor(s) really meant and why they meant it.

I also think it's very important for the civlity policy to be primarily about civility, with links where appropriate to other policy (broadly construed) pages (WP:TE, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:IDHT and all the others with which civility overlaps somewhat). Pesky (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more than just language. The first thing that came into my mind was 1 Corinthians 13:3-5 which is speaking of a state of mind required by the Christian faith (to love one's neighbour). Which would be completely inappropriate for a civility policy aimed at an international multifaith/multiple philosophy audience. While "get along with your neighbour" and "don't hold grudges" do help the world go round, I reserve the right not to have to love every editor on Wikipedia.

Saying "remember, this is another person not just text on a screen" will help in some instances. However, in a lot of instances, the incivil editor has built up a very clear picture of the other person, and it's not someone that they want to get along with. For example [9]. In such instances, Wikipedia cannot impose a change of heart. The only thing it can do is say whether the comment is acceptable, or oversteps a boundary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's always a good reminder. When sitting looking at words on a screen, we can sometimes forget that there is a real, live person (with feelings) reading what we just wrote, on another screen. I think the ideal situations with the policy may be to have a sorts "rules / tips for newbies" approach and a "revision and reminders for oldies" bit.

Can't we just have a magic brain-computer interface script on the civility page which automatically makes people who click on it nice? It would solve so many problems ... maybe Jorm could work something up ... ;P Pesky (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't want to be nice to Randy in Boise, because even though he genuinely does believe that Ancient Greek history featured skeleton warriors, you can't let him put that in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, but one can strive to be firm, nicely! I'm not suggesting that we let Randy in Boise do whatever he likes, just that we shouldn't tell him he's an obnoxious moron who should never have been let out of kindergarten or the asylum, while we tell him (clearly and simply) why he can't put that in the article. It really doesn't matter that he's a total pillock whom everyone has got to the point of wanting to hurl bodily through a third floor window, because telling him that isn't actually going to make any difference to him. We can deal with him "kindly" (without cruelty) for just as long as it takes to nab him for being a pillock and disruptive. Pesky (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

General interactions

Try not to get too intense. Other people can misread your passion as aggression. Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.
Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over. (See Editing under the influence!)
Take a Real-Life check; disengage by two steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough, many people can just brush things off, and it's water off a duck's back. So, to get a better perspective, ask yourself: "How would I feel if someone said that to my granny / mother / partner / sister / daughter / nephew / best friend?" instead. How would you feel if someone said that to someone you love who can't just "brush it off"? If you'd find that unacceptable, then don't say it. And, if you've already said it, strike through it and apologise.
Just because we're online and unpaid doesn't mean we can behave badly to each other. People working together in a newspaper office aren't supposed to get into punch-ups in the newsroom because they disagree about how something's worded or whose turn it is to make the coffee. Nor are volunteers working at the animal rescue centre allowed to start screaming at each other over who left ferrets in the filing cabinet or the corn snake in the cutlery drawer. In fact, there's pretty much nowhere where people working together to do something good are allowed to get into fist-fights, shouting matches, hair-pulling or name-callng. Same applies here, too.
Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them.
No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" or include any wording along the lines of "if this were kindergarten" in your messages.

Comments go here

Thoughts, peoples? Pesky (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think taking it away from an academic context is helpful. Most editors these days, I suspect, don't know how to hold a debate (as opposed to an argument), or a structured discussion (not a catfight). Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, that's almost one of my favourite sayings! "Some people can't comprehend the difference between an argument and a blazing row!" I like real-life parallels, I'm sure they get the message across to a wider audience. Pesky (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the one about the actual idiots. Very good point. Montanabw^(talk) 15:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Pesky's fourth and fifth points are really important here, much more so than the others, and I would consider this pow-wow a success if those alone could enter our policy. Yes, we're volunteers. Yes, we can't be "fired". But even in volunteer contexts, it's expected that no one will punch anyone else in the nose, and if they do, paid or not, they're generally asked to leave. And exactly never in the history of wikipedia has being rude to someone made them more likely to acquiesce to your wishes - all it ever does is make them dig in and fight back. Even the dumbest, rudest jerk in the world can be dealt with more effectively with "It looks like you're not really getting our rules here; I'm afraid we're going to have to topic-ban you from this topic" and then calmly following through on the topic-ban (or whatever) than with "Shut up you stupid son of a motherless streetwalker goat!", which only leads to screaming, name calling, and discretionary sanctions in the area of goat employment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I have never called anyone a son of a motherless streetwalker goat, but now that you mention it... I'm tempted! LOL! Always remember WP:BEANS. Montanabw^(talk) 16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) And exactly never in the history of wikipedia has being rude to someone made them more likely to see the light. Hear, hear! and I would consider this pow-wow a success if these suggestions could enter our policy. Hear, hear! <Barnstar time!>

Support Yes, we're volunteers.
Support Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them.
Support --one can strive to be firm (without cruelty) for just as long as it takes to nab him for being a pillock and disruptive.
Support tentative support -nbg- --avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy.
Support Can't we just have a magic brain-computer interface script on the civility page which automatically makes people who click on it clue-full?

My semantics here, is that I understand the word "Respect" this way : that being non-attacking, even to those who have acted foolishly and disreputably, is not showing "respect" to the disrespectful or pestiferous, but it is showing respect to the whole of the human race, in a small way, and self-respect, in a Random Act of Kindness kinda way, (responding here to User:Elen's previous commentary). Thanks. NewbyG ( talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Do's and Don'ts

Edit summaries

Remember you can't go back and change them!

Do

Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess it quickly
Use neutral language
Be calm

Don't

Make snide comments about what you've edited or what you're responding to
Make personal remarks about editors
Be aggressive

Examples:

Cut rambling crap N
Shortened for clarity Y
We're writing an encyclopedia, not a novelN
Reworded more encyclopedically Y
Unverifiable BS N
Removed until sourced Y
Stay the fuck off my talk page in future N
Please don't post on my talk again Y

Comments here(5) =

Comments? We can do similar for other stuff, too. Pesky (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This setting out, with the dot-points and graphics is suitable for a Help page. I think it works for this one section of wp:Civ,perhaps yes. NewbyG ( talk) 17:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with incivility

First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification.
Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better! (Note: if an awful lot of people seem to be getting ratty with you, the problem may be with you!)
Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm.
Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors aren't mind-readers! ("That made me feel [...]" is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was [...]")
Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they haven't already done so by this point.
If none of this is working, either walk away (if the other person isn't damaging the 'pedia or being uncivil / unkind to other editors), or get help. Dispute resolution and Wikiquette input from uninvolved editors might resolve something. It's worth a try!
No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works well; it just makes things worse. It's very tempting just to "get it off your chest" and let rip, but you really can become "the editor who can't be baited".
In "emergency" situations (where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call) take it to the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard.
For longer-term, less acute, but persistently unkind/uncivil editors, request for comment from the community.

Comments on draft (dealing with incivility)

Comments, chaps and chapesses? Pesky (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is good to say what one feels, when stated in the first person: "I don't like your comments" rather than "Your comments suck." "I find you to be very annoying" is better than "You are an annoying person." If hurt, it is good idea to say so, "Your comments fill me with despair." Feelings are valid and should not be stifled or hidden with insincere pleasantries. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I am going to agree with that comment, but add that there is a degree of personal taste involved. Eg, instead of "you are an annoying person", if I had to express that, would probably say something like "You are annoying me, now." You see, the addition of a definite time-word both grounds and limits the statement. 'Nuther example (how I feel) - <bad> "Your comments suck" --> <better> "your comments rub me very much the wrong way". What's the diff? Personal preference I am sure, but the you dash and me formulation seems somehow more fairish, rather than making it seem "all about you". Interesting. Language is dynamic, language can be dynamite. Thanks. Oh, I should add that the draft above seems nicely balanced in respect of Personal Pronouns, yes, at this point in time. NewbyG ( talk) 13:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that saying how something has affected us, personally, is far better than name-calling. Personally, rather than saying "I find you to be very annoying", I'd be more likely to say "I am feeling really annoyed by you / what you're saying". It's a tad less fault-findy and (for me, anyway) would be much less likely to make me feel irritated in response. Pesky (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This conversation just gave me flashbacks to something I read once about how counselors advice couples to conduct their fights - each person should make it about "I", rather than "you". So "I find it stressful and tiring when the dishes don't get done," rather than "You never do the dishes, why are you such a jerk!" In a modified form, I could see that working among Wikipedians, too. For instance, the option to say "I'm getting really annoyed by this conversation, so I'm going to [step back for a while|ask for a third opinion|take this to a noticeboard|punch a wall]" instead of "You are annoying me, stop that" could help keep a situation from sparking out of control. There's a fine line, of course, between "about 'I' instead of 'you'" and "mealymouthed, passive-aggressive redirection", but on the safe side of that line, it could actually be a useful strategy (though I doubt one worth enshrining explicitly in policy, so much as one that people might just want to consider adding to their list of conversation strategies). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a powerful reaction, "Who are you to judge me <anger!/>" which can be avoided by making personal statements "I am annoyed by" instead of general statements like "You are annoying because". It leaves open the fact that I might be over sensitive, and it gives the other person a face saving out, "Okay, I will stop doing this thing that annoys you (even if it is perfectly within my right to do that)." Jehochman ^Talk 16:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, user:Fluffernutter, relationship counselling, and also literary criticism theory, believe it or not, has, or had (over the last decades) similar concerns. Here is an excerpt from that (critical theory) debate -

Flight from Eden 1990 author:Steven Cassedy published University of California Press (Berkeley and Los Angeles) ISBN -520-06863-7 Acessed 14 March 2012 (on page 9, quoting from Blindness and Insight Paul de Man 1971.) (de Man - essay Criticism and Crisis) " It is the distinctive privelege of language to be able to hide meaning behind a misleading sign, as when we hide rage or hatred behind a smile. But is the distinctive curse of all language, as soon as any kind of inter-personal relation is involved, that it is forced to act this way."

Is that interesting and helpful? NewbyG ( talk) 17:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! Yes, I had that reaction Jehochman's just mentioned earlier today ... Fluff, I think as a "thing to consider" it's good, but certainly not to be set in stone. Newby – interesting. But then you and I are both interested in language (so is Fluff).

And, by the way, we're all apparently fruitloops. You may stalk my contribs for today for the cause of my descending into wanting-to-hurl-things(people?)-bodily out-of windows mood. Which I could have handled a lot worse. Ironic, really ... Pesky (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding: by the way, I was more really hurt than angry. I mean, really, really hurt. It made me hide in the den and whimper for a while – didn't know how to cope :o( Pesky (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the "I" statement, and Pesky, chin up, must be something in the air, I have been confronted by at least three different wiki-assholes (can we do a page about THAT?) just today. Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the guy is not an asshole. And he has a nice name, and having seen a pic, he looks like a nice guy. But it was so out-of-the-blue ... like walking into a friend's kitchen and discovering that someone had put a whitewash-bucket booby trap over the door! Pesky (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added ...

The Dispute Resolution template (box) to the main civility page. Can't for the life of me think why this hasn't always been there! Pesky (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

... and good grief! It's still there! Pesky (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

... and the "Dealing with incivility" bullet points from up above, as there seemed to be no objections from anybody.

Now, how about some / all of this stuff: Pesky (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Different places; different atmospheres

Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces. They're places to talk about how to improve the article, and to discuss the article (though it's OK for conversations to wander into related areas, or go more into depth than the article does, as that helps with research and gives ideas on improvement). But an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there. Clearly, just like in a real kitchen, it's no more acceptable to stick a knife in someone than it is in the office! Personal attacks aren't acceptable anywhere, but expect users' own talk pages to have a much more informal atmosphere than article talk pages.

It's OK to say sorry

There's no loss of face in apologising. We all make mistakes, we all say the odd hurtful thing, we all have bad days and bad moments. If you have a sneaky feeling you owe someone an apology, offer the apology. Apologising doesn't hurt you.

Remember, though, that you can't demand an apology from anyone else. It will only get their back up and make it either less likely to happen, or to be totally insincere if you do get an apology. Never be too proud to make the first move when it comes to saying sorry. That kind of "pride" is destructive; in fact it's not even "pride", it's pig-headedness.

Comments here

In view of the lack of comments, I'm going to do a bit of merging-in of this with what's already there on the subject. Pesky (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pesky, I've removed part of what you merged in ([10]) because I think it sends policy off in a direction we don't want to go. Making "never report or sanction someone for something you or your friend does" policy is problematic - it essentially takes the concept of WP:Otherstuffexists (though that doesn't directly apply to blocking, it sort of ought to) and turns it on its head - if two people are, say, known for issuing massive personal attacks, and one lands themselves on ANI, "but so-and-so hasn't been blocked! other rude people exist!" is not an excuse for the person who was reported not being sanctioned. "But [blocking admin]'s friend [unrelated person] once used the f-word! They can't block me unless they block their friend too!" is also not an excuse.

I get what you're trying to do here - you want to keep admins from insulating themselves from being sanctioned for behavior that non-admins get sanctioned for - but the way to do that is to "prosecute" the misbehaving admins, not to bar prosecution of misbehaving others. Refer back to WP:ADMIN here - the lead says that no admin is required to take any action (which means that you can't compel an admin to block someone if they're not comfortable blocking someone - the most you can do is try to find another admin who will take the action - and therefore you can't compel an admin to block, say, their friend in exchange for being allowed to block another misbehaving editor), and WP:NOTPERFECT makes it clear that "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities." This is the pad from which to launch your effort to get uncivil admins regulated - we already have a perfectly good policy stating that they can't do that. Trying to use civility policy to do it, as you did in the part of the text I removed, will have unintended effects and cause more problems than it will solve, imho. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, sure, I kinda understand that. I was trying to get the hypocrisy thing blown out of the water, when someone complains about / blocks someone (or piles on at the SnarkBoard against someone) for things which they do themselves, or don't bat an eyelid at if one of their friends does it. How do we address this issue? The unequal enforcement / injustice of the way the civility policy is acted on was one of the most-commented on things at the ArbCom case, and it does cause a huge amount of ill-feeling. It wasn't the "otherstuffexists" thing I was trying to do, just the jerk who regularly insults other editors and then complains about someone else doing something less offensive.

Thing is, nobody seems to want to do much about insulting / oppressive admins who aren;t exactly saints themselves, for fear of being the next person to be picked on, I think! Thoughts? Pesky (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The current version of the project page, after this edit now stands at (25,007 bytes). The partial revert seems satisfactory to me, I believe the current material to be in line with consensus as it can be discerned from the thoughtful discussion recently on this talk page. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 20:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, Arbcom is really the venue for admins misbehaving in such a manner. If someone is misusing his tools or his influence as an admin, that's absolutely a matter for arbcom and/or noticeboards (if the complainant is feeling brave) - we have existing policy setting out how admins are supposed to behave, and the violation of those policies by an admin is arbcom's remit. It's not something we should address by making an across-the-board restriction on admin behavior ("you can't block someone for something you or your friends have ever done or not been blocked for") just to catch the two, or five, or ten people who block hypocritically (and I would venture to say that there's a whole lotta gray area involved in "anything you or your friends have ever gotten away with" that's not the sort of hypocrisy you're trying to address - what about an admin who edit warred once, four years ago, and subsequently passed RFA? Or an admin who's friends with someone with a short fuse, but they're not comfortable blocking someone they have strong personal feelings about?). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I get your point. I wish I had some stats on people who've been driven off by bad blocks, as opposed to just "soured" by them. The ArbCom civility enforcement case was a bit of an eye-opener, looking through MF's block history, A couple of those early blocks were enough to turn anyone sour about admins – imagine being blocked just for accusing someone of wikilawyering, when it's the person accused of it that blocks you, for example; or being blocked for calling someone a sycophant. There were others, too, when the blocking admin was clearly involved, and using the block button as a weapon just to shut up the opposition. I can quite understand how some people just get very, very sour when that happens relatively early on in their WikiCareer. I almost quit over that stuff in December, and all I was slapped with was an "admonishment" from an admin who had decided I "needed a dose of WP:STICK", without having actually made any effort to research the situation. I think a lot of people just wouldn't want to take it to the Arbs, for instance. I wouldn't have done, though someone else was prepared to do so on my behalf, and I'm not a particularly timid editor, though I'm probably a lot more sensitive and easily hurt than most people realise. It would be nice if there was some kind of totally independent way of blocks being checked for appropriateness and fairness, though I can quite see that with the number of blocks that probably get handed out on a daily basis that's close to impossible. I also note that my page on the case history has apparently been deleted (only noticed it as it came up as a redlink). That annoys me - it was the only way I really had of "clearing my own name" for if / when someone tries to hold it against me in the future. I do t hink I should at least have been informed that it was going to be deleted ... Pesky (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want, I can take a look at the deleted page and see what happened, and probably either restore it (if it was deleted by mistake or something) or email you the content to keep privately, so you at least have the records. What's the link to the now-deleted page? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please! It was at User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Case history. I kept it specifically because all that there will be in "the public memory" is the false accusation (believed true) at AN/I, and the public admonishment. It was a timeline history of everything which had happened. Pesky (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It does still exist as User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Case History though ... ---Sluzzelin talk 14:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh, grrrrr, [insert rude words here] And headdesk. Sorry! Pesky (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Curse you, mediawiki...so good at making us all look like capitalization-blind fools! *shakes fist* A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-thinking "Enforcement"

I'm sure that the farther away we can get from wall-of-text, the better. So how about something really, really short and sweet?

Rules of Enforcement

Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times
This means never ~~taking (or voting for, or in any other way supporting) action against~~ reporting any editor for something which you have either done yourself, or would tolerate in your best mate! And also never piling-on in support of sanctions when someone else makes a report for something which you have either done yourself, or would tolerate in your best mate!

Be sure to take into account all the relevant history; never make snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation
Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action
Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do

Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, etc.)
Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case - cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.

Thoughts? The shorter and more clear we can get this section, the better. Pesky (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding: would I get eaten alive if I boldly went where no man has gone before and just added this? Pesky (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding number 1 - I don't think it's ideal to expect people to enforce "blindly", without any thought on a person's history. If a user has been sawing away at last rope holding up the sword of Damocles for a while, it's not inappropriate to tell them that they've finally severed the last fiber and run out of chances. Similarly, if a user has a history of calm fairness but lost their temper or said something rude once, it would be unfair to block them immediately for "fairness" purposes, just to even the scoreboard between that person and people with a history of incivility.

A better proposition, I think, would be Most civility blocks are obvious and uncontentious, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case - cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect, it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via ANI or RFC/U, before any admin action is taken.

Honestly though, I'm still not a big fan in general of legislating how civility blocks may be handed out like this. I think the focus should be on preventing editors from being uncivil, rather than preventing admins from handling incivility. (To that end, I'm about to comment one section up about the preventing-incivility stuff.) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was kinda assuming that both "past history" and "current circumstances" would be taken into account (I'm reading fairness and justice as very closely related here). This should probably be clarified. With your suggestion, I'd go for Most civility blocks should be obvious and uncontentious....

The "legislating" I'd like to see is whatever is necessary to stop unequal enforcement – where one editor is stomped on for something which others get away with regularly, for example, or for something that really doesn't deserve a stomp. This is one of the biggest bugbears for quite a few editors. Even monkeys don't like unfairness; we can hardly expect our (very!) human editors, with a supposedly superior sense of justice, to like it! Pesky (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most civility blocks should be obvious and uncontentious" — I whole-heartedly agree. "Most civility blocks are obvious and uncontentious" — sends a wrong message. It doesn't have the tight ring to it. Brendon is here 06:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done some minor additions to the wording here. Updated thoughts? Adding: I've added Fluff's suggestion (slightly tweaked) as a bullet point. Pesky (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with number one is that in Sydney and Stoke on Trent it is much more acceptable to swear and use colourful insults than it is in Toronto and Tokyo. So some unsuspecting Japanese editor repeatedly makes an edit that breaks the formatting in a table, and a forthright editor from Oz fixes it with the edit summary "fixed fuck up by drongo again!" The admin from Stoke, to whom "egit" is almost a term of endearment, brushes off the Japanese editor's complaint about incivility. It doesn't - it can't - matter what the enforcer has done in the past or may do in other circumstances, or that their mate may do. That's an absolute recipe for unequal enforcement. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My dear hubby has just made a very good point though. The policy probably should say "do not report someone for something that you have done yourself, or that you would tolerate in a friend." Because people do this - report someone for a fairly mild statement, and when you look back you find them using all sorts of incivility in other discussions. However, enforcement cannot be based on personal opinion or practice - that is a key reason why we have variable standards of enforcement. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's actually what I meant, really! (The "reporting" bit.) In my view it would also apply to the sole-action-admin who zaps a unilateral block on someone for something they do themselves ... 'Scuse my pain-and-narcotics-addled brain ... lol! Pesky (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over link

Right everybody, let's not have a revert war over a link but please discuss and get consensus here. Have fully protected so folks can take a breath and discuss. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion (not that it was I who put the links(s) there) is that there is nothing wrong with having those links there at all. Jimbo's opinions, even if published elsewhere, surely have relevance to Wikipedia's civility policy, and the Dale Carnegie book article contains some excellent pointers, taken from a classic work on the subject. I don't think, personally, that edits should be reverted on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis, but only if there is something actually wrong with them. Pesky (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess one thing about links is that by their very presence there is an air of officialness about them if linked from a policy page (like this one). Hence prudent to clarify that the consensus is actually happy with the link (rather than the adders and removers thus far). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So as it stands, we have Eisfbnore (talk · contribs), ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs) and Wavelength (talk · contribs) for its inclusion, and Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) against. So a voting tally of four (4) editors thus far. Some more opinions'd be good about now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that Jimmy no longer informs policy here on Wikipedia, except at the very highest (Foundation) levels, and that linking to an article by him elsewhere gives a somewhat false impression that the article explains part or all of our policy (it implies it's "further reading [about our policy]"). Some of the sentiments of Jimmy's article and our policy do seem to coincide, though. I'd say that the link doesn't belong on a policy page. However, it's not like the content of the article is crazy, and in fact much of it seems like common sense; I don't see a lot of potential harm in the link existing here if consensus swings that way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility (permanent link here) had a link to Jimmy Wales and Andrea Weckerle: Keep a Civil Cybertongue - WSJ.com, which mentions CiviliNation. CiviliNation is a nonprofit organization, whose website is CiviliNation - Taking a Stand for Civil Discourse. It does not directly affect Wikipedia policy, but it addresses issues of importance to all Internet users (including Wikipedia editors), even if it had been written by a university professor. Whether or not Wikipedia:Civility has an external link to that 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal, I recommend that it have one to the CiviliNation website. There can be a clarification that it does not represent Wikipedia policy.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why include such a link? It doesn't represent Wikipedia policy, so there's no need to link it from a policy page. Perhaps someone should write an article on the site (if it's notable) and include this link there. But here, it's not really helpful or appropriate: there are dozens of news/journal/magazine stories about online civility/etiquette, and this is one of the less relevant and informative examples. Including it here gives it an unwarranted measure of authority and legitimacy. It makes no difference that Wales was involved - he is not Wikipedia, and other endeavors of his are not relevant here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just shaking my head that we have an edit war on the civility policy page. Or maybe more like a **headdesk** moment! Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - the civility page is for flamewars, we should move all future edit wars to WP:3RR ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"No fighting in the War Room!" :D Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the link to the article about CiviliNation was added by User:Cirt at 17:14, 7 February 2010.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest an invitation at Wikipedia:Requests for comments.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have no strong feelings either way, really. Pesky (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I added that link back in 2010. I'll respectfully defer to community consensus here, this discussion is most stimulating reading. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So....err...that makes...err...how many for and how many against? hmmm, look as long as folks are talkin' nice I'll unlock the page and everyone can keep on figuring it out....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha!

For: Cirt, Eifsbnore, Wavelength

Not fussed: Pesky, Fluffernutter

Against: Nikkimaria

...at least that's what I make it, so far. Anyone else?

P.S. Nikkimaria, you seem to be in a minority of one; so probably not appropriate to keep removing the link at this time, I'd think ;P Pesky (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nikkimaria. This essay is nice but there are better essays---"Call no man a fool lest you be thrown into the Hellfire, where there is terrible gnashing of teeth", etc.---and we have enough authoritarian quoting of Jimbo Wales at this site, already. (I would recommend reading some Michael Moorcock, like Starship Stormtroopers and Epic Pooh, whose comments about authoritarianism in fantasy apply also to role-playing games like Wikipedia.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

At 16:18, 23 March 2012, I added the following text.

"(Note: This article and the website CiviliNation do not inform Wikipedia policy.)"

I edited boldly, but I hope that no one considers that revision as brash. At least, I anticipate that the result is no more offensive to anyone opposing the inclusion of the link, and it might be less offensive.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Context in Identifying incivility?

Suggest a small addition:

"It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as (i) the intensity and context of the language/behavior..."

I recognise that use of the word "context" could be criticized as being unhelpfully vague. I would argue that its inclusion encourages a broader understanding of events. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems helpful. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem helpful. "Full context" might be even better. (Often there's an awful lot of chronic ill-feelings history between people before things ever get to AN/I, for example). Pesky (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused by the MistyMorn's point in general here, but I want to jump in in response to Pesky's comment - I hope your mentioning ill-feelings history is by way of saying that people who appear places like ANI calling each other nasty things for the umpteenth, rather than first time, should be given less leeway, not more. If I know that so-and-so and I hate each other, I should go into any discussion with so-and-so prepared to be extra-calm, to keep things from getting worse, rather than going into a discussion with them loaded for bear. This goes back to my general feeling that everyone is responsible for their own behavior, no matter what's going on around them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realised it could be read that way! No, what I meant was that when something turns up at AN/I without umpteen prior performances ... but turns up looking all one-sided, and it's only when one looks back over the entire set of interactions that one realises that this thing actually goes back months, and the situation is nothing like as clear-cut as it would appear at first glance. Or when someone turns up at AN/I, and there are one or two vocal chimers-in there, backing-up the original complaint, which all looks meaningful until you look back at their history with Mr/Ms X and realise that they're not the disinterested parties they may at first appear ... or when people take the first poster's version of events as gospel and chime in saying "How dreadful", and all that, without having first checked, for themselves ... so a false consensus seems to be appearing when in fact none of those chiming in have actually checked to see what really happened. That kind of stuff. It's complex. Pesky (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather given up on arguing this point in the fear of pursuing the blatantly obvious. However, this incident (which I've brought to Jimbo's page) convinces me it's necessary. In brief: How can one hope to understand anything cultural without considering context? —MistyMorn (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

SKIPPING: