Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks

Initial rationale

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

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

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

Does sound like a good idea to have a consistent response in place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not an admin, but I think this sounds like a genuinely good idea. Sometimes, much as I hate to say it, you just have to let it go, but I've seen some attacks which are quite egregious and nothing short of an assault on the character of the editor, which, obviously, does not make for a healthy environment in which to build an encyclopaedia. I think codifying it so there's a general standards that admins can refer to could provide useful guidance and, hopefully, deter attacks. It seems sensible to me to start with a block of around 24 hours for a single egregious attack where the editor doesn't have a history of such attacks with blocks getting longer, leading up to an indef where there's an obvious long term pattern. These could be complimented with community bans on interaction if required. Anything that shows that personal attacks will not be tolerated and that NPA is not just a hollow acronym that people throw around can only be a good thing if you ask me. HJMitchell You rang? 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

All right... well, I'll leave this here for other admins to have a chance to review before I start anything. But one thing that I'm also considering is whether such a thing would be better as a guideline or whether it should be a policy. After all, we already have the policy WP:NPA, so editors are aware that they shouldn't be doing this. A guideline would allow administrators enough leeway to use their commonsense, but to either know where the boundaries lie, or at least have a better idea when it's OK to block an editor. Thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• No policy will work unless it works in the case of Giano. Good luck with that... Guy (Help!) 12:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I missed something in my retirement. What does this mean? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Look over there for some background. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Er... someone want to give me the potted version? Sheesh - that's a wall of text and clicking on the related links leads me to a 2006 archived page with is greater than about 100K... I'm happy to be emailed if this is super controversial. I suspect that I missed everything while I was research about the USA PATRIOT Act. Not sure I've missed anything worthwhile though. Still, if this is going to get in the way of this proposal, any summary of the events might be helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Basically, there are 3 factions. Faction 1: Giano's lack of civility is a disruption and we must get rid of him. Faction 2: Giano is an excellent content editor and we must ignore much of his incivility in order to keep him at all costs. Faction 3: Giano is a great content editor, but that does not give him a pass on civility; however, we have no mechanism in place for vested contributors with civility issues and so Somebody Else is going to have to deal with this. Guy, would you agree with that explanation? GJC 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Spot on. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • That's basically the problem. What to do with people who don't get along with other editors, yet still make fantastic content contributions. On the one hand, this is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, so being "nice" should take a back seat to developing articles. On the other hand, this is a collaboration and anyone who can't cooperate with other people gets in the way of article development (nobody edits in a vacuum). It's like having a cat that catches mice but claws up your furniture. Do you put up with it? It depends on how bad your mice problem is, and how nice your furniture is. -- Atama頭 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
              • Well... the problem is that if many potentially and actually excellent contributors are offended and chased off by one excellent contributor, then it's a real problem. And if that "excellent" contributor needs to win article arguments by using incivility and personal attacks, I have to wonder whether the article is being skewed if that editor gains the upper hand through such a means. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
          • (ec) Um, it's a bit more complex than that -- but not much more. There's the issue that (from what I've seen) Giano has an acid tongue, & if he thinks you're a moron he'll tell you so quite bluntly. Then there's the issue that if he's put under restrictions, then the folk who hang around Wikipedia who find it too hard to contribute content, &/or find WikiGnoming too dull poke at him until he violates his restrictions. Lastly (& perhaps most importantly), there's the issue that even if Giano was permanently banned from Wikipedia, this problem would not be solved: most -- if not all -- Wikipedians in good standing don't respect every other Wikipedian in good standing. Or to put it in personal terms, I sincerely think there are a few Wikipedians whose best contribution to the project would not only be to leave it, but to get the fuck off the Internet. (And I'd be very surprised if there was no other established editor in good standing who did not feel the same way.) However, unlike Giano I'm content to ignore them because either (1) their behavior will eventually get them permanently banned from Wikipedia; or (2) they do enough valuable work that I can tolerate their presence. (It also helps if we work in different content areas.) In brief, if there was only one Giano, the Wikipedia community could handle that; but Giano is only the best-known example of a systemic problem which we haven't found a solution for, & may end up destroying the project. (And no, I don't know of a solution beyond being extra nice to people in inverse proportion to your desire that she/he FOADs.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
            • As the (Un)Official Giano Proponent Admin, I should point out there is the fourth viewpoint - that Giano's non article commentary and actions has been perceived to be anathema to "the powers that be" (them again, they nobbled my horse too!) and some people who think they are part of that grouping, or want to be part of that grouping, have proposed or enacted sanctions or made comments or opinionated, that are most charitably described as ill judged. There is now instances that when people ask for examples of situations within WP that require addressing that Giano is invoked - a totem rather than an editor who might have been dealt with more appropriately than when he first contributed outside of article space... Oh, and I fully understand that my comments and stance in this issue makes me part of the "Giano problem". There you go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) It's always been the problem. I have no idea how to fix it, but I am completely serious when I say that, in my view, if any proposal does not get Giano on side then it will fail. Any policy that attempts to judge interaction here by standards that Movie Mom would endorse is doomed before it even starts, we are not Conservapedia and thank God for that. As has been pointed out before, the last unforgivable swearword in England is stated to be a term of endearment in some parts of Australia. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Good thing I'm an Aussie then, huh? :P - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
                • (humor) Actually, no policy is really worth anything until someone proposes blocking Jimbo :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Well, if the policy needs to get Giano "on side" (that's an Anglicism I don't recognize -- do you mean a policy that he can live with & gets him to act in a manner most of us consider productive?) perhaps we should invite him to discuss the matter. Only a complete misanthrope would decline an invitation to share his thoughts on the matter, & a complete misanthrope would not want anything to do with Wikipedia -- either to contribute content or to even read. ("People are stupid -- why do I want to participate in one more example of their stupidity?") -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • See on side. It's a cricketing term, only Australians, Indians, Pakistanis and Englishmen understand what we are talking about :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Great idea. The issue has been fought again and again here, at Arbcom, at RfCs, WQA, and via wheel wars. If we can actually agree on a procedureal policy (or an addition to WP:BLOCK) then hopefully we can at least have a consistent standard. It will be hard and people will have lots of opinions, but I think the consensus process can work well here. The fact that we have a policy could cut both ways. It could range all the way from "we don't do incivility blocks" to "civility is a 5P and should be vigorously enforced regardless of an editor's content contributions, including immediate blocks without warning for extreme cases." At least we'll know which it is, and a constructive discussion aimed at reaching agreement would be helpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• I endorse this idea too. There ought to be a guideline to cover proper enforcement of the core civility policy. I suggest that it may be best to ignore the special issues related to Giano, as he is an exception.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Excellent idea. Having a specific page about this to discuss it and bring it all together will hopefully be constructive and a positive improvement to alternative past practices of double-standards. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Congratulations! Best of luck for you, your SO, and your upcoming child.

Back on topic, for consideration, we've had (mostly my) essay Wikipedia:Civility warnings for about 10 months now. It has neither raised substantial objections nor been widely adopted, to date. But it may be useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I'm reading this, but so far this is an awesome summary of everything I've ever thought about NPA and civility issues on Wikipedia! I think if we could distill this guideline into a more concise set of steps or procedures then this might be the way forward on this one. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like what you wrote at Wikipedia:Civility_warnings#What_civility_warnings_are_not_for. Separating the validity of a content argument from the way the argument is phrased seems a very important point. In current practice, an incivility block is often the end of the argument, and complaints about incivility are sometimes used as part of gamesmanship, leaving a sour taste. I believe that as long as such gamesmanship works, and people can find an admin who will block, no questions asked, a significant part of the community will always want someone like Giano around who says it "as it is", and does not play the "politically correct" game. He fulfils a function. Try Court_jester#Political_significance, or Robin Hood vs. Sheriff_of_Nottingham.

In cases where people have a good-faith content concern, I believe it is a far better idea to mediate, warn and talk people down from their soapbox than to block them outright when their POV opponent reports them for swearing. While I don't doubt that a block can be salutary, our system at AN/I is biased against trying diplomatic means. --JN466 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Policy drafting

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

George's essay is actually quite excellent and one of the best guides I've seen in de-escalation of disputes where personal attacks and incivility is occuring. I think that the policy should definitely refer to this essay, which allows us the leeway to make modifications to the essay as necessary, which can be used as a guideline for ways to warn. What the civility block policy can do is give a concrete procedure that guides an admin in starting the process of raising a civility warning, then to further warning escalations till finally it gets to the blocking stage. It has been suggested to me that we should also incorporate WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility, into its own policy but that gives further clarity on what to block for and how to block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Trolls can be blocked for trolling. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you are) the old days when admins would just do that are gone, these days blocking a self-evident troll for trolling will simply result in a month of wikilawyering and the descent of every user who has a grudge against any admin baying about the evil cabal. Better to ignore them. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Well... sometimes JzG flies a bit close to the wire, I agree. However, it's pretty incivil to call him "one of the surliest jackasses in Wikipedia's history". After all, have you ever reviewed my old edit history? I think that you are being unfair to myself - surely at certain points I have been a valid candidate? And of course, right now it seems a bit like you might be trying to reach for the surly jackass crown - keep going that way and I think we'll be bestowing this sort of honour on you quite soon! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"right now it seems a bit like you might be trying to reach for the surly jackass crown". No, just honestly speaking my mind and hoping something good comes of it. --TungstenCarbide XIII (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope

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

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

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

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

• Anything based on warning counts is an open invitation to gaming the system, either by placing vexatious warnings or by claiming that no action can be taken until the requester has brought forth two shrubberies and chopped down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, a fair point. But we really need some sort of way of knowing that the editor has at least been warned about their behaviour before we block, because we often need to consider either that they are a newbie or they are human and have just gotten involved in a topic they are passionate about. Obviously there is a good deal of commonsense to be used here, but it would be good to have some guidelines that admins can use when it comes to incivility. What do you suggest? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, warnings can be a useful indication about the individual, if interpreted with intelligence. Say X acts incivil, & receives a warning. If the warning is deleted & X continues without changing ways, an experienced Wikipedian will see the pattern. Or if X ignores the warning & continues without changing ways... Or if X changes ways & the behavior is no longer an issue, we'd be able to move on. The problem is that too many people want to be able to check off the boxes in order to handle troublemakers, which can be easily gamed. -- llywrch (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• If I can throw in a comment (I'm not an admin, but I am uppity ). I think that probably the best way to handle this is on the 'parking ticket' model: rigidly predefined, non-escalating, incontestable, and with literally no concern for context. so for example, say you all decide there should be a 24 hour block for a particular act of incivility: that means that anyone who commits that act of incivility gets a 24 hour block, period. It doesn't matter if they couched the incivility inside more topic-specific comments; doesn't matter how mild or severe the act was; doesn't matter if they are IPs or newbies or experienced editors; doesn't matter who their friends are or what anyone says; doesn't matter if it's the first offense or the tenth. they pay the 24 hour fine in full, and then everyone forgets about it. You don't even need to worry about warnings - just make the first civility block a person gets short (say 30 minutes), and have the first block template say "You've been blocked for this statement - ... - for 30 minutes as a warning. All future blocks for incivility will be 24 hours in duration. There is no mechanism for appeal." Nobody will like it - everyone hates parking tickets, that's a human universal - but as long as it's applied blindly and evenly everyone will put up with it, and it will be a very effective tool. --Ludwigs2 08:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I was considering something like that. A thirty minute block has merits. It's sort of like a shot across the bows of an attacker to let them know that we're serious. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Blockable offenses

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement

Warnings/alerts

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

" This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people."

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

Ah... well, that wasn't really what I was asking about above, but I'll run with this and start off a new section :-) This seems like a reasonable solution to the problem of gaming the system, and providing enough notice that the editor has been made aware of the issue.

However... I think we should give them the opportunity to discuss the matter. My thoughts are that we should also create a Wikiquette discussion, then link to the etiquette discussion in the template. This gives them a chance to discuss how what the issue is with their behaviour and also gives the rest of the community a chance to see that there is a problem.

My other thought is that the first block should be for only a short period of time. If the second personal attack was made within the hour, then for the second violation of civility then we only give 30 minutes or maybe an hour. I would consider this to be reasonable, and would be like a "shot across the bows" that shows the editor we are quite serious about preventing incivil behaviour. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That also makes sense. A stern warning followed by a block, even one of half an hour, definitely shows this kind of thing is taken seriously and codifying gives a widely accepted standard for admins to follow and for people to refer to. That said, I think there are some attacks which are particularly egregious (especially those that fall under the scope of outing and NLT but others which are especially unpleasant) which merit longer blocks. I agree though, that this could (and hopefully will be) an excellent way of dealing with incivility and attacks and hopefully even deter them. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA says this, "...comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." The template proposed above is too restrictive, it suggests that commenting on an editor's actions is incivility. One more thing, I was involved in a dispute with an editor who said things like, "your actions are those of a racist..." which I would consider to be a clear violation of the first clause of Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks. I discussed it with admins and they said that a comment like that was not enough to get someone blocked for incivility. I think that whole section needs to be expanded and clarified because at least, where I come from, calling someone a racist is taking the gloves off. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask where you discussed this? Because I don't really agree with them... this is arguing the man, not the content. However, without knowing the context I can't really say why they said it. For instance, if it was a request for comment, then I think it would be fine to comment on whether someone's actions are racist. However, if you are in the middle of a debate and someone throws in the race card, then that would usually not be helpful or constructive. I think that we need to make it clear that we give admins a bit of lattitude when it comes to making decisions, because situations differ and admins often need to use their commonsense (which is really the point behind WP:IAR). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unruled_Paper_(film)&oldid=234040491 - This is a link to where he called another editor a racist (search for the word "racist" on the page, it comes up a lot). I had a bunch of discussions on several pages with him including his talk page, an admin's talk page, and an ANI post, and I can't remember where he specifically called me a racist. But it was pretty much like this. Basically someone thought his writing was plagiarized so he called them a racist. I was told that, "Incivility is hard to block for, as what people consider incivil is dramatically different; you really need a ranting foaming at the mouth ALL CAPS FUCKTARD rant before everyone will be in agreement." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

David is right - it is currently hard to block for incivility. But I think that's because nobody is quite sure whether they can, or if they can how long they should block for. That's what this is trying to address. And I'm sorry that you got called a racist by another editor who didn't get anything for it - that's clearly not on and if I had been around then and I'd seen this situation, I would have stepped in. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it was awhile ago and he got blocked anyway for legal threats for a few weeks. Just saying that'd whatever decision you guys make regarding what is blockable, I hope it includes this kind of behavior. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this policy will be addressing this point, I'm afraid. But if you see this sort of thing again, note it on WP:AN/I and I'm sure we can get a bunch of admins have a productive discussion to work something out. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Length of block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I generally agree, but do not understand why punishment for the same offence should be increased 24fold simply because the admins weren't looking when it happened. WFCforLife (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah... sorry, I should have explained why. The reason for the 1 hour long block is to make life a bit inconvinient for the offender. If the offender has not edited within about 45 minutes, then I'd say that there is a good chance that they have logged off for the day and an hour long block won't be noticed. That's my reasoning behind this. There's no point firing a shot across the bows of a ship that has no pirates, after all :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, they will still see the block notice on their talk page, and see the block in their logs, so the warning shot will have served its purpose...

that being said, I still (personally) don't like the idea of escalating blocks. I think escalating blocks will lead to a different kind of gamesmanship (e.g., are me and my three friends willing to take 24 hours each in order to game that guy into getting blocked for a month?). I think these blocks should be just painful enough to be an aggravation, but shouldn't be viewed as steps to some bigger punishment. they shouldn't even interfere with the editing process too much, but be more like a time-out. assume that anyone and everyone will slip occasionally, and when they do they get 24 hours away from wikipedia to think about it, and then we can all forget about it. problem cases (where editors are repeatedly and persistently getting themselves 24 hour blocks) can be reviewed independently, and more severe action can be taken then, but in those cases the damage is so minor - at most they'll be making a couple of uncivil comments per day, and getting blocked for each - that there won't be any hurry to rush to judgement.

put anther way, I think this should be viewed as sting to encouragement people to play nice, not as a tool for weeding out undesirables. my 2¢ worth. --Ludwigs2 05:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, totally agreed on the undesirables point! Sorry, that was just an aside - my only point was that if by the time you get blocked for a month and you still don't get it then you really can't edit here! I think pretty much everyone would agree with this.

The reason that I think that escalating blocks will work is because currently we have the ridiculous situation whereby somebody is reported on AN/I for civility issues and an admin blocks for ages, but then the editor appeals and of course many times the block seems too long so they either get unblocked or the block is lessened. At this point the editor feels emboldened and of course comes back worse than ever. If anything, they are gaming the system because it is currently so chaotic.

One thing that the policy should include, however, is a general commonsense clause (similar to IAR) that says that admins are given considerable leeway for decisions, and if it is felt that the editor is using the policy to game the system then they will be blocked for disruption. I think, however, that those who game this system will be quickly rooted out and we'll know who they are. Really, this policy is not for those who would game the system - by and large they are only small in number. Most of the incidents I see on AN/I and Wikiquette alerts are actually editors who have a vested interest or are passionate in a particular topic, and feel that others are wrong so therefore they can abuse them at will. These sort of editors are the ones that we need to target and address, and I think this method would do the job admirably.

Addressing the 1 hour long block, this was just an idea I was putting out there. I still think the blocking for an hour is still valid, but perhaps the idea that doing this in the first 45 minutes has flaws and shouldn't be used. You are right, of course, that they will know that they were blocked for an hour from their talk page, but also the block log would record that this happened and any further admin would be able to know that this has occured, which could only help them. So I'm happy to drop the whole 45 minute idea :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I agree with this policy, although I think that the length of the block should also depend on how the user insulted the other user. So for example, if a user swears at another user, the block length should be longer, but if the insult is just a mild one, maybe the block wouldn't have to be as long. Blocks should also be longest if the user endangers the other person's life (what I mean is by telling the user's personal information, which could be considered a personal attack), whether or not the personal information is true. Mild insults would probably have the same block length. Swearing would be about 2 or 3 hours (for the first block length), 2 or 3 days (for the second block length), a week and a half (for the third block length), a month and a half (for the fourth block length), and maybe stay indefinitely (for the fifth block length). However, maybe if the user is blocked for a day due to the second block length part (of the insult being more than 45 minutes ago), the second block length should probably occur twice if the user insults people again. Also, if the user tells personal information (whether or not it's true), it should be about a week for the first block length, a month for the second, half a year for the third, a year for the fourth, and indefinitely for the fifth. Remember that this shouldn't be done if a user tells their own personal information. Also, those block lengths may seem harsh, but that's because telling personal information is very serious. Those are just suggestions, so if you want to make the lengths shorter or longer, you can. --Hadger 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The only difficulty in such a scheme is determining what is more severe. I think that could lead to people gaming the system - I can envisiage someone making milder insults that would nonetheless tend to derail productive discourse on article talk pages. I think that having shorter blocks that progressively get longer, with a reasonable reset time for each block level, would largely put a stop to that.

I'm definitely in agreement about anything where another editor endangers or threatens another editor, however in those cases I'd be doing a severe block that is outside of this policy, which I don't think really covers this situation. There is a bit of overlap with this policy and outing, but I think that the outing policy should only be applied when you can clearly see that an editor is digging around for someone's identity but hasn't made much headway. At the point they find the information and actually out the person, then they should be blocked for a reasonably lengthy period of time. I would not apply graduated blocks to that sort of situation, mainly because of the gravity of the action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know it had nothing to do with this policy, but even though, then if the user tells personal information about another user, they should be warned a smaller amount of times (maybe 2 or 3 warnings, because, like I said, telling another user's personal information is very serious). --Hadger 02:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sort of is part of this, under WP:OUTING, but we've not yet worked out the scope of the causes for blocking. I think that if another editor is outed involuntarily by another party that we should be cracking down very hard on the one doing the outing. I would personally not give any warnings whatsoever for outing attacks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm repeated what others have said (I didn't entirely read the above), but one thing to be mindful of is that our blocks should always be preventative. In other words, we should block for only as long as needed to quell the disruption (in this case, the personal attacks, harassment, and gross incivility.) The problem therein is "how long". Most of the "problem cases" discussed (Giano, Malleus, et al) are firmly entrenched in their behavior, in part because a segment of the community agrees with them. So even if they remained blocked for term, they are highly unlikely to see the error of their ways and will be back to it in no time. So then how long a block would we need for such chronic incivility? (Which is the only reason I really see for this policy; most newer contributors are much more likely to get punted and for longer periods.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Application to all Users

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

I don't see why not. NPA applies to admins and non-admins alike. So does 3RR, NPOV and NOR. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, as someone who's been on the receiving end of incivility gamesmanship, I don't like the unblock request option, period. I'm sorry, but that is a typical feature of some of the most uncivil editors I've run across on wikipedia - they have a number of good friends who flood any ANI thread with pleas, excuses, angry rants, and etc, with the result that their fair-haired troll gets blocks that are lifted so quickly it's tantamount to saying the blocking admin made a mistake. heck, in my own experience (back when I first started here) I had a well-established editor who followed me across several pages for three or four days, making numerous overtly insulting comments about me and my edits. I can't even list out all the policies that behavior violates (harassment, stalking, and incivility, for starters) - his 'punishment' was that he got a more or less politely-worded warning (and even that was a risk, because the admin who warned him got hit with a raft of angry talk-page comments). this, considering that if I had made even one of his comments I'd have gotten a three day block. If you really want to include unblock requests, then it ought to be set up like parole - there's a certain minimum time (say 30%-50% of the standard length) that needs to pass before any request will be considered, and if they do get unblocked they are are on zero tolerance for the remainder of he block period (i.e. one episode of the thing they got blocked for will put them right back in block for the remainder of the time). sorry, bit of a touchy issue for me. that experience almost turned me into a hard-assed wiki-cynic, as opposed to the amusing and genteel creature you see before you now. . --Ludwigs2 12:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with the essence of that. If somebody ignores an incivility warning and ends up blocked for it, they should serve it out, regardless of whether they're a 'crat or not even autoconfirmed. My hope is that a policy like this will prevent that kind of ANI flooding and disingenuous appealing- it'll be one of those "bright line" rules like the 3RR and if you break it, you just have to take the consequences. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 13:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify an above concern, I would love if there were some way to forbid the "clique unblock", but I just can't think of anyway at all it could be worded such that it could ever be enforced, and if written in a very generic and blanketing manner it would be impossible to prove during attempts of enforcement. I too cannot stand anyone that can escape a block like this. Also, I was trying to extend my logic from above about participation in such discussions being from involved admins, and TLDR overload is quick on issues sensitive to some admins. ...But damn right things like 3RR/edit warring and other really basic things that other users are blocked for should apply. Just that it very rarely happens (at best, on a good day, during a blue moon, when the planets align). At the very least I'd like to see a place where any user with blocking rights be required to post a rationale for any and all unblocks of others in the same category. The community already hates this enough so it'd be nice if we could point them somewhere to read what was being done and why so admins might be held responsible on questionable actions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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

• While I am all for users acting like civilized adults and not resorting to childish name calling, etc, this isn't going to work as it is framed now. Here's why: You can't just say "a personal attack=1 week block" or whatever. Why? Because there are different forms and levels of personal attack that merit different responses. Saying "that user is an idiot" is not the same as saying "that user is a worthless fucking douchebag and I'm going to cut off his head and crap down the neck hole before I ass rape them." See the difference? That's why the "speeding ticket" model doesn't work. There's no "radar gun" besides our own judgement to tell us how fast the car was going. No way would I block someone for just calling another user an idiot, if it wasn't part of a pattern of attacks, but the other remark would warrant an indef hardblock just on it's own. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thought: admins aren't really the "cops" of Wikipedia, they are more like the local magistrate. Vandal fighters and other users are the cops, they find the offenders and report them, and admins judge the seriousness of those offenses, including if they were given adequate warning to stop, and make a judgement based on that. Yes, it's inconsistent, sometimes people who don't deserve it get blocked, and sometimes nasty trolls get unblocked and are free to be jerks once again. It's not perfect, but it relies on judgement which admins are supposed to have. If we make some byzantine system of "sentencing guidelines" then we take the admins ability to make those judgements away. They would no longer be able to do things on a case-by-case basis, but would be forced to follow the "book." Wikipedia already has a system of rules/policies/guidelines/essays that are defacto policies to rival even California. Let's not make it worse by trying to codify this. On the other hand, I solidly agree that no amount of good contribs excuses prolonged nasty remarks and attacks, and experienced users who continue to make them in the face of repeated warnings to stop should be treated like any other troll/vandal/jerk. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I take your point, but I think the intention of this proposal is to deal with the more borderline cases- to show that incivility will not be tolerated. Calling somebody an idiot would merit a warning and then a brief block if the behaviour continues and admins or the blocked editor can refer to this, which would hopefully provide clear, codified guidance. In your other example, the attacker is clearly making threats of violence, for which any admin in their right mind would hopefully indef. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 21:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

it's 'parking ticket' not 'speeding ticket' - in my state, if you park in a handicapped zone you get a $275 fine - same rule applies to scooter-driving busboys and SUV-driving CEOs. The thought here is that garden variety incivility is just one of those things that happen because we're human and don't always think clearly - the penalty is a sharp reminder to pay more attention the next time. of course, if someone parks in a H-zone and then starts waving a gun around, he's going to get more than a fine; the incivility of threatening to cut someone's head off and ass-rape them is probably going to be overlooked by any admin trying to deal with the homicidal rage implicit in the statement. to that extent you're right - we ought to spell out both upper-limit and lower-limit criteria (what statements - e.g. general sarcasm - are too mild to be punished, and what statements - e.g. actual threats - are too major to be considered mere incivility). within those bounds, though, I do think penalties should be (as daTheisen put it) bright line rules, clear cut and uniform. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud Tbsdy's proposal. I agree that Wikipedia should attach consequences to an editor's being repeatedly blocked. I agree that Wikipedia should expel editors who are not here to help the project.

That being said, I would make a distinction between insult and the other types of misconduct. In the case of insults, I would put more steps in the process toward banning. I consider an insult less serious than, for example, disruptive editing. Disruptive editing causes visitors to Wikipedia to see a spoiled article. By contrast, an insult may not affect an article at all, or an insult may preserve a good article. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to have one block-log for insults, and another block-log for disruptive editing. PYRRHON  talk   03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen so many insults that have disrupted the flow of articles that it's hard to count them... I also have to disagree with Beeblebrox. The judgement that incivil conduct has occured is obviously up to the good judgement of administrators, but there should be consistency in the way that we warn and block. I think that most people would agree that it's quite inconsistent at the moment. Most editors won't need to have this applied to them as they are quite good at editing, it's only really a very small number of people who cause us these problems. This policy helps show that we have a low tolerance for this sort of behaviour.

And I would argue that saying "that editor is an idiot" should be seen as just as incivil as "that user is a worthless fucking douchebag and I'm going to cut off his head and crap down the neck hole before I ass rape them", because both show ill-intent and argue the editor, not their content. This is the sort of thing that we are trying to stop on Wikipedia, and I would consider blocking an editor who used such language, even if you would not. So would a lot of other admins.

As for it being "byzantine", I can't see how that is the case. First provide warnings, then do a short block to get their attention. Then block for a day, then a week, then a month and then indefinitely. Why is this is difficult to understand? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well, again, we need to take care with the escalation (I really dislike this escalation - it adds so many needless complexities). for instance, let's say someone get in a tiff on some page and ends up with a 24 hour block. after that they edit happily and productively until (5 months later) someone new says something that ticks them off and they call that new editor an idiot. a week's block in that case is absurd, no? there's got to be some escape valve or reset button for occasional incivility, otherwise everyone on wikipedia is going to end up indef blocked - no one is above losing their temper every now and then. --Ludwigs2 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't think of that... I'm 100% in agreement with you on this one, we definitely need a release mechanism here. What do you suggest? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well, under the escalation model, you'd probably want a progressive or an absolute expiration. progressive would be that each week after a given offense the the level drops by one (e.g., you get a 24 hour block, then for the next week you risk a week block, for the week after that you risk another 24 hour, beyond that you're back to warnings). absolute would mean that after a week or two the offense is forgotten (poof). anyone who can keep their head cool for a full week is probably not much of a problem to begin with. --Ludwigs2 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to the original poster, the situation with an incivil long-term Wikipedian is different from a newbie being so. Speaking from my own experience, there comes a point when someone has been participating with the Wikipedian community for years that the individual experiences a form of burnout. (I say "a form" because real burnout is permanent & since nothing can be done the person should simply leave.) That contributor experiences some event that has convinced her/him that the lunatics have, after long last, taken over Wikipedia, anyone who disagrees with her/him is an idiot, & there is no point to being civil to anyone here. I don't know why that happens, but every long-term contributor to Wikipedia has experienced it at one time or another -- including me. 24-hour, 1-week or 6-month blocks aren't going to fix the problem: the long-term Wikipedian doesn't trust the messenger, so the message will be ignored. In these cases, IMHO the only thing to do is to find someone the problematic Wikipedian still trusts to convince her/him that it is time for her/him to take a WikiBreak -- or be banned from Wikipedia. I believe that is the real reason why templated warnings & blocks aren't endorsed in these situations -- they simply don't work. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very much like me 2.5 years ago... can we incorporate Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars somewhere? I do think that we shouldn't be applying a different standard to regulars and newbies. However... we do already do this, because we tend to be more tolerant of newbies than editors who've been on the site for longer. I agree that regulars shouldn't be templated though - perhaps though we might be able to start a group to support regulars who are going through burn-out? Would that be helpful? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well, my own personal view is that if we start enforcing civility regularly and thoroughly, the burnout conditions will ease dramatically. I know from my own experience that the most frustrating, hateful thing on wikipedia is to have some [incivility deleted] editor nipping at you like a psychotic chihuahua and not being able to do a damned thing about it. zap people for incivility and you clear out bulk of the hostility on talk pages; clear out the hostility and it becomes much less stressful to edit. that will extend the half-life of editors a good bit. --Ludwigs2 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's part of it. The other part is that one can only handle so many frustrating encounters with contrary individuals who have an opposite opinion before frustration leads to possible burnout. I don't care how reasonable or polite one is -- that eventually happens to every one. One can only be aware that it will happen & be prepared for it. -- llywrch (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Differing Implementation

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

It's become pretty clear that this is meant as an "in spirit" policy along with civility itself and is a common sense balance against itself. That seems minor, but to actually have it down in writing that the community specifically takes incivility seriously is a very positive change in tone to many. It wouldn't require new templates or a noticeboard or anything I can think of since that's all already in place but are just considered "weakly enforced" by many as-are. I could make a case that this is almost an unnecessary proposal because infrastructure exists, but personally I'd prefer this as it would imply that deliberately ignoring incivility and permitting abuse isn't tolerated either. The desired venue would be WP:WQA ...I think? These things die cold and alone at ANI and even then a lot of users are just encouraged to file an RfC/U. Most don't, and that's a big escalation, and even then it's very rare for anything to happen in the end.

Basically, implementation would hopefully not require much more than mention and rewording in existing policy to point out specific attention to it. Incivility should be more freely used as block rationale like edit warring and general disruption are now and less excuse given to time passed since incident as NPA and harassment have long-term effects on others vs just text changes needed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... it definitely reflects a general concern that civility is not only appreciated, but it is expected :-) The mechanism can definitely be changed, this was my idea for what to do for consistency of blocking policy but of course I'm interested in other ideas... Doc, what were you thinking? My only concern around blocking is that we have some consistency. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What worries me is an arbitrary WP:IAR interpretation of the civility policies that does more harm to the project than good in burning out a good user that is unfortunately caught in a heated discussion like we all sometimes are. Doc Quintana (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... not IAR, but a bit of commonsense should be emphasised. However, I think that the policy of escalating blocks allows an editor a fair amount of lattitude to change their behaviour, but not so much that they can be disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Escalating blocks are no different than cool-down blocks, they are only likely to steer the user into feeling into a corner, make their behavior worse until they get an indef block and start creating socks. Civility can't come from force. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest as an alternative? Currently their is more incivility than ever. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales view

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

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

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

Burnout support?

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

Status-stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to say that might give the impression of some kind of "special status" or a position of authority which is generally though to be something we should avoid. In any case, if this proposal has any hope of getting accepted, it should be kept as simple as possible! Also (I'm not trying to pick your idea apart I promise) just having a clean block log doesn't mean an editor is always civil (mine's clean, but I've probably been less than polite in the past) and having been blocked does not necessarily mean one is uncivil. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

plus some eminently civil editors (such as myself) have been blocked a few times in the past. blocks are not punitive and they are not diagnostic. --Ludwigs2 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor rating systems don't really work well on Wikipedia articles. I should note that I've been blocked before, and this didn't stop me getting my admin rights back. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have never heard of such a ridiculous suggestion bubbling over with priggish hypocrisy in all my life, stars by people's names? Reminds me of those louche would be gigolos who keep little black books with varying stars by the name of each sexual conquest - I see my name is being taken in vain by the usual motley whining crew of Christian brothers up above - seemingly oblivious to the fact that I barely edit these days - never mind why let a little thing like that spoil your rants no doubt hiding your own inadequacies. If you don't want to be called an idiot, don't behave like one. Four star editors indeed - you lot aren't for real - just listen to yourselves: - "me - me - me I'm a four star editor! -I'm not like nasty Giano!" - get yourselves off and write some pages and do something useful. Like I used to do before you lot became totally puerile.  Giano  08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • wow! you'd be a hell of a lot of fun to squabble with. I'm almost tempted to agree with Pyrrhon just for the experience. but, no, I just can't bring myself to do it... --Ludwigs2 08:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Same Giano that I remember I see. How unfortunate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Same old Ta bu shi da yu, I see. How prissy. And here I was pleased to see you back. :-( Bishonen | talk 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC).
      • Meh. The irony of having you make an incivil comment about an incivil comment I made towards an even worse comment by Giano about an idea that is fundamentally against Wikipedia culture seems incongruous with this conversation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• If you want to see little twits not only being admins but signing their names with a series of stars like some sweat stained tinpot dictator wearing cheap alloy medals in some flea-bitten, disease ridden banana republic? then agree! Is that what Wikipedia has finally come to be - it appears so.  Giano  08:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Giano, could you please help me lobby for a system of negative stars, because zero stars is hardly low enough for me personally. I should carry at least minus nine stars (perhaps cut out from my wiki uniform in an attractive pattern of holes?): three for blocking an arbitrator,[1] three for being blocked by Jimbo,[2] and three for shamelessly taking the godking to RFAR.[3] Isn't it time real malevolents like me were marked by some effective brand of shame, so people knew to prevent me from editing articles? I scorn your piddling incivilities! Bishonen | talk 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC).
    • maybe instead of stars, those could be tiny whips (indicating Self-flagellation)? --Ludwigs2 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I think Ludwigs is headed in the right direction. Perhaps mechanization? [4]. Oberonfitch (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

• You get respect. And these here stars: *************************************************************************************** Bishonen | talk 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC).

I hate this star idea in that it goes against our very culture on Wikipedia. It is explicitly stated in policy that a talk page and/or user page is NOT to have badges or marks of embarressment or chastisement, warnings can be deleted, we do NOT mark people and we arent about punishment, we are about accepting that people can change and we warn them to encourage them to do so. We shouldnt be marking people and "watching" them. This will lead to some not accepting the viewpoints or contributions of "marked" or lesser star ranked editors in favor of higher ranked ones. We are ALL EQUAL. I am against any proposal which makes anyone look better than another. One editor may do better quality edits, but other than that we are all equal in our opinions and rights.Camelbinky (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the star thing is a good idea, but it wouldn't be good for Wikipedia. Like Camelbinky said, Wikipedia is not for punishment, and I think stars for editors would be somewhat punishment. Besides, what if an administrator starts to abusively block people for no reason, and because of that, the innocent user runs out of stars? Then what do we do? Besides, the star system would probably distract us from new editors doing vandalism and just make us watch anyone without 4 stars. I think it's better not to rate people by how they act, because, like Camelbinky said, we are all equal, whether or not we disrupt Wikipedia. Although blocking isn't suppose to be a punishment, I think that users who are blocked would be sad about being blocked, and I think rating that editor by stars would only make it worse for those people. Also, what if someone gets blocked, doesn't vandalize for a long time (so the user earns stars again), does vandalism again and gets blocked, and repeats that process of waiting a long time to vandalize over and over again? Like I said, this is a good idea, but, like Camelbinky said, it would also be embarrassing the user and punishing the user. I hope you don't get offended by my opinion, because I really think it is a good idea, but it would be punishing users and embarrassing them. Good idea, though! --Hadger 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• It reminds me of red vs. gold service stripes. Which is to say, we won't be doing it. But I would fancy a pair of epaulets in a size 6.--Father Goose (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Slyly teasing for the purposes of causing maximum outrage, upset and controversy is commonly referred to as trolling. In what way does behaviour such as that exhibited by Giano contribute to a friendly atmosphere that is conducive to excellence and collaboration on Wikipedia? I think that the day we accept this sort of mean-spiritedness is the day that we should reconsider our goals. Certainly I believe that those who are are against such baiting by such editors should not be blocked. But, please, feel free to go ahead and block myself if you think that your comments are fair and accurate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This really is half of the problem, as demonstrated so admirably by Tbsdy and others here. Sonebody makes a comment that is perceived as humourous or acceptable in one culture and then along comes another (in this case Tbsdy) and squeeks "Trolling" - what a complete inflammatory lie! Getting over one's pont using metaphor and idiom is not trolling, quite the reverse. If I see stars by a lady editor's name - I can't help it, I would immedidiatly think of the legendary "little black books", and so would many others! Equally, I'm sure some lady editors would think the same of stars by a man's name. Not even a s sad fact, just a true one. Is it trolling to say that, or are we treading on over delicate sensibilities by saying so? Tbsdy says "maximum outrage" -that's not outrageous - for God's sake. I refuse to bring myself down to the level of a few dull individuals who are represseb by the bourgeois, narrow minded, culture of the backwoods in which they were reared. If I were to call someone a "F..k w....g, q....h c..t- that would be incivil (even if true), but using idion and metephor to make a point even an unwelcome one is not being incivil. And this is most of the point, peope don't like the particular point being made quite reasonable - they squeek "trolling" and hope all the other morons will creep out of the backwooods and support their narrow point of view.  Giano  09:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• We could have a counterbalancing system of sense-of-humour stars: Someone with 4 civility stars and 0 humour stars would have as much standing as, say, someone, with 3 humour stars and 1 civility star. --JN466 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The star awards could be confusing. PS: I never was overly supportive of awards anyways. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No chance of working

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

well, that's why we're having this discussion. the point is, I think, that the current situation pretty much sucks, and so any effort to improve it is worth a try. this kind of policy could hardly make things worse, no? --Ludwigs2 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at what happened with WP:PAIN. This would just be used as another weapon in people's feuds.

The current situation sucks mainly in certain highly divisive areas, and where there are POV pushers and people with agendas. The problem there is that we do not have an effective mechanism to solve such content disputes. The 'incivility' is a natural result of the point of view and agenda pushing that goes on, but it isn't the problem in itself. Quantpole (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, I think it's because we don't have any effective means of promoting discussion towards consensus. I do think, though, that if we zap people for engaging in unproductive behavior, there won't be a lot left to do on talk pages except talk about content. --Ludwigs2 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quantpole raises a serious issue. He says an escalating-penalty system does not fix a preceding process—the process by which blocking occurs. Quantpole notes that the process by which editors are blocked is "open to gaming" and can be used as a "tool against people."

Quantpole is correct. The escalating-penalty system applies only AFTER the decision has been made to block an editor. Such a system does not shorten the blocking process. Such a system does not make the blocking process fairer. Such a system does not address the problem of who deserves a block. The escalating-penalty system does not address these issues at all.

I infer that Quantpole's point is this: there is no good reason to fix one part of an enterprise that has other parts which need fixing. We should either fix all the parts at one time, or leave Wikipedia as it is. Either we should have everything we want instantly; or we should have nothing.

If we leave Wikipedia as it is, the worst that can happen is that Wikipedia will lose some constructive editors, and present some bad articles. In response to some newspaper report recently, a spokesperson from Wikipedia responded that as 5000 editors leave, another 5000 register; so it seems Wikipedia can afford to lose editors.

If we fix one part at a time, then we will have to have endless discussions about what to do next, endless discussions of specifications and procedures, endless discussions about the wording of the protocol, endless ... endless ... endless.

Maybe we should leave Wikipedia as it is. What do you think? PYRRHON  talk   22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, I genuinely mean that it won't fix anything, and probably make it worse. Quantpole (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some observations (1) civility vel non is much in the eye of the beholder; (2) different people have sensitivities or a sense of propriety that may be narrower than others; (3) and the internet unlike RL doesn't easily permit use of sarcasm or emotion or much by way of context; (4) our block policy is not to be punitive yet this proposal seems purely punitive. Examples: is the abbreviation of a username uncivil? Does it matter whether someone prefers a style of address (how about, please preface your comments thusly: "If it may please your imperial majesty as my enfeebled thoughts run...") and others ignore it? Is swearing/cursing taboo? always? Must someone who looks at something which may appear uncivil look at the entire interaction between the parties to see if a block is warranted? Do I get to use the word "queer" because I'm gay, but if you straight people use it, block-a-rama time? Don't we have an encyclopedia to write rather than worrying about this tempest in a teapot. And if anyone finds what I have written uncivil, please forgive me it wasn't meant to be and please don't block me for it....grovel, beg, plead, wince, whimper, cry... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately too many of the established users around here have found that if someone disagrees with you or calls you out for doing something you shouldnt all you have to do is say at the particular forum, or also go to their talk page, and accuse them of "uncivil" behavior and "you are accusing me of stuff" and "you arent giving me good faith"; and therefore think they can mark the person or hurt their credibility in order of hopes of... well, I'm not sure of their motives, it varies, but usually to try to shut the person up or hope others dont listen to them in the future. Since these spurious charges show up on the talk page eventually they can be used in favor of a civility block. Making accusations of a "uncivil" behavior at an editors talk page without bringing an actual complaint to the wikittiquete board or AN/I should not be allowed. Too many on this page have talked about good contributors (like Giano and myself) who do alot of work but rub others the wrong way in forums when we call them out on things; its been said this can also scare away other good contributors. Really? I doubt it. Best thing for this proposed civility block policy proposal is for it to say "If someone says something rude you dont like, shake it off and tell them "I am walking away please dont comment further to me on this issue". If they comment again then it is uncivil and action will be taken." There should futher be a line between uncivil talk and uncivil action. An uncivil action should be banned, uncivil talk should not unless it is on another person's talk page after being warned not to further pursue the matter.Camelbinky (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, the harsh comments made by a number of people towards myself caused me to stop editing for some time before I left in 2007. Of course, there are a number of reasons I left which aren't that important to go through here, but the point is that I left for two and a half years and have only now had the courage and fortitude (not to mention time and energy) to come back again. I think that attacks by other editors is one of the leading causes of burnout on this site.

If you are being needlessly spiky, then... stop being needlessly spiky? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Example of recent incidents cause by a lack of policy

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

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

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

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

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

What is the point of having a policy stating 3RR is what should not be done if you (and others) are going to say doing 2RR is what is wrong. We are human beings, we arent all going to get along, we are going to rub each other the wrong way, some of us dont play nice. If a physicist/proffessor doesnt play nice and calls his colleagues "spherical bastards" (because they are bastards no matter what angle you look at them) and also discovers that the universe is actually speeding up (which would lead to the theory of dark energy) that doesnt mean his anti-social personality that pissed off other scientists and students alike leads to his contributions to science being banned, he didnt even get censured by the college he taught at. A US Senator can call another Senator a jack ass, and another one can actually cane close to death his own colleague, Senators and Congressmen can call names, yell, insult, and be uncivil on their respective floors and they dont get censured or kicked out (technically they can, but it has been RARE). I can go to another employee at my company or to my boss and say "look, XY is creepy and is a jerk to me, he's following me around and redoing my work in a manner that makes it worse while he says he's making it better"; around here in Wikipedia that would get me a civility block (and actually has happened for basically that sentence); in the real world the boss would have a talk with the creepy jerk who was doing actions, not anything against me for talking. Let's worry about ACTION that affects articles and NOT talk that is between editors; the only caveat to that is unwanted talk on a users talk pages, none of us should have other editors continue to comment on our own talk page after having asked them to drop it.Camelbinky (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Piffle. It doesn't matter whether you're in academia, or an office, or the senate - if you start doing things that interfere with the way that the organization runs, you're out. a scientist can be an ass, but he can't be an ass to the extent of interfering with other scientist's experiments; a senator actually cannot call another senator a jackass (that's specifically against senate rules, and he'd get censured for it as a pro forma action); a boss is far more likely just to fire someone than to have a talk with them, and the 'who gets fired' bit is more a matter of politics than reason. You want to fight with another user, do it in user talk - incivility on article or article talk pages simply interferes with with the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and it ought to be stomped on, gently, but with nary a shred of mercy. --Ludwigs2 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Im a bit confused, here I am thinking I have a degree in Poli Sci and am working on my masters for it as well... WAIT that IS true! So, I think I'll stick with my analogy, YES a Senator can in fact call another Senator a jackass, oh and look up how often any member of Congress has been censured IT IS RARE compared to the amount of BS these guys pull off everyday. The example with the scientist had NOTHING to do with messing with experiments, never said that. You are talking about ACTION, I am talking about speech, which is what this incivility discussion is about, please do not change my analogies in order to prove them wrong, and the example with the scientist I gave is an actual one, he really exists (well, he did, he's dead now). So in your last sentence stating "You want to fight with another user, do it in user talk", means that you support me in that I should never have received a 24 hour block for calling another editor a "jerk who is creepy and has been stalking me" in a third-person's user talk page? Thank you if that is so. But on the other hand you are implying that it is ok to "fight" in your words (or be incivil as I'm interpreting it) in talk pages, whereas I am specifically stating "If someone tells you to not pursue a matter or comment on their talk page THEN it is uncivil to make ANY comments on the talk page, with exceptions for notification of being brought forth to AN/I, etc." Uncivil ACTIONS such as vandalism, disruptive editing, etc (in the analogy you give this would be the scientist messing with experiments) is not covered by uncivil action policies and guidelines, they are editing actions already banned by policies dealing with them. Uncivil talk is what this is about. We can all agree actions should be banned. What we are disagreeing on is whether uncivil talk should be on the same level. My OPINION is that talk is sacrosanct and it is "piffle" to state that people are leaving Wikipedia because there are people who talk like asses. Uncivil actions, which actually dont get the attention and quick bans that talk does, are what is causing Wikipedians to bail. We are an encyclopedia, messing with our work is what pisses us of; insults are words. "Vandalism and excessive tagging may break my article, but uncivil words will never hurt me". With some editors beliefs of uncivility I can claim you were uncivil with me just now when you called my ideas "piffle". We are all equal here btw, my opinions and beliefs arent piffle and in fact JUST as valid as yours (or more so regarding poli sci when we consider I am in fact an expert in political science).Camelbinky (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum- Have you ever attempted to fire someone?! I have fired people, and it isnt easy after their 30 day probationary period because companies even in a work-at-will state you must fire with cause (which generally means having given two previous disciplinary actions (written "warnings" or "write ups" following "verbal warnings", which verbal warnings must still be on paper and signed by the employee as documentation they received them even though its verbal its still written) on the SAME infraction) or an infraction for which the employee manual states is an offense of "immediate termination" (even then iffy without prior warnings) or else the employee may receive unemployment benefits, which means the company's unemployment insurance premiums go up, and EVERY company fights those and will never allow supervisors to fire someone in a manner which will cause that except in the most unavoidable instances; which is why even small companies have an HR director (they arent there to protect the "human resource" from their bosses, they are there to protect the company by giving advice to supervisors in how to deal with the "resource" and they actually have talked me through on how to "get ride" of a person, it sometimes means MONTHS of waiting and disciplinary actions before termination). It is in fact very difficult to fire someone for uncivil talk or for anything in fact that would get someone a 24 hour ban on Wikipedia. So NO, if I called another employee a "jackass who bothers me" to my boss, I wont get fired, and he probably wont either.Camelbinky (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The actual US senate rules for debate procedures. Note clause 2: "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." Calling another senator a jackass would generally be held to violate this proscription. Whether it gets applied or not is a different issue (I don't have high regard for the current state of the senate). and I'll match your 'almost Masters' against my PhD any day, so don't even go there.

to the point, however. Speech is an action, particularly on Wikipedia where all we are doing is working with words. When someone is making a protracted effort to use speech in a way that causes commotion, confusion, emotional stress, and general bad feelings, he is doing as much (if not more) to disrupt the creation of the encyclopedia as a vandal who is actually editing in nonsense. Vandals are actually easier to deal with, and cause less harm. I mean, really - what are you trying to preserve here: your own ability to call other editors jackasses? I wouldn't mind if you called me a jackass once, in the heat of the moment - that's excusable. if you kept doing it every time we interacted I would sure as hell want to see you blocked, and you would want to see me blocked if I kept doing it to you. There have to be some rules of order, and they have to be enforced, or there will be no order. --Ludwigs2 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2, and actually regarding the first two replies: Your points are certainly fair, but as much as I wish I might be able to loosen up into a less-than-polite manner sometimes... this isn't the real world. It's Wikipedia. Because the assumption is that some users have zero tolerance on incivility, enforcement can and should be a wide blanket. I'm not saying anyone who's called on it gets any kind of reprimand, and in mild cases and one-off anger boiling over for 1 edit at random a trouting is probably more effective. On the 2RR thing, I'm using it as an example of where a similar policy to what I'd hope this could be already exists. Admins have and will block at that point of it's an ongoing edit war since "edit warring" or general clueless behavior is a block rationale. Maybe think of this as how the police try to enforce speed limits. Everyone claims they'll contest their ticket since they insist they've done nothing super wrong, but 90% of people ticketed wake up the next day and understand they were an idiot. No one chooses an abusive work field if they know they can't take it, but editors here don't sign a disclaimer to start and must agree that they can be verbally abused to no end and have to suck it up, and yes, even if an admin considers them a wuss we will isten.

I think a fair part of actual incivility blocking would be a chance to apologize directly, or at least the user might admit they were being an idiot if it's not a common trend. Even a indirect apology via a confessions of some stupidity can help a lot. We can't force people to feel bad and be "sorry", so this is all we can ask for.. This is a stupid ciché, but we should make a victim comfortable to continue on as normal again... as I said, this is how we lose a lot of editors. I don't know why this was never strictly enforced in the mainspace. Do I have a case study on editors putting in less effort or just leaving because of these things? No. But why can't as close to 100% of that be avoided or even 1 editor lost when it's preventable? There's a reason we're too often mocked in the media and are talk show comedy punchlines, one being that any combative and abusive 14-year-old from Boise can indeed bite a Noble Prize winning new editor away in massive frustration with but a few edit summaries. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See, if you ask me, the apology thing is not the correct approach. the whole civility problem amounts to an attempt to substitute affective/emotional reasoning for content discussion - it's a psychological power play, where you try to make yourself look bigger and better or make the other person look smaller and weaker, in the hopes of gaining some kind of editing advantage (god that sounds twisted when you put it straight out - lol). asking someone to apologize or making someone plea for unblocking are merely psychological power plays in their own right, which serve to perpetuate the problem. In my view we simply need to remove the psychological power element entirely. make it so that if anyone tries to play a psychological power game like this they are removed from editing for a short, predefined, set-in-stone time, with no other consequences, no escalation, no escape, no drama - nothing that will feed the beast (e.g. nothing that will make them feel like they won or make them feel victimized). if they can't get any psychological satisfaction out of being uncivil, and are prevented from editing for short times with each incidence, the urge toward incivility will rapidly disappear. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

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

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

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

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

Proposal:

== Incivility == The Wikipedia culture is one of mutual respect and finding ways to work with other users. Users with a criticism of another user should either talk to that user, ignore that user, or seek dispute resolution if there is evidence of a genuine concern. Users who instead express their disapproval of another user or their actions in a personally directed, provocative, crude or disruptive manner unlikely to aid the project or resolve any personal differences, are likely to be in breach of this policy. On Wikipedia, incivility generally involves pointed comments that do not objectively aid the dialog or set out facts. Uncivil words or comments usually meet the following criteria: Targets someone: targets a specific user or real-world peoples; Is usually negative: usually (but not always) phrased in such a way as to be taken as derogatory, insulting, or egregiously offensive by ordinary people if they were in the target's situation; Improper character: unlikely to be posted in order to aid calm evidence-based collaborative handling of a matter, but instead appear intended to inflame emotions, or for their negative effect on the target or those sympathetic to the group; Lacks project benefit: objectively seems to have little or no project benefit - i.e. nothing seems gained from the wording except personal satisfaction from the inclusion of the uncivil words or statement (for example a rhetorical question, smear, slur, or insult); Meets the "redaction test": could easily be removed or paraphrased without loss of any material significant to the project debate. Incivility is often due to frustration and often best ignored or gently asked to stop. Do not over-react to trivial lapses or brief frustration that will quickly blow over, as this can cause the matter to escalate. However a user who grossly or repeatedly engages in incivility may be warned or blocked as below. Incivility is also blockable when it reaches the level of personal attacks, outing, harassment or disruption, as described in those policies.

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

That looks perfect as an introduction. It leaves enough scope for common sense and emphasises that we would prefer editors to communicate amongst themselves before we are forced to block the editor.

I think the next stage is to work out the general process for blocking. I still maintain that a gradual but escalating set of blocks might be the way to go. We obviously need to be able to allow people to make mistakes, and it was agreed above that we need to ensure that the escalation can be forgotten if a good faith attempt to curb attacks has been made.

What about:

Proposal:

== Enforcement == Any editor who is deemed to be so uncivil that it causes disruption or an unwelcome environment in which to contribute to Wikipedia will be firstly warned, then a set of gradual but escalating blocks will be applied. These are not done with the intent of punishing the editor, but are put into place to protect the general project and allow participants the greatest chance of improving the quality and scope of the encyclopaedia, within the scope of the various policies and guidelines that govern it. The general process with which to block an abusive editor is detailed below. 1. Discussion: The editor is warned via any number of generally accepted mechanisms. Calm discussion with the editor in question is encouraged. It is by far preferrable that a good faith attempt be made at resolving differences, or if necessary a friendly caution be directed to the editor to make them aware that their behaviour is unacceptable. Other mechanisms to consider include Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and (... fill in the blanks...). 2. First warning: A formal warning should be given to the editor by an uninvolved party that specifically details the unacceptable behaviour and explains what will occur if it continues. 3. Short block: A short block (no more than 30 minutes to an hour) should be made, with an explanation as to why they were blocked. The block warning should detail that this is the first block for incivility. This enforcement is deliberately to be made as short as possible – its purpose is not to punish but to show that we are serious about abuse on Wikipedia. 4. One day block: If the editor continues with the same behaviour, then a day long block should be given. The block summary should note that this is because of further incivility, and as before an explanation should be provided as to why they were blocked for a day. 5. One week block: The next block for abusive behaviour should be a week long block, using an appropriate blocking summary and an explanation provided on their talk page. 6. One month block: The last level of block before an indefinite block. Again use an appropriate block summary, only this time a stern admonition should be used on their talk page. Be careful not to engage in uncivil language when making this. It should be made clear that this is their last chance to improve before they are indefinitely blocked from contributing to Wikipedia. At this point, the blocking administrator should report the block to WP:AN/I. 7. Indefinite block: At this point all avenues have been exhausted an the editor has proven that they are not able to participate in an appropriate way to Wikipedia. An indefinite block should be made with a brief explanation that they are no longer welcome on Wikipedia. The hope with a set of escalating blocks is that editors will be rehabilitated well before more drastic blocks are made. To allow editors to change their ways, previous blocks should be periodically reviewed on WP:AN and the community should decide whether the escalation level should be reset. We are concious that there will always be a number of editors who try to game the system, so in order to prevent disruptive behaviour escalations should be periodically reviewed by the wider administrative community instead of resetting the escalation level after a fixed time frame.

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

It is good. I don't know if we need the person giving the first warning to be uninvolved. I often tag the recipient of a personal attack objecting to it as sign of first warning, if the warning is not legitimate then that is not to hard to see. Clearly defined escalations are a good idea as people tend to look at a users 20th incident of personal attacks in a vacuum and ask why it was a whole week for just one comment. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I want an uninvolved editor to make the warning is because what I've tended to find is that if the involved party makes the warning it doesn't sound like a constructive criticism, but an open attack. Our goal here, I think, is to try to deescalate the situation. Having an uninvolved editor helps with this process. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I like the way this has developed and I think that, with the enforcement section, it actually has a chance of working. Uncivil editors are given plenty of chances to play nicely with other editors and I think the part about not over-reacting is especially important. I'm glad we have something that shows incivility will not be tolerated while giving plenty of chances for somebody to correct their behaviour. Pending any tweaks that may be required, I think this should be formally proposed and listed on WP:CENT in the near future. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't normally prescribe blocks and warnings to this level of detail. Enforcement can almost be left to admin discretion, or a much simpler format chosen. My question here is the core approach to civility, because that's almost always been the stumbling block. If we can agree somewhat a wording that covers what civility is about (and what it isn't), enforcement is by far the easier part. [I've retitled the section back. If there's a reason the title change helps, drop me a note :) ] FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno FT2, we are pretty prescriptive when it comes to 3RR and that has worked amazingly well, all things considered. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

One of the big concerns is that people might game this system, and we currently use arbitrary block lengths. This often leads to the situation whereby an admin considers the block length inappropriate and when the editor appeals, they will often find that they can worm their way out of the perfectly considered block of the first blocking admin. With a process such as this, we can gradually escalate the blocks, which gives the editor time to make amends before they are indefinitely blocked from the project. This is actually quite a bit better than the currently system, whereby an abusive editor can go on for months at a time, before everyone gets so angry at their behaviour that they go from many one and two day blocks, to an indefinitely block. At least there is some consistency in this method of blocking.

As for prescribing what civility is, I think that FT2 has that covered in his opening statement. I think we can largely leave that up to the good sense of most administrators - and when there is concern we have our avenue of review, which is WP:AN and WP:AN/I. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother, I think its late here because I totally misread that. Ignore what I wrote above, I'm going to get some shuteye and come back tomorrow to respond. Sorry Suomi, I really shouldn't be up this late! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Alternate proposal

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

== Incivility == Wikipedia tries to promote a culture of mutual respect and cooperation, where editors find civil ways to work with each other productively. Occasional personal conflicts are inevitable, and users may need to discuss their differences in user talk space, agree to avoid each other for a period of time, or even seek dispute resolution or administrator intervention if personal incivilities become overwhelming. When incivilities appear in article or article talk space, however, they begin to interfere with development of the encyclopedia. Users who express their disapproval of other users in a provocative, crude, or disruptive ad hominem manner are likely to be in breach of this policy. On Wikipedia, incivility generally involves pointed comments that are more likely to inflame emotions than contribute positively to the discussion. Statements or comments that satisfy one or more of the following would meet the criteria for incivility: Targeted: Comments that accuse other users of personal traits, group memberships, ideological beliefs, or other characteristics that supposedly dictate those users' actions. Slanderous: Comments that ascribe motivations, intentions, moods or other psychological states to users that those users would (or do) explicitly reject. Dysfunctional: Comments whose primary effect is to derail the conversation into a non-productive personal disputes. === Enforcement === Incivility is often due to frustration, and mild forms are best ignored or responded to with a polite request to stop. Over-reacting to trivial lapses can often create escalation, which may lead to administrative action against all parties involved. Before considering administrative action against a user, make sure the case meets the following tests Redaction test: Could the comment be removed or rephrased, in whole or part, without removing some important element of the discussion? Commentary essential to the discussion at hand should not be considered uncivil. Flood test: Is the comment a momentary, singular flood of temper, or is it purposive? An exclamation in a moment of irritation is excusable, but a protracted effort against other editors - either as part of a heated argument or as a more-or-less rational attempt to demonstrate there is something 'wrong' with another editor - should be considered uncivil Where comments pass these tests, the users should on first offense receive a 30 minute warning block designed to make them aware of the incivility. All subsequent incivilities should receive a mandatory, unappealable 24 hour block. If multiple editors are involved in an uncivil dispute, all editors who contribute uncivil comments should receive the same block. It is hoped that the 24 hour block will provide a sufficient disincentive to incivility without impacting on the editor's long-term ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, editors who repeatedly engage in incivility regardless, or who try to evade blocks or game the system to their advantage should receive more extensive sanctions under other wikipedia policies, such as personal attacks, outing, harassment or disruption.

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

There were some reasons for the initial wording that are missed out here. For an "agreed policy", civility is perhaps the most argued over and wikilawyered policy of all of them. Quick comments on the wording:

1. The original was deliberately short (eg 1st paragraph). It focused upon what incivility is. Everything like handling incivility, alternatives to being uncivil, what to do if tempers rise, can all go in a separate section. Look at Edit warring policy for a good example of splitting out "what you can do to avoid problems" from "description of the problematic behavior itself". Keep this section purely about defining incivility. Explain everything else below.
2. Incivility is not just about "in article or article talk space". They affect the project in any space. Most incivility probably happens in talk, user talk, and project spaces.
3. It's better to define incivility in terms of what it usually excludes than by positives v. negatives. The latter is far more gameable. "Incivility usually involves pointed comments that aren't helping the debate." Then list the criteria. Short and simple.
4. "Statements of comments that satisfy one or more... would meet" is too definitive and also too broad, hence gameable. Better to say "Uncivil words and comments usually meet these criteria".
5. "One or more" means anyone can call "incivility" if just one criterion is met. Eminently gameable.
6. In your criteria (any of: targeted, slanderous, dysfunctional) there is huge slippage. The original wording will catch a lot of that. This version won't.

Overall I see what you're trying to do, but I don't think it works. There are too many ways that a capable "provoker" could still be incivil that it wouldn't cover, and too many loopholes for incivility to be called when it wasn't really so. The original is a test that I think would probably work in the majority of real cases, but this one wouldn't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm not so sure about the original approach. for instance, let's say I went to some page and said: "Editor X is an inveterate POV-pusher for position Q, and so all of his edits and comments should be removed/ignored as ignorant and biased because of the damage they to the encyclopedia". I could then argue that this (1) doesn't target a user (it speaks about his behavior); (2) is not negative but descriptive; (3) is a calm and factual statement; (4) is beneficial to the project by disposing of crap; and (5) no part can be removed from it without changing the meaning of the point. By the time I finish that, I will have thoroughly insulted Editor X 5 times over. my wording cuts that kind of thing off at the knees because it prohibits ascribing or talking about editors characteristics or intentions. --Ludwigs2 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The old "I was calling his comments ignorant not him" wouldn't work so well under this definition because it's a comment that clearly talks about a specific user, and most people in that position would consider describing "all" of someones actions as "ignorant" to be negative or insulting. Civility is a well-known "hard to define" issue, and examples like this will help to fine tune any proposal. But "hard to define" isn't a good reason not to try; many policies relate to matters that are "hard to define" or culturally related. We might have to accept that we can improve it, but won't be able to prevent every last issue with it. That said, a "typical examples" page would do a lot to cut down the scope for dispute. Examples pages exist to help clarify other policies too, such as WP:NPOV (words to avoid) and wheel war policy (WP:WHEEL/Examples).

If such a page existed then the example you give would probably be one of them with a brief explanation why it would be deemed uncivil ("This would usually be considered uncivil. A judgmental comment about a person's general actions on-wiki (or in some area of the project) is effectively the same as a general comment about that person, for civility purposes. In general, broad and pointed claims like this should usually be avoided. It is usually better to actually explain why the user is in error, than just labeling them in an inflammatory manner. If their lack of understanding is causing problems then seek dispute resolution rather than needlessly inflame the situation."). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, it might be a good idea to create a list here that gives examples of comments that are uncivil - we could debate them, decide what's to minor for punishment and what's drastic enough to get sent to other policies for more severe action, and would generally help us all focus the discussion. maybe add a {{todo}} box with the list, so that we can kep the list and the discussion of it separate? what do you think? --Ludwigs2 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh good Lord, please tell me there wont be a "list of unacceptable language" actually spelled out in policy on Wikipedia resulting in blocks. This isnt television or radio, editors arent George Carlin and admins arent the Supreme Court. Cant everyone please find better things to do and just ignore those that call you a name? All this talk is revolving around TALK, and does not address ACTIONS that are uncivil and are much more disruptive. Someone can wikiharrass me by obsessively following my talk page and contributions and disrupt and harass my contributions and posts and I'm told nothing can be done... if I go to a third-party and say what I think of the editor doing such a thing, THAT is crossing the line and I get a 24-hour block... am I the only one who see's a problem with that?! I have yet to see anyone take time to explain HOW someone calling them a jackass, dipshit, or ignorant has EVER caused them to not be able to edit... I cant see how, at least not on the par with someone reverting your contributions, deleting, and disrupting talk pages by refusing to even acknowledge the legitimacy of consensus on an issue. Please, cant everyone just focus on editing and researching an encyclopedia and stop with the social engineering, people are people and such draconian methods to enforce some arbitrary idea such as "civility" (which is subjective in nature, and not all of us even acknowledge such a concept) is futile and leads to more pent up anger, resentment, and disputs; especially with having these things drawn out through noticeboards and AN/I, etc etc. Let insults die on the spot; the insulter gets his/her frustration out but doesnt get any satisfaction that may lead to escalation; the insultee by letting it go gets the satisfaction of denying satisfaction to the insultor. Ignore ignore ignore. Please!Camelbinky (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell you're an idiot. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. (and this takes away from the humour) but that was a joke. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If we were all the Dalai Lama, nobody would be insulting, and nobody would be insulted. But we're not. I'm pretty careful to stay cool when the editing gets hot, but nothing causes me more wikistress than hostility. You just cringe inside when you encounter it -- you know right away, "oh, shit, here's going to be a person who is going to make getting this encyclopedia written an absolute hell."

Is "hostility" subjective? Not to an unaddressable degree. There are plenty of times when one can say "this person is really swinging the club". And for the life of me, I don't know why we should be willing to tolerate people who behave like that. If people aren't willing to collaborate -- worse still, if they're behaving in a way that sabotages the collaborative spirit, deliberately or otherwise -- I think they should be moved right the fuck off the encyclopedia. Just like how you escort someone out of a business who is causing trouble. We're trying to get something done here. People who want to act like manchildren should do it somewhere else.

Now, does that mean we should police language, specifically? No. I just cursed twice, and not to prove a point. You might also note that I used the word "hostility", not "civility". Maybe that's a critical distinction. I've had awful hostility directed at me by people who were nonetheless studiously civil. So never mind being "civil" -- don't throw fists. Don't edit-war, don't scream, don't badger, don't refuse to listen to other people. Act in a way that makes us realize that you don't think you're the only person on the encyclopedia, let alone the only person who's "right". That's my gut-check for whether a person's upholding their obligation to everybody else who works here.--Father Goose (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I don't really have an issue with swearing, just open hostility. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A secular 'Amen' to that.

Comment by GoodDay

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

Not everyone has that ability. I can ignore rude comments directed at me, and you can, but if Joe Editor can't and leaves Wikipedia as a result, or objects to the comment which escalates a discussion into drama, then it's disruptive and should not be ignored. An intolerance for incivility makes Wikipedia a more collegial environment for the kind of collaboration necessary for article development among people who will often have different (and conflicting) opinions on an article's content. -- Atama頭 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but if enough editors (who dislike such behaviour) can make it clear to a potty mouth that he/she will be ignored in any discussion, then he/she might get the message - 'watch thee mouth'. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but the result of that would be that every page on wikipedia would end up being owned by the most uncivil person present. if an editor realizes that he can enforce his contributions by insulting, degrading, and attacking other editors (with just enough restraint that he can't be blocked on other grounds) so that other editors will avoid the page, he can pretty much add whatever material he likes to articles unchecked. This happens all the time on pseudoscience articles, and if you look at the talk pages of contentious articles like global warming or creationism you'll see that the vast majority of comments are aggressive insults designed to drive new editors away from the page (or attack old editors for page ownership). I can't even tell you how many times I've been called a 'fringe POV pusher' and been told to take a hike when I've edited those kinds of pages. it gets old. I'm probably more persistent and assertive than 95% of the people on wikipedia when it comes to things like that, and it wears me down; I can't imagine what it's like for someone without my sticktoitiveness. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI does work in a lot of cases, but for trolling purposes usually. We also can't force people to follow that mindset or are even aware of that essay. Disruption for the purpose of ranting or bating and disruption with a direct intent to "damage" or do emotional harm are also quite different, and it's the later we never enforce. (I know this is a rather Utopian view, but) Our base assumption should be that all editors are 6, dedicated scholars and are open top compromise... but are emotionally fragile VERY exaggerated but the safe route, but we do need realize that some users take things more personally than others at all experience levels. A general question an admin would ask him/herself if this was reported might be "if I had just joined, would have been put off by this statement?" ... a duck test somewhat, and this would best be most strictly enforced in the mainspace. I also have to face reality and entirely admit that it'd be administrative/janitorial suicide for level 3+ warnings on ta first goa little leeway with a first warning trouting in the main project space / WP:whatnots. Although not an admin it's entirely obvious to me that the boundaries on "uncivil" bend a lot more in policy or disciplinary discussions.

Actually, troutings are good, period. imo some leeway should be given on the severity of an initial violation in the same manner that a normal disruptive edit might start at level2-3 if it's exceptional. I'd be be incredibly weary and have to oppose any 1-warning-only before a block short something like criminal threats which are often blocked on the spot already. So long as infinite strings of final warnings disappear as much as possible. We're getting somewhere here, slowly! I'm optimistic. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For myself, obnoxious behaviour on the talkpages doesn't intimidate me. However, I reckon there are editors (particularly newbies) who can be Wiki-bullied away. If WP:CIVIL is to be strenghted, low tolerance of threatening foul-language can be effective. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO before we even start talking about blocking users for incivility, we should decide what to do with uncivil administrators, but as long as even a member of the Arbcom states that by being uncivil the administrator has not violated the "administrative tools" IMO there's no use in talking about blocking uncivil users.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I think this may be a source of some confusion. I've been advocating for short, non-escalating blocks specifically as a form of trouting (being told you can't edit for a day because you were mean is a pretty effective fish-slap). however it works, I really want to separate out grarden-variety incivility from more serious disruptive behavior. editors who are trying to edit constructively but lose their cool should get a time-out (they should really take a time out on their own, but few people have that kind of self-reflectiveness); editors who are actual problems should be dealt with under more serious policies. So long as we keep trying to deal with civility and disruptive editing under the same heading it's going to cause massive confusion. it already does: I can point to dozens of instances in ANI where block discussions circle the drain endlessly around: "Yes what s/he did was wrong, but s/he is a valuable contributor to the project...". If we can clarify that even valuable contributors might lose their cool and get short blocks on occasion, and that that's ok for the good of the project, that will make things much easier and ANI can go back to dealing with real problem characters. --Ludwigs2 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mind ya, there are some editors who are habitual potty mouthed, including big contributors. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Mbz1: if you ask me, uncivil admins should get the same mandatory short blocks as anyone else. It would be an abuse of the tools to unblock themselves, so no worries. --Ludwigs2 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by administrators? Perhaps we could be the judges. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@GoodDay, I do not believe it works. Arbcom just rejected my request to desysop an uncivil administrator in spite I gave them more than 10 differences of his behavior.IMO it is much easier to become an admin than to loose the tools.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe, if we elect them, we should be allowed to recall them. Time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwigs, Well, you might be right in some cases, but not in the others. Sometimes it is really hard to stop using language one is used to. What to do in such situations? Block after block, after block? And then what?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Barring people with Tourette syndrome, I don't think that issue applies. No one is going to get a civility block if they habitually say fuck, shit, and piss (that's unpleasant, maybe, but not uncivil). People will get civility blocks for saying "He's a fucking piece of shit, and he pisses me off". Any reasonable editor will get at most two or three such blocks before catching on that stuff like that can't be said with impunity, and after that will stop doing it (except for the occasional extreme provocation situation). editors who won't or can't stop will keep getting benched, and I imagine some formal or informal criteria will work itself out (e.g. any editor who spends too much time on the bench over the period of a couple of weeks) where admins can say it's no longer merely a matter of civility, but now a matter of disruptive editing. Then they can start doing escalating blocks under disruptiveness policies. --Ludwigs2 22:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I honestly believe that administrators never should use the words you mentioned, and besides, if a user is using the words like those rather sooner than later, he will use them to call the names as in your example. IMO your first examples using words only is incivility, your second example is incivility + personal attack. Down with such administrators. They do much more harm than they do good. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, the words Ludwigs2 listed have their place, & I will use them when I think the occasion calls for their use. However, I am also aware that overuse not only weakens their impact but distracts the reader from the message -- so I will use them as sparingly as one uses a pungent spice in cooking. On the other hand, habitual use of these words would lead to someone asking the user to "clean up your language", & if several people have done this without the user cleaning up her/his act that person will get banned for disruption. In short, let's not belabor the point; pottymouths will be shown the door regardless what the rules are. -- llywrch (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I find it off-putting when in some debate an editor with a different view says "You are ignorant about topic X, and your statements are ridiculous, silly nonsense." There should be a policy requiring civility outlawing personal attacks with some provisions for enforcement when the offending party refuses to delete or strike the offending remarks and instead reiterates them or parses the definitions of the offensive words they use to get their way. The constructive edits done by a persistently rude editor do not outweigh the potential constructive edits which might have been done by all those they drive off the project by their incivility. Edison (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are making the asumption that from time to time complete idiots do not turn up pretending to know about subjects about which in reality they have not a clue. Is one to waste valuable time discussing with such people when one can cut straight to the point and say "You are ignorant about topic X, and your statements are ridiculous, silly nonsense."? And before you start to argue, let me tell you, I have experienced such a person on these pages only very recently, and most reading this will know of whom I refer. Yet, in spite of all - he is encouraged in his folly and continues in his pontifications on civility - such people invite incivility and deserve it. It's the only language they understand. These people should ask, why me? Why are so many people incivil to me so often and not to others? A little introspection would help to solve a lot of problems. There should be a policy protecting the rest of us from these fools.  Giano  22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are better informed than the person with a different view, it is still not desirable in a project such as this for you to attack or bully by saying "You are ignorant, and what you say is foolish ridiculous nonsense!" Instead you could say "You apparently are not familiar with Ohm's Law (or whatever) which shows that blah and blah, quite contradictory to your assertions." Going to "You fool!" "You idiot!" "You ignoramous!" is deserving of a block. Edison (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Edison. Giano speaks for a number of other users in this regard, but there is overwhelming consensus, policy, and administrator and arbcom precedent that it is not acceptable to demean or abuse users even if they are (factually) ignorant or incorrect on topics.

Participants in this project must treat each other with at least a minimum acceptable level of respect and tolerance; failure to do so has been and remains grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Giano, Arbcom has now walked two long term good content contributors who refused to stop acting in a manner felt by wide parts of the community to be abusive out the door with yearlong blocks. I would hope that this would indicate that the policy on civility and personal attacks is strongly held by the community writ large, as represented by Arbcom and the admin community, and that violent disagreement with the policy is a worse idea now than it ever has been.

You (and others) are welcome to continue to disagree with the wisdom of the policy. But it is perhaps a better idea now to advocate and disagree by word rather than abusive deed or blatant disregard. The policy can change, but attempting to protest it by being abusive (or disregard policy and continue to act abusively elsewhere) is probably a really bad idea. Please don't encourage anyone to self-destruct on this point. If you chose to yourself - so be it, but please don't take anyone else with you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You try writing a decent page and then having some complete idiot wanting to destroy it because he is trolling for attention. On the last occasion the whole of Wikipedia knew he was troling for attention - where you you, the Arbcom or any of the civility police then? Were any of you concerned about the content? No, all were sitting dithering on your hands - praying I was going to be incivil to that ridiculous person. The civility police behave like a lot of ancient old ladies, sitting knitting mishapen garments, waiting dribbling for someone to use the word "fuck" so they can leap out of their chairs in exitement. Do not presume GWH tp lecture and hector me, many editors are sick of this attitutde by a few obsessed with civility and will no longer tolerate it. If the Arbcom choses to humour the knitting old ladies over content, then perhaps we need a new Arbcom!  Giano  08:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by WFCforLife

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

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

You are correct in that it shouldn't be needed. Try to think of it as saying one can be cited for speeding even if "obey all the signs" is already obvious. If anything, this is meant deflate admin status-- at least from the public perception-- by making it clear that the 'watchers watch the watchers' as part of it. I know it's one of the 5, but detailed things under the others already have their own policy. Of course there'll have to be community talk and admins offering opinions that seem self-centered will have to be questioned. I too feel just dirty in general for wanting to see this in writing since anyone who can't follow it probably should be avoiding Wikipedia in the first place.

It's also not so much that we're trying to lower the threshold, but making very clear that the current standard is a blockable matter as inexcusable behavior here and having a some details defined under it. The common public perception of Wikipedia being a bias, self-serving group of elitist editors and administrators that are above all laws is something everyone should be ashamed of, which is why I've specifically mentioned equal application to editors at higher user rights levels. It's hoped and assumed that some non-admin editors will comment, but yes I agree this is exceptionally important this time since a good deal is a reminder to them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

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

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

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

There needs to be a carrot and a stick

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

Blocks, not bans

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

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

Redemption for good behavior

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

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

I agree with all of these points, and I think that all of them except the "carrot" approach is dealt with in the text above. What sort of reward system can we give to those who rehabilitate themselves though? All I can think of is encouragement and appreciation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think encouragement and appreciation is all that anyone can ask. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What about a nice pretty ribbon for their hair? Or something else equally patronising?  Giano  14:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Patronizing? Pot, meet kettle. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Abiding by our rules and policies should be non-negotiable. You don't get anything for being a law-abiding person. A carrot won't work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is, no here seems able to properly define incivility. I define it as cussing, swearing and menacing - Ta-bu and others imagines it to be anyone not talking in the sepulchre tones of a methodist ministers' convention - or in my case, merely not agreeing with him. Take my advice, just let adults be adults and sanction anyone who who says: "you're a f......g the c..t."  Giano  16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• You assume too much, I'm afraid. That's not really my concern. For instance, Guy has said some things about you that I'd never consider saying, but I don't think I'd block him for that. Similarly, you have made some incredibly inflammatory and mean-spirited things, but again I would not block you for that either. It's when incivility spills over to main article space that things need to be done. Let's say, for example, I edited Exploding houses and you didn't like it, and you decided to attack me personally, then this would be incivility that disrupted the project, so I would apply this policy here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Awarding somebody for being rehabilitated (from foul language) is irrelevant IMHO. It basically all comes down to the community's decision. If enough editors complain about the language usage of an editor & move towards a community ban, that editor would be wise to reform. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They would be wise to reform, but we'd also be wise to realize that we should not create vandals if we can avoid it. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) honestly, the real reward here should be a change in the response they get. i.e. they act uncivilly and they get slapped on the hand; they act civilly and editors treat them with respect and consideration. that would require a separate effort (something would need to be done to curb those editors who are inclined to dredge up every last peccadillo from the previous five years to discredit an editor they dislike), but it would work. nothing makes a people sit up straight faster than treating them with respect. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility is a tough one to nail down. It comes in many forms: Foul-language, threats & perhaps even most annoying, the 'no-response' editors. I've run into editors who refuse to respond at their talkkpages to any messages, to any discussions concerning their edits at the corresponding talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

actually, that 'no talking' thing (which seems to be a practice more common in experienced editors than newbies) is a real irritant. does it really qualify as uncivil, though? It clearly violates social norms and expectations of consensus editing, but...

It's sorta uncivil, as it slows-up collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reading this with increasing incredibility:"that editor would be wise to reform", "the real reward here should be a change in the response they get", "nothing makes a people sit up straight faster than treating them with respect" What planet are you on? I have read all of Tbsdy's banal comments and dismissed them as naive, however, all I see here is further naivety and a lack of worldliness taken unto an art form. It is depressing for the future of Wikipedia, that no one tells you how foolish and damaging to the project you are being. So I will tell you this now: You wish to stifle development, free thinking and opinion and have all conform to your own narrow perspective and cultures. All your views will result in, is a wikipedia of high stepping Fascisti-like Admins who use "civility" as a weapon to defeat free expression and opinion. I shall leave you to your deliberations on Utopia and La-La Land. I am not fooled - I shall not return to this farce of a debate and I leave you with no salute.  Giano  21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're about be blocked for incivility, it would be wise to reform. What's the point of getting blocked at the moment your previous block (for the same offense) expires? If ya get a bad shock, do you stick your finger back into the socket? GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano brings up why I am concerned if this policy goes through without a positive reinforcer of some kind. What is to some user who is just frustrated from being seen as incivil, and then leaving a black mark that will harm them throughout the rest of their time at Wikipedia? We need to prevent harming productive users who are just in a bad state of mind while protecting users from those who are just here to pick fights. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Balance is certainly needed, it's a fine line applying WP:CIVIL. Too softly applied, one's seen as a jelly-fish; too harshly applied & one's seen as dictatorial. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In the policy proposal, it was noted that we should discuss when to reset the escalations. We already leave black marks on someone's good name I'm afraid - the block log. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano's discussion thread

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

• There really is no point to this because Ta-Bu considers any point but his own to be incivil.  Giano  11:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • When you make a reasonable point without needing to make ad hominem attacks, then perhaps there will be something to listen to. Anyway, regardless of your input I've starting this off. If you want to be part of formulating this policy I would be very appreciative. if you don't, then I'm not sure what you want me to do here? If you don't want to help with this stage of the policy, you will have ample opportunity to express your opinion when the general community decides to formalize this as standing policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest you learn the meaning of both "ad hominem" and "attack." Your constant assertion that debate using metaphor and idiom is "attack" and "incivil" is largely to blame for the fact that nothing can ever be resolved on these matters and that such confusion reigns on what exactly is civility. If you don't want an opposing view then don't debate, but stop trying to drive me off because others brought me into this debate, without soliciting from me, and here I will now stay!  Giano  12:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly wasn't me Giano. I definitely kept well clear of the whole conversation that occured above, aside from asking what they were talking about. So far, it appears that you've taken umbridge to the whole conversation because of this unfortunate occurrence and have done nothing but snipe at others from the sidelines. By all means, feel free to debate the issue at hand, but try to use Latin phrases such as Quod erat demonstrandum a little less, as you don't appear to understand how to apply them appropriately.

As for attacks, phrases like "priggish hypocrisy", etc. are exactly that - attacking. A lot of your argument seems to me to be attacking my person (calling me "naive", etc.) and not arguing the issue at all. Thus you are indeed engaging in an ad hominem attack. You see? I understand short but interesting Latin phrases also. Like "Et tu, Brutus?", in camera, ex parte, Caecilius est in atrium, quo vadis, caveat emptor, ecce homme, veni vidi vici and a whole host of other pithy and irrelevant phrases. Impressive, no? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. So far, all you have done Tab-Bi si behave in a very petulant and spoilt fashion. When I have said things with which you don't agree, you seek to have me removed from the debate. That so far you spectacularly shot yourself in the foot (prompting "Quod erat demonstrandum" from me) is only surprise to yourself. It's my opinion you are unqualified and too imature to be part of this debate as you have no comprehension of civility or how to debate it, beyond shouting and screaming "Giano's being rude to me" which really is rather silly, because I can sssure you, that you will have to deal with far worse in your future life.  Giano  14:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I believe someone put it above, Quod erat demonstrandum. But slow down Giacomo, in your anger you're missing keys on the keyboard! I'm sorry that what I've written has clearly upset you, I'll try not to misuse Latin phrases in future. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As is well known on Wikipedia I am grossly dyslexic, which I not the least ashamed of, and I hope it encourages others to feel the same. Content is far more important than a few confused words and typos. So your nasty little jibes on missing keys fails to further or encourage my ire at all. In future, when addressing you I will run everything through spell check, as I hope you will when writing to me in Italian. However, I am unconcerned with minor incivilities and jibes from the likes of you as I am quite big enough and ugly enough to deal with them - something I feel all editors should be able to do. I am only concerned with gross incivilities - and that is what should be being discussed here. My own views on incivility have been clearly defined here [6] for years. I still think it about says all that is necessary on the problem.  Giano  16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

May we collapse this section? or transfer it to both your guy's talkpages? GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No we damn well can't. Let people see how TBDSDY conducts his arguments.  Giano  17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, what better place to observe a disagreement, then at 'Wikipedia:Incivility blocks'. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious though, let's at least collapse this section. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I had no idea that Giacomo is dyslexic. I was in no way targetting his disability, merely the substance of his argument, which is weak. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So why mention the typos? Cheap! You have no idea of good manners and civility, yet you attempt to lecture us all in the subject. Giano  21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I merely mentioned the typos because you were getting very upset and the typos only started at this point. Like I say I had no idea you are dyslexic. While it may not seem that way to outsiders, the only interaction I've really ever had with you before now is when I took your article to FARC and you got so upset, so I'm not intimately aware of your condition. Obviously if I knew of your dyslexia then I would have taken this into consideration and not mentioned the typos, but I definitely would have mentioned how upset you are getting. I'm sorry that you were mentioned, but I have two points to mention about that. Firstly, you were mentioned because you are a problem we are trying to resolve - you are an excellent contributor (even if you don't like contributing to main article space in the normal way), but you are also someone who tends to discourage others from contributing because of your behaviour. Yes, you have a coterie of loyal followers, but that doesn't mean that you can do what you like, which is what you do. The second point I make is that only a few people made specific commentary about yourself. For myself, I only asked for clarification what was being discussed, especially as I remember my last run-in with you all those years ago. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no recollections of "run in" with you at all! (can we have diff - you know what one of those is?)However, on this page my name is mentione 20 odd times, with no supporting diff and you are happy to carry on pontificating. Is that civil? No to say on my talk you are being discussed? No you just carry on - you have no idea of good mammers or civility. None at all. So do not presume to lecture on the subject.  Giano  21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. This is the diff. Your direct accusation was "at the moment it seems to me you are merely adding your name to the editing history file, for reasons best known to yourself." You later made the following post, where you stated that "From the very moment you theatrically announced your departure you have been constantly popping up and down like an agitated infant. Now if you've nothing constructive to say it's better to say nothing at all." You might not remember, but I sure do, and it seems not much has changed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Who cares if one is this or that. It can't be confirmed or denied, eitheway. Move on. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't wanna see either of yas getting blocked for edit-warring, so I'll request an administrator to consider 'archiving' or 'collapsing'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reported this to ANI. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Well, that will certainly deescalate the drama... <rolls eyes> UnitAnode 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Djsasso to see what he thinks. Whatever he decides, I'll accept it. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can ask the Allmighty, but the matter is current and relevant to this debate.  Giano  21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask the all-mighty? I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Makes sense, agreed. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

For sure. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late. What did I miss? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that folks here stop focusing on Giano. The problem is much greater than any one editor, and focusing on a non-banned editor will just create unneeded drama and make a consensus that much harder to find. There are plenty editors who've been banned for incivility should examples be needed.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)#

Banned editors, what are they? do these people even know of one - No, they preferred to discuss me in my absence, and are now cross I have come to join the party. Is this civil - these people have no idea of the meaning of the word. Suddenly, they don't look so civil themselves.  Giano  08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Archiving this thread would be a good idea, huh? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh man... too much snark in that previous comment. Sorry Will. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be very wise for these comments to be restored to their original place withing the next hour or so. Ta-Bu has no right alter a page to distort and influence and mislead. Or is this his private page? Or you all afraid of him? Whatever, if not restored shortly, I shall do it myself, and it would be a pity if anything were to be accidentally lost.  Giano  08:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a huge pity Ta-Bu, I had no idea you had promoted yourself to the Arbcom? You must be left here to distort then, the page is now so deeply flawed, any policy, of changes of policy, wich results from it must be treated with contempt and disdain.  Giano  08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You just said you were OK with losing material. Can you confirm that this is correct? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kicking this off

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

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

Wikipedia:Incivility blocks.

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

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

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

I can dig it. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging FT2/Tbsdy and Ludwigs2 text

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

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

I'm not very good at mergers, but I suppose taking the best of each would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you, FT2 & Ludwigs2 can come up with a merged proposal, that would be cool to check over. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

well, for a start:

• we could move the 'dysfunctional' bit into the 'Lacks project benefit' point. something like: "objectively seems to have little or no project benefit - the wording seems intended merely for emotional satisfaction, and risks derailing the conversation into a non-productive personal disputes."
• We could move the 'redaction test' point (as I did in my version) into the 'enforcement' section and add the flood test bit - set them up as minimum criteria for applying enforcement.

would those work? --Ludwigs2 18:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely :-) Did you want to do the honours? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - I'm not sure I feel honored, but it is done. I just realized we need to add in some kind of 'half-life' clause to keep these blocks from endlessly hanging over people's heads. should that go in one of these two sections, or get it's own space in the article? --Ludwigs2 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's quite good! Nice merge :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving Towards A Call To Question

Colleagues,

Would it be possible to move a finalized proposal to question? I am losing track of the discussion here and I think we're getting off track. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help that. I've moved the irrelevant bits into it's own thread. Is that more helpful? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Making it simple

Incivility blocks are ineffective, counterproductive, and should not happen. Anyone bringing a "s/he's being mean to me!" thread to ANI should be blocked for escalating amounts of time. Should people be uncivil? No. Should we block people to keep them from acting like assholes? No. WP:NPA covers everything that needs be covered in this regard. UnitAnode 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered opinion, I suppose we must agree to disagree. Currently either the situation is that the editor is blocked quite severely with not much warning, or they don't get blocked at all until things get so out of hand that it disrupts the project and we have a real battle on our hands. What would your suggestions on resolving this matter be?

As for blocking someone on ANI for being upset that someone was being insulting? I rather think that's one of the reasons that this forum was setup. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI is a dramapit, nothing more. And blocks for incivility simply don't work. removing that as a potential option solves that problem. Unless someone violates WP:NPA, they shouldn't be blocked. UnitAnode 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, ANI is a drama pit because of the disruptive behaviour of a wide variety of editors. ANI is not the cause of the problem, the editors who are reported there are. Blocking someone for disruptive incivility happens all the time, btw, and it works really well. It's just that there is no reasonable way of doing it - it's all over the place at the moment. Some obvious trolls are given a LOT of leeway (see Nothughthomas, while others are blocked straight away, and indefinitely. I'd say that this is sorely needed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, ANI is a dramapit because people take dumb shit there, and others fan their flames. UnitAnode 00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You can think that if you want, I have to disagree. I've found that the "dumb shit", as you call it, gets shut down pretty quickly. Have you got a better idea that will scale that would do a similar job to ANI? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience civility blocks are indeed effective. Sometimes they need to become indefinite to be effective, but more often than not if there is equal enforcement the user will start acting civil. There are always some people who uncivil and "refuse to change", and for them I would suggest that Wikipedia may not be compatible with them. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you Chillum, they are not effective because all too often they are given for what is not considered incivil in another culture, so they merely breed resentment, not just with the editor banned but with his colleagues on the project too. Without doubt Americans have a far different perception of incivility than Europeans - For examample - what is brusque or even meant in humour in Europe (excluding one central pocket) seems to be incivil in America. Some cultures can be very blunt indeed. Are we all to change to American culture or change to European - or more accpetable try to find a centre route acceptable to all? I have a feeling some of these here, want to impose a very narrow and restrictive view - well that wil never work - which is why i comment here, unwelcome as that seems to be.  Giano  08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that we are not actually debating what is and isn't civil. We are trying to figure out what happens when incivility occurs, however this is decided. This policy proposal doesn't cover what is and isn't civility. I rather think you are flogging a dead horse here, Giano. I'm sorry that you got offended above, this was out of line but that shouldn't mean that you become disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is such a pity TSBDY that anyone disagreeing with you is considered "disruptive" you cannot debate the results of perceived incivility and how to punish it, if that incivility is not in fact incivil. You are cracking the wallnut before it is ripe or picked from the tree.  Giano  08:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant to my previous point, which is that this policy proposal doesn't define what is and isn't civility. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you in error because you cannot find the cure for an ailment that has yet to be defined.  Giano  08:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

People are blocked for incivility all the time. But if you want to debate what is and isn't civility, we have an existing page for doing this at Wikipedia:Civility. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - this is why I feel that escalating blocks with the possibility of the escalations being reset via consensus are a good idea. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note I'm having DSL probs with my internet, not sure when I'll be back tomorrow. PS: No cheering & hooping while I'm gone. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick, now he's gone let's get out the party gear! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've returned. Punishment or Prevention, is the core dispute of WP:CIVIL implimentation (if not all types of blocks). If these proposal are based on punishing editors, I've a prob with that. If these proposal are based on preventing disruption, that's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What is so special about incivility blocks?

Excuse me, but I am finding it impossible to understand why we need a special, extremely defined blocking process for incivility blocks when we don't have anything close to this rigid a system for much more obvious blocking situations. Nobody has demonstrated that incivility is more harmful than, say, tendentious editing, 3RR, or violating copyright, all of which directly affect the content of the project and are far less subjective; it makes little sense to have a rigid system based on the most poorly thought out and poorly articulated policy in the project. Indeed, some of the activity related to the development of this policy is crossing into incivility in my opinion, and I'm a darn sight more tolerant than most editors.

I am not seeing any rationale for having a separate, rigid blocking system for subjective blocks in the absence of a structured blocking system for more objectively determined blocking situations. Risker (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: A 30 minute to one hour block? That is a cool-down block and goes against blocking policy; such blocks have consistently been shown to be more likely to aggravate rather than ameliorate situations. Risker (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I also think, for the 10,000th time, it is not possible to discuss the punishment without defining the crime. It is a recipe for disaster. This page seems to be full of volunteers wanting to employ the hangman, but sadly lacking in anyone prepared to say what the unfortunate victim is to be hung for.  Giano  09:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I've stated a few times, currently we have a situation whereby either no block occurs for ages and then things get so out of hand that an indefinite block is made, or someone comes along and very heavy handedly blocks for too long, which of course either causes the editor to feel upset (sometimes justifiably so) or another admin reverses the decision, which means we go through the whole process time and time again. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I should note, it's not a cool down block. Perhaps we should make this a bit more clear in the policy text. These aren't there to "cool down" the editor, they are to stop them from being disruptive. They warn them that we are serious, and it gives them a chance to change their behaviour. Technically, a "cool down block" is an attempt to make the editor calmer by removing them from discussion, but that's not the point of the 30 minute to one hour long blocks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then for the 10,001st time, it is time to discuss a threashold - define the crime. Now that you have introduced "disruptive" that too needs to be defined before it can be legislated against, as has been seen here, some people have differing views on what constitutes disruption. You are putting carts before horses and and the whole lot will career off the precipice if you don't do things properly.  Giano  09:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather large amount of hyperbole there Giacomo. As I've stated, this isn't really the appropriate place to discuss this. Have you tried Wikipedia:Civility? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You can call this a Ferrari if you like, but it is still going to wind up as ham, bacon and sausage

Tbsdy, nonsense. A block of 30 minutes to an hour is a cool-down block, even if you want to call it something fancy and exotic. Show evidence that this works in an adult online population before you propose to try it here; all previous experiments along those lines in this setting have done nothing but aggravated situations. And you still have not justified why there needs to be a special rigid blocking system for a subjective block when there is no such system for objective blocks. Risker (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A block of an hour is often done to vandals to prevent disruption, why would it not work here? And we have a predefined and prescriptive system of blocking for 3RRs, which is an objective block, so I don't see why you say that we don't have such systems. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What vandals are you blocking for only an hour? Looking at your log, it seems...none of them. I'm afraid you're behind the times, Tbsdy. And let's quote the 3RR rule: "It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident." The word "usually" is not prescriptive. And please don't rearrange my posts, I consider that to be grossly uncivil. Risker (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What, you post a pig and you think that I'm being incivil? LOL! Anyway, back to the point, what has my block log got to do with anything? Regardless, I suspect you are looking at the wrong block log - try Ta bu shi da yu. But that's irrelevant, 3RR is a well defined policy, admins follow it all the time. Are you saying they don't?

As for it being prescriptive, the text of this policy also says something similar, perhaps you should read the first section more carefully? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tdsby, I know perfectly well what your old account was. I also remember the circumstances under which you stopped editing with that account in November 2007. And I don't see a lot of one-hour blocks in that log, either, except for IPs, and this won't be applying to them. What you are trying to do here is to force a change in administrator behaviour by legislation, which wasn't how things worked when you left, and isn't how it works now either. I do hope you are not advocating that anyone practice blocking in this way, because your "one hour block" is indefensible. Risker (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. All of which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can correlate why I took a two and a half year break from Wikipedia to this somehow. Though I don't think that my marriage and subsequent fatherhood really has much to do with this, though burnout may be more closely related. In relation to the one hour blocks, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, it's definitely defensible and in fact I've explained it all in detail already. Oink, oink! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not explained it at all, Tbdsy; in fact, when asked to provide evidence that your belief that a 30 minute to one hour block would be efficacious, you've come up empty. And your 2-1/2 year absence is significant in that you are no longer familiar with either the community or expectations for administrators; they are but a misty rose-coloured memory for you, lacking in any connection to reality. (And in my book, you left because of burnout, which was incredibly obvious at the time.) I've seen this before in other admins who suddenly reappear. You're claiming as a common and acceptable practice something that has never been a common and acceptable practice, and which you yourself have never practiced. The Wikipedia community of 2007 would not have been supportive of this, nor will the Wikipedia community of 2010. We elect administrators to judge each individual situation on its own merits, not to follow rote processes that are based on someone counting entries in block logs. I can assure you that any admin justifying their block by "well, that's what it said on the chart" isn't going to be getting a favourable hearing from me. Risker (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Risker that this type of block is likely to be inflammatory in practice. Blocking is a severe measure and shouldn't be used to show someone "we're serious" or to mark up a block log for further reference.

My general view of the proposal is that I don't think this is the right approach. I think the policy goes far too far in reducing enforcement flexibility, while not really saying anything new on the front of what behaviors are actually problematic. If the policy were up to me, it would introduce broader expectations for civil discourse, encouraging people to write in a manner consistent with a message sent to thousands of strangers, while roughly maintaining current enforcement procedures. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A 1-hr block, is not sufficent (IMHO), one could go for a nice walk & by the time he/she returned, the block would've expired, or hang out at another website. Not all editors are 'glued' to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the problem - a one-hour block is basically just meant to say "look I can block you". It's a demonstration of power, not a measure likely to produce positive results by removing or rehabilitating a problem contributor. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just the thing. None of the suggested text is set in stone, I was always happy with removing bits or even whole chunks of it all. I was just looking for consistency, which was the main issue at stake. It wasn't even a problem of defining civility, which is already done at Wikipedia:Civility. I just saw that there were a lot of editors either never getting blocked and then get slapped with an indefinite block (e.g. User:Nothughthomas and User:Wiki Greek Basketball, but then there are others who get blocked too quickly or for too long and this just leads to other admins reversing the decision. If some consistency could be had, then these pretty bad issues could be resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience short blocks do in fact help with new users who are perhaps testing the limits. They are less effective for long term users. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Would a 1-hr block be effective for getting the attention of non-responsive editors? There's some out their who continue to edit away & ignore message at their talkpages & requests for discussion of their edits on edited page-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In such a case I would assume they have read the warning and accept it. If they continue then proceed as normal. If they truly do not read their talk page then the block notice will explain things and show them their talk page, in such a case a shorter block does make sense. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not get consensus that something is needed in the first place?

This is all a waste of time (probably this message included). If you believe there is a problem with incivility such that there need to be special measures in addition to what already exists, try and get some consensus that this is required in the first place. Discussing the finer details of block lengths etc etc is pointless unless the community agrees that something new is required. Quantpole (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, that's what we intend to do fairly shortly. But not much point going to the community with a policy of half formed text. It's unfortunate that we have a few distractions here, but we are persevering :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand me. There is no point 'going to the community' with anything if the community doesn't agree with the basic premise. Quantpole (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and calling community discussion 'distractions' is a bit uncivil, no? Quantpole (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, by distractions, I meant "Giacomo". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

And continuing a dispute with him in a new section where he hasn't been mentioned is of course the definition of 'civil' behaviour. Quantpole (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We've already been down this road before: Wikipedia:Civility/Poll. There was a vast majority felt the current policy was too lenient; you can read the other results yourself. So there's already precedent and a backing from more than just a select few for this proposal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is an instructive page to read. Maybe those who are trying to push this proposal should give it a good read again to see whether they think this proposal is justified, wanted, enforceable etc. Quantpole (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. I'll be continuing with this, I don't think it will be long now before we take this to the general community for debate as to whether to make it formal policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs, it's your own time you're wasting. Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An RFC not so long ago showed that the community was not satisfied with the enforcement of civility and personal attack policies. I am not sure where the RFC is now, but I will look for it later. Yes, there is a need for reform in this area, this need presents itself in endlessly repeating dramas caused by the lack of clarity in this matter. I am very glad efforts are being taken to improve our response and make it more consistent. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Punishment/Prevention tends to be the crux of it all (IMHO). Punishing blocks are frowned upon, where's Preventing disruption blocks are encouraged. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well there's the poll linked to above, which you might be thinking of. While it might be said that the community were dissatisfied, identifying what they are dissatisfied about is a bit trickier. Taking it to mean that the community wants some rigid, open to gaming, drama-creating additional policy would be a stretch. Quantpole (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times, this isn't really ready to get decided on as a policy. We've been throwing around ideas, that was one idea I had and obviously I was trying to be flexible. If you read above, I don't believe that you could game it very easily, however maybe it would cause drama. However, there's a lot of drama at the moment. So I didn't really feel it was a waste of time, given that we're still trying to work something out.

The key to this policy isn't in the enforcement, it's actually in consistency. Currently there is no consistency, anyone can block for any incivility reason at any time for any length of time. I don't think that's wise, and I think we should have some more consistent block times so that one person doesn't get blocked for a longer period of time than another editor. That's always been the crux of what I'm trying to achieve here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it certainly looks like the key to this policy is handing out ever increasing blocks as if that is a magic answer. It's certainly an easy way out. The difficult thing is fully assessing a situation, seeing the context, whether there is baiting, is it a long term issue between editors that needs a different approach etc etc. Consistency would be good but it does not require additional policy, just admins with a bit of a clue. I can understand that might be too hard for many admins to do, so lets just wield the banhammer instead eh? Quantpole (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, we need more administrators to get involved here. Afterall, they're the ones who hand out blocks. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Quantpole: actually, what you're citing as 'the difficult thing' is exactly what I suggest we avoid. these kinds of civ-blocks should be as pro-forma as possible to make it clear that there is just no excuse for incivility. that's the only way we're going to dissolve the current culture of being uncivil and them whining, moaning, and screaming about it if someone tries to block you. If people are being uncivil, block them all for a bit and then studiously ignore their complaints. they will learn quickly not to be uncivil if they can't even get the marginal reward of being able to complain about it. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way I see that you could game the system would be to stop being uncivil for a few months in an attempt to reset the block duration. I think that if someone wants to avoid blocks by becoming civil then that is a success. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If only every editor would take that approach. Reformation (even if temporary) of conduct, goes a long way. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What I like about this proposal is that it outlines a clear solution for when users do not reform. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bowing out (sort of)

OK, so I'm spending too much time on this for now... if someone else wants to take up the mantle that would be grand. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to have conflicting feelings about how WP:CIVIL should be applied. Someone else, will have to take the mantle. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Given that I have clinical depression, I think it best for me to bow out of this one. Sorry fellows and ladies, I know we were making progress to get the text up and we were almost about to take it to be formalized and agreed upon - who knows if the general community would accept this? I can see that there are those who don't like the proposal, and a number of them were pretty nasty about it, but I guess that's life eh? I'm hoping one of you can move it forward - that would be good :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like things are progressing! Awesome. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank opinion

I believe that civility blocks in the abstract are a legitimate use of the block button. I also believe that civility bans might be justified in extreme cases.

That said, this proposed policy is rules creep and starkly punitive. If such proposal doesn't appeal to someone who is generally on board with the concept, it does not have a snowball's chance of becoming policy. I don't think proposals like this are a good use of time. If you must work on shaping policy, please start with something modest and more broadly appealing than this. I like must of the language before the "general process" box. Cool Hand Luke

Sorry, I don't see how it is punitive. It involves warning the user to prevent the need for a block, only if the behavior continues can a short block be used to prevent it from continuing. If short blocks fail to prevent the problem then they get longer. This is not about punishing someone for being bad, it is about preventing the victim from experiencing further abuse. How would you suggest we change it to make it less punitive in your eyes while still protecting the victim? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I've always said, none of the text is set in stone. My main concern is to have some consistency in blocking policy around this area. I thought an escalating blocks policy was a good idea and not punitive at all as it gives editors a chance to correct their behaviour. For instance, I think this could have been applied to Wiki Greek Basketball fairly successfully and caused a lot less drama than we have now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think civility blocks should be handled the same way as blocks for say, OR. At the extremes, people should be blocked for this reason. However, this proposal is an attempt to impose 3RR-style absolute sanctions for incivility. That doesn't work! The 3RR can be confirmed by anyone, while incivility is subjective and open for gaming. For this reason, I think blocks should only be imposed on the extremes—when nearly everyone can agree that user is unrepentant, as with Wiki Greek Basketball. This proposal, if actually implemented, would cause insane problems—probably wheel wars—in any controversial topic, where one side might seek to ban the other for dubiously uncivil cases. Unless there's a way to make incivility more objection, 3RR-style systems of blocks are inappropriate. Cool Hand Luke 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Licence to run amok with a block button

Until there is a very clear and completely unequivocable definition of what constitutes incivility, any resolution gained from this page can grant a free licence and serve as encouragement to certain Admins (I don't think its unreasonable to actually name Chillum and Sandstein as just two of several) who appear to have made it their life's crusade to become guardian angels of their own interpretation of incivility. Their actions merely add to the disruption and distress. Until incivility is defined, there is no point discussing its treatment.  Giano  07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please see #Blockable offenses above. This talk is quite chaotic. Isn't it time to bring some structure and separate threads, and don't mix them? Mukadderat (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, We do have a proposed definition of incivility, here. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, we do not, or I would not have to labour to have people banned for calling others "cocksucker" while others are blocked for far less. It is chaotic and confused.  Giano  18:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Favouritism & inconsistancy, has become a problem. Thus the CDA proposal being prepared (follow my contributions, if interested). Better yet, contact Matt Lewis, as these 2 things are kinda connected. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• "You have to 'labor hardly'" is exactly the reason under this whole proposal. As with all other policies it takes time to fleshen them out, so while you are right, it is not the reason "to run amok" scared with big red block button. It cannot be worse than now: just as you say, I have already seen people blocked for 2 weeks for "your version is moronic". Mukadderat (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

De-sysopping bad Admins is not an option, there are too many of them and they stick together like excrement to a dog's blanket. The existing admins need to have firm rules defining civility, not guidelines, firm rules. That will make it far easier to get rid of them and also make Wikipedia a safer place for the rest of us.  Giano  18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe (for starters) the F-bomb should be banned, except for personal talkpages (here's alright, as we need them for examplers). GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As for administratros? We've elected them, we should be able to recall them. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What pray is the "F-bomb" do you mean flatulence? Please don't beat about the shrubs. As for "should" be able to get rid of them "should" is not good enough.  Giano  19:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The f--k bombs, the universal word. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO all admins, who are harassing users, who are making PA against users, who cannot assume good faith towards users should be de-sysoped after the very first offense. I am not saying that admins cannot make mistake. Of course they are humans too :) I could understand and forgive an unfair block, an unexplained article or image deletion and so on. Those could be treated as mistakes. Yet harassment, PA, assuming a bad faith is not a mistake. It is a choice, and it should not be tolerated, when it becomes an administrator's choice. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to parse that first sentence... are you saying that all admins are harassing users and making personal attacks, or all admins that are harassing users and who make personal attacks? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Escalation and descalation

The escalation as it is suggested reminds me the three strike rule, when a previously convited man gets life for posession of a pinch of weed. It was already mentioned that blocks are not punishment, but prevention of disruption. It was also mentioned that many people are rude in the heat ot the moment, out of frustration, out of bad habit picked in other chat sites, out of false understanding of free speech (forgetting that wikipedia is not Hyde Park), etc. It was also mentioned that mechanical blocking may be easily gamed to oust good but "temperamentally unstable" people. I may list a number of other reasons for the following proposals.

• Escalated blocking must be combined with other means of harm reduction:
  • (R1) Unblocking rules must be set, so that a person is unblocked if xe:
    • (a) agrees to refactor his offensive comments:
      • (a1) remove personally-directed offensive remarks not related to article content
      • (a2) rephrase remarks related to article comments into:
        • (a2a) neutral tone (stupid opinion-> wrong/baseless/erroneous oponion)
        • (a2b) and, more important, into a disputable form ("stupid opinion" -> "wrong opinion because...").
    • (b) Explicitely promises to watch their tongue.
    • (c) Gives a permission for opponents to edit xis future comments in the current topic in compliance with (a2a) and (a2b). For example, in (b), "watch their tongue"->"try to be civil".
      • (c/a2b) For (a2b) only synonymic replacement is allowed, without changing the overall sense;
      • (c/a2a) For (a2a) complete deletion is allowed; however the offended has a right to put them into a separate section clearly titled "personal remarks" and formulated in civil way.
  • (R2) Time and space limits must be set, analogous, but not similar to US traffic violation point system: "severity" of next blocks decrease aver "non-offensive time" and possibly separation of offences for different article categories (I understand this may be an unnecessary bureaucratization, but I listed it just to consider an option)
  • (R3) There cannot be two consecutive blocks by the same admin. There cannot be more than N blocks by the same admin during M days. We have over 1K admins now; no need to create an imression of personality clash as is seen in this talk page betheen Giano and TBSDY. The goal is to educate an incivil person, not to harden him in his (possibly false, but not always) conviction of being a victim of manhunt. Being blocked by several people gives a stronger signal that it is from community (some may say "ruling clique", but <shrug>).
  • (R4) Profanity is considered offense regardless the context, if an opponent says so. I know that American TV is full of "s***" and "f***". I know that as an emotional outburst, "WTF" comes firat. But really, guys, is it really an "outburst" 6 hours later? It may be hard to believe but some people are offended by offensive words (what a surprize) If an opponent says he is offended, and you disregard his feeling, it does not mean "free speech", it means you intend to harm his feeling, rather than improve the discussed article. However "nonpersonal profanity" cannot be base of blcok escalation.
  • (R5) There should be no "drive-through" blocking. If an admin occasionally runs into a page with a battle of words, hist first act should not be blocks left and right. A prominent warning must be placed in the article talk page, so that everybody see it at the same "psychological time". (An option would be to put warnings in all user talk pages, but (a) you may miss someone (b) you may hit someone innocent (c) the first thought when seeing a warning in my own talkpage is quite often "why me??? He started first!!", rather than "OK, OK, cooling down".

When discussing the points, please preface the thread with its index, e.g.:

• (R2): This item will allow the offender roam endlessly. Mukadderat (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it will not, because of (c). Mukadderat (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(R4): Just to pock up one of your points: This is 2010, whether we like it or not Profanity is not considered offensive regardless the context. The degree of profanity and context is paramount.  Giano  19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. (BTW, you probably meant "context", not "contest".) Article talk pages are to discuss article content. I fail to see how profanity may help this. Its only purpose is offensive emotion. I am well aware that bros from da Hood editing articles about East Coast rappers may just as well not know better synonyms. But I strongly suggest that the prime goal of this policy is education in civility, not simply blocking. The person why easily says "this f..ng text" just as easily say "your f..ng text", and in admin's shoes I am not going to spit hairs whether the first one is an exclamation of surpize and the secons one is attack. IMO the only context allowed for profanity is the context of citation, as above. (Although I am aware that some ingenious smartasses will write "Dr. Dre would say 'your f..ng text sucks' " and make a straight innocent face :-) Mukadderat (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(R4):There is nothing wrong with a bit of profanity. You can say shit or fuck without it being an attack on someone. "That was a fucking difficult article to reference, but I made it through the shit and finished it!" Not a violation of personal attacks or civility, perhaps not what some people like to read but not abusive. You could use no profanity and be very uncivil and engage in personal attacks, for example calling a user excrement would not be profanity but would be an inappropriate personal attack. The essence of the idea of civility is not to have flowery language suitable for children, it is about being decent to each other. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling a user an excrement or making a typo "user:Guano" is irrelevant to (R4). See my answer to Giano above. I say if you say "shit and fuck", you are demonstration disrespect to readers and, not that you mentioned it, providing an argument to those who want to block wikipedia in schools, despite it being 2010. Mukadderat (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt you will get consensus for R4. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we are almost in agreement Chillum, now would you be very kind and go and protect Blenheim Palace where I am being tag teamed over an info box. Then I won't need to call someone a fucking nuisance. :-)  Giano  19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute, not something to use admin tools over. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh well shall I change it to something you are equipped to deal with?  Giano  19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see a few issues with that article, and actually I may be able to help. I've got some time free on weekends, and I've been looking for an interesting article to work on. Now I know you said on my talk page that "I mistakenly asked Chillum for some help [and] that wil never happen again", but I'm confused how that can be. How does one "accidentally" ask for help? More confusingly, I'm not entirely sure where I can "put [my] olive branch", but it sounds really quite excruciating so I'll probably pass. However, your suggestion on reading up on Baroque architecture sounds pretty interesting to me, so I think that's a good idea. I definitely think content is extremely important, and as I say, I've been really looking for something to focus on, so this sounds ideal. I look forward to collaborating with you :-) As always, I'm quite a fan of your work, even if I don't like you particularly much. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm now the subject of ongoing ban proposals on this article! We've already had this one, which got closed down fairly early. I'm frankly gobsmacked, given that Giano is the one who mentioned the article at all here, I now see to ostensibly win an argument/pick a fight/insult Chillum. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't want anything to do with it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have realised - it's content isn't it? - not really your area.  Giano  19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to using my admin tools, that is correct. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely correct. Your use of userspace is a bit of a problem Giano, you can't just slap on an inuse template and expect that others cannot edit the article. See this article for more info on this long standing policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(R4): While I let it fly for a while, since it seems I hit a sensitive spot, however please notice that the intention of (R4) was in the last sentence: However "nonpersonal profanity" cannot be base of block escalation, so while our attitudes to profanity differ, it seems we agree in terms of the scope of the discussed policy. Please notice the title of this section: "Escalation and descalation". Mukadderat (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Offensive words

What's offensive to some, is not to others. We need a list of these suspect words, as part of this page's presentation. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Words alone are not important what is important is the intended or likely to be perceived meaning. Salty language does not make something uncivil, the intent behind the sentence does. I don't think our civility policies should attempt to label certain words as "bad". Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is where the whole thing falls down. We can't turn treating people right into a flow chart. Yet without a flow chart it's all going to come down to what a certain admin feels is uncivil on a certain day.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well... that's what happens anyway. I routinely see admins blocking for civility issues, and I'm almost always in agreement with them. This is usually done by gut feel though, and while it can be explained it can be controversial. Nonetheless, the editors are almost always disruptive. Unfortunately, the block length is different, often depending on what sort of admin blocks and what sort of day they are having! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Howabout a list of 'em in phrasing examples? One can say it this way, but not that way. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You just need a list of really serious nouns and adjectives than cannot be said in seriousness to another editor.At least then we would have a basis.  Giano  19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most 10 year olds can tell when something is meant to be nasty, I don't think the problem has ever been recognising such comments. Listing a set of phrases will only open up gaming. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining civility on Wikipedia is proven tougher then I thought. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking about them fucking exams is far different from talking about that fucking admin... I don't mind salty language, others might, but what matters is in what context is it used (starting profanities in a heated discussion = bad idea) and towards what it is directed (as WP:NPA clearly states, comment on content, not contributors... you can disagree with someone, but you should do it collegially and focus on their argument substance.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet I've seen shocking behaviour defended as funny and funny behaviour cited in block explanations. I agree it should be easy to tell the difference but apparently it's not.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree here - now I know that some people don't like ANI as they feel it's a dramafest that achieves little, is it best to discuss a block here before actually doing the block? I note that a few people do this, but others block and then note it at ANI. Is there are preferred way to counter disruption of this sort? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I thought the solution for this would be quite simple: if someone civilly objects to the use of a given word or phrase, then it is considered offensive in that situation. To give an example, if an established user is exasperated & drops an f-bomb (for those of you who don't understand, that means saying "fuck" gratuitously) for the first time, I doubt any reasonable person find offence. On the other hand, if someone routinely drops f-bombs & continues to be a potty-mouth despite repeated pleas to watch the language, that person deserves sanctions for incivility. This applies to other words such as "queer." (And if we get someone who makes her/himself a nuisance over complaining about other people's choice of words, then I believe that person deserves being sanctioned. The idea here is to write an encyclopedia, not to quibble over behavior which should be more properly ignored.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... didn't MzMcbride get an ArbCom case based on letting fly when he got frustrated? I think we should be careful about rude words - for instance, if I get called a bastard in Australian culture by a friend, then that is actually seen as a term of endearment. In other cultures this would be the height of rudeness. If I got called a "fucking bastard" during an argument, this would be different. It's all about context - contrary to the popular belief of some (I'm looking at you here Giano) I don't really mind swearing if it's not with hostile intent. So I think that the whole swearing issue is a bit of a red herring here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If somebody is told that a particular term offended them, and the person kept using it then that would speak volumes as to their intention of using it. "Queer" is a good example as it has multiple meanings. Saying someone has a "queer way of making inline citations" may just mean it is strange, but if the person makes it clear they take offense at the term then it would probably be a good idea not to use it towards that person again because now you know it is offensive. In this case there is a legitimate case as the term does have a derogatory meaning. In other cases someone may say they are offended by something as simple as saying the Earth is older than 6000 years old, in such a case I don't think it is reasonable to accommodate the person.

I don't think we will every come up with a system that does not require discretion and common sense. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the way that the community has leaned in the past but I would support an adjustment of expectations to discourage the use of "salty language" as Chillum puts it, especially in pages intended to have a wide audience like article talk pages and project pages. I think using language consistent with a professional environment (read: post as if you are writing to an audience of 5000 strangers, with whom you would like a long-term positive interation) demonstrates respect for the project and one's collaborators, and would promote a generally more courteous environment. It's difficult to demand people to interact courteously when in other regards they are free to act with a level of discourtesy more associated with a web chatroom than the world's #1 reference publication. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the list compiled by an admin Jac16888, who claims he's an adult, yet leaves one wonder, if it is the case--Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the likes of Chillum and Sandstein have abused their positions and fed their egos; they have not used their discretion and common sense (as Chillum claims above). They have blocked in a bullying, gratuitous and vile fashion. Sooner or later rules will be imposed to curb their disgraceful and overpowering behaviour. Whether they like it or not. The community just has to decide if that will be sooner or later.  Giano  21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You accuse and accuse me of such abuse, yet I stand up to scrutiny every time. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

you know, Giano, I'm starting to get tired of hearing you whine. I get that you don't like the idea, you've made it sufficiently clear. now you're just trying to bully people. stop it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Whose edit is the above? Why is it unsigned?  Giano  19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's avoid incivility towards each other in this discussion of incivility. ("There's no fighting in the War Room!")   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This Incivility blocks page, has gotten too expansive for me. I don't know if we're repeating ourselves or not. I don't know if we've agreed on anything or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We haven't and I'm tired of it and am going back to mainspace. You all seem perfectly happy with the chaotic state of the civility policy and its police knocking you about at whim, so you must get on with it and muddle through the best you can.  Giano  23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's become impossible to reform WP:CIVIL. If we can't come to any agreement here? we're spinning wheels. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we are doing a fine job of finding a solution. We just need to ignore the noise and pay attention to the signal. If you look closely you will find that while there is an abundance of text disparaging this idea, it is mostly from a small group of people(very small) being vocal(very vocal). I suggest we ignore the disruptive influences on this discussion and try to move forward(that means not responding to unproductive comments). We get that some people disagree with this, and if they make up far more volume of text than those presenting ideas and solutions then that is annoying but it does not stop us from carrying on. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can come up with a javascript snippet that will help filter out unhelpful commentary. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, as I'm easily confused when these topics get overly long. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry Chillum, I am leaving you to it. Your glorious powers will remain undiminished. There my last comment. Civility is all yours gor ever and ever.  Giano  23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You have an amazing ability to tell us all that you are bowing out of a conversation or talk page but yet I still see you here. Which is fine I suppose, but really don't say it if you don't mean it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression from your comment at 23:05 that you had left this thread, Giacomo. -- llywrch (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strawman section, yes? Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of where we are up to now

OK, here is a summary of where we are up to now.

There is a proposal to block over incivility. Currently the policy text as it stands consists of two sections, the first is an abstract as to what the policy is for, and the second section is how to enforce policy blocks. The second proposal is something I put forward, which is an escalating block policy, with an inbuild safeguard that allows for escalation resets through ANI discussion.

There is some controversy over the following areas:

1. How do we define civility? Issues raised are:
   • Swearing - do we count this as incivility? Some opinions are no, it's too hard to do this; only if we take into account the context of where it is said; and yes, there is never any need to swear.
   • How do we deal with those who let fly because of wikistress and frustration.
2. How do we enforce blocking without being punitive
   • In particular there are concerns about the escalating blocks proposal, as this seems to be too prescriptive. Some, like myself, don't believe this as it is a way of gradually allowing editors to correct their behaviour. However, others have expressed concerns that this has the same issue as cool down blocks - it will not deescalate the situation.
   • How do we stop people from gaming any system we put in place?
   • How do we get consistency in our blocking arrangements for civility issues?

Things that are good:

1. Folks think that we either need guidelines around blocking in this area, or a policy
2. People largely like the abstract.

This seems to me a fair summary of where this discussion is heading. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Circumlocutions and abbreviations

Just dropping in a point here for discussion. I personlly find the use of certain abbreviations to be incivil even though the phrases in question are not being typed in full. For example, when someone says "FFS", the level of exasperation is clear, but the offence possibly caused is no less than if the phrase had been typed out in full. Ditto when people talk about a "load of BS" or (moving away from abbreviations to circumlocutions) "horse excrement" (or even cleverer ways to say what you mean, but using different and "OK" words). It's just a way of swearing while trying to appear not to be doing that. Which is silly. I would include in this things like "f**k" and "you can't be effing serious". Typing swear words out in a different way doesn't make the action any less an action of swearing, and raising hackles. Note that I'm not personally offended by such swear words, but I am annoyed at the way they distract when dropped unexpectedly into normal discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is true, but don't we already have Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument and Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! to cover this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative enforcement

OK, so I am cognizant of general feeling that the escalating blocks that I proposed is either too easily abused, too prescriptive or not within standard practice. Therefore, I propose, with general agreement, that I strike this proposal and we work on another way of standardizing or making block guidelines more easily understood for civility issues. I have made an edit to remove the text from the proposal already until we can get some clarity as to what folks think is best. As I've always maintained, nothing has really been set in stone at the moment and if further discussion is needed then this should occur.

So far, aside from a vocal minority, I think that there is general consensus that Ludwigs' and FT2's abstract is excellent and not so specific that it would get in the way of commonsense. From my side of things, it seems that a detailed procedure is not really what is wanted or needed, so I'm happy to go with overwhelming consensus and see if we can work through another way of standardizing on blocks.

What are some better ways of blocking?

My major concerns, and judging by the comments above I think this is agreed by many others, when it comes to blocking on these issue there are many different block lengths, depending on the administrator who blocks, and often these block lengths are inadvertently less than consistent and dependent on external factors, such as the mood they are in at the time. There are many non-admins who are also concerned about this area of policy and enforcement, and I think we should be careful to listen to them, even if some of them (no names mentioned) tend to either be on the fringes of our community and/or have unpopular opinions. There is a kernel of truth to their complaints, and while I don't think that most admins are abusive or make poor decisions, we all make mistakes and there are always areas that we can do better on.

Put more simply, I think that there is a general feeling that justice is not always served when it comes to enforcing this policy. Sometimes we don't block for long enough, yet other times we block too early or for too long. Regardless, I think that general consensus is that there needs to be some better guidelines around this area.

Another thing I've noticed in the general discussion is that most people have some concerns about what exactly is civility. Now I'm not sure that is really that this should be our focus here, because Wikipedia:Civility is actually fairly clear as to what constitutes incivility. It reads:

“ Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern. ”

However, I still think the abstract is still useful in this policy.

Therefore, so far as I can see, we just need define a mechanism to standardize on blocking policy. It may be that this is something descriptive and specific, or it may be a more prescriptive guideline that allows admins more leeway. I think that the latter seems to be the case here, so I'm opening this discussion to find out what sort of things we can do to improve in this area.

What are people's thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

well, at the risk of sounding like a bore, I think we should revisit the 'parking ticket' model I advanced a while ago: one 30 minute shot across the bow block for first offenses, a flat, non-cumulative, unappealable 24 hour block for any later offenses. I might expand on that to throw in a 'trouting' phase: first trout them, then a 30 min block, then a 24 hour block, with the option to revert to trouting again (can I legally use the word 're-trout' in the state of Florida?) if, say, the user hasn't done anything uncivil in the last month or so. basically it's a 'cut the drama' approach - incivility means you sit on the sidelines for a day, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it. this removes any sort of psychological validation someone might get from being uncivil. remember, the only reason people get uncivil is that they want to express something and they feel thwarted and frustrated. make it so incivility itself becomes a thing that will thwart their ability to express themselves, and that will give them an incentive. --Ludwigs2 18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this has merits, but there was quite a bit of concern that a 30 minute block is a bit like a cool down block. While I disagree, I have to say that upon thinking about it further there is probably some truth to the fact that it won't really help and might just rile up the editor. I think with blocking we need to take care that it's only done to prevent disruption and to protect the project. Would a 30 minute block do this? I think it might, but there are others who disagree and I think they have valid concerns.

I certainly think that discussion should occur with the editor, and if they show no signs of changing their ways then we should start implementing shorter blocks earlier. Whether we should formalize this... I don't know now.

Perhaps we can think of a more creative way of definining blocking periods, or maybe we need to consider that the admin should make their best judgement to block for incivility but be forced to report it to some noticeboard for review by other admins. It could be that blocking times start sorting themselves out naturally with a general consensus on how long to block. Perhaps this is the way forward... certainly it would be much more flexible than my escalating blocks proposal.

Is there some merit in this idea? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. we could drop the 30 min block idea and just leave it with a trouting followed later (if necessary) by a short block of some standard length. I am resistant to the idea of institutionalizing the 'talking to the editor' bit, because in my experience whenever you try to talk to someone about incivility, the result is a ream of fruitless, barely civil self-justifications about how they weren't being uncivil and everyone else was being mean to them and they were just doing what they had to do... that just perpetuates the problem. I think we need to borrow the logic of wp:DNFTT here, even though these are editors in good standing. angry people are hard to reason with, no matter how sensible they are in most cases. --Ludwigs2 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point - perhaps if those who aren't the target of incivility should not be required to start the discussion. As you say, this is often fruitless - an uninvolved editor would be better. I think we do need to give an editor who is being abusive some lattitude for things such as wikistress, etc. However, it could be that we have the victim report the abuse on a noticeboard, and if it determined by others that they don't understand how their incivility is an issue then we just issue a straight block. In this way we do keep the lines of communication open, but we don't force the editor to do the communicating, which is often counter productive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Key Issues

Demographics, Environment (Profanity)

What isn't discussed (explicitly) is that the WP environment implicitly filters the demographics of the contributor base. [[7]] reports that only 13% of contributors are women. [[8]] reports that WP had a net loss of 49,000 editors the first three months of 2009. While you can't prove a negative, the environment and what's consisdered acceptable has a lot to do with that. There are simply valuable contributors who we're going to lose because the environment is too hostile. Some might call them overly sensitive, others merely civilized.

I think the simplest example of the issue is profanity. A common opinion is that we're adults and saying fuck is no big deal. It's not for a lot of people, but it is for some. What strikes me about it is that is is unnecessary and adds no value. Does That's not a fucking reliable source convey more information than That's not a reliable source? In real life, profanity can be communicative. Some people use fuck like some people use like, hearing fuck from them doesn't mean anything. Others only use it extreme situations -- if a friend who never cusses says I'm fucking pissed the I'm dropping everything to talk to them. The important point is: in real life, it can communicate something; in Wikipedia there's rarely sufficient context to make it meaningful.

So we're losing editors. On the other hand, instituting a "no profanity" rule would drive other editors away. So, yes I understand there is no simple solution.

More importantly and more abstractly, there's frequently an underlying tone of don't be so thin skinned, ignore the insult. While the barbs thrown my way don't usually bother a man with my self-confidence the general population isn't necessary the same way. So the question the community must address do we really want to be the Encyclopedia anyone can edit or the Encyclopedia of thick-skinned editors?

"Ignore the insult"is absolutely out of question. We work on encyclopedia here, not on porn film (er... sorry, this is included as well :-). The itention is to cooperate. If I tell you "please don't use offensive speech" and you tell me "bug off, this is free country", I know your attitude towards me. Blocking is not for your speech, it is for your attitude to fellow wikipedians. Mukadderat (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been dealing with an incivil editor (a defrocked admin) who routinely drops f-bombs. Perhaps undergraduates find profanity acceptable, but once an editor reaches middle age, one stops hearing language like that. Profanity indicates a lack of self-control and a deliberate attempt to be shocking, disrepectful and disruptive. Racepacket (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. Profanity rightly or wrongly is used frequently in everyday speech at the highest and lowest levels regardless of age, social class or even current temper. I have had conversations (on the same day) with a right wing senior government figure, a taxi driver and my eldest son - all have said "fuck" in general conversation. None of them were intending to be outrageous or direspectful. I raised my eyebrows at my son, with the other two - I barely noticed. It's not remarkable.  Giano  13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty extraordinary claim. What's your source for your information? Gerardw (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In instances of quoting someone, for factual accuracy purposes, I can understand the use of profanity as the person quoting is not the on really saying it, but rarely if ever could I imagine an instance where it is helpful if directed at anyone specifically or used as a reply out of frustration to someone else. For example, Giano's use of a particular word in quotation marks above for example purposes and not directed at anyone else in this discussion seems okay as it is used solely to illustrate his point and I could not imagine anyone giving him any guff over it. But if used in any situation on Wiki other than to quote someone else's comment, it tends to be taken as needlessly imflammatory as it is hard to not imagine things escalating once anyone starts swearing at someone else. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Special users, lack of consistency

My WP:OR includes knowing a Marine Corps Staff Sergeant who once told me You can be an asshole, but as long as your a consistent asshole, the men will love you. What I see users most upset about is not community standards for civility but perceived inconsistency in how they are applied. There's too often an attitude, yea, they're a jerk but they contribute so much to Wikipedia! What is unknown and difficult to impossible to measure is how many editors are not contributing due to the hostility and perceived unevenness of community sanctions. (Sanctions running the gamut from lifetime bans to other editors commenting Dude, that's uncool.) Personally I suspect the loss of many occasional editors outweighs the contributions of a few. Again the community most address the vision -- do we really want to be the anyone can edit or the some editors are more equal than others place?

Ditto. also, if a person is a jerk, he is a jerk in many ways, and wastes other people time on unnecessary bickeringn in talk pages. There are difficult editors, but if he is a normal person, arguing with him (even endless and tiresome) is an intellectual challenge, but with a jerk it is frustration. Mukadderat (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The next step

We already have a standard and a road map in WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." What's needed is the community to come together to:

• reduce the hostility
• apply the standards uniformly
• support the victims of the attack

Experienced editors need to convince other experienced editors that it is important.

Existing enforcement mechanisms are sufficient. The first, underused sanction should be us thick-skinned types politely intervening to encourage more positive behavior. The more the better. Obviously some editors will need more persuasion than that; we have mechanisms for that -- it's the universal community standard that is lacking.

I anticipate many editors believe Wikipedia is too widespread to achieve such an ambitious goal. That may be true, but to fail to try is to accept the status quo. Gerardw (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. I know I've had my own etiquette notification, so I'm probably partly to blame for some of my actions in the face of provocation, but Gerard makes an exceptionally good point. I have often wondered what would happen if the exceptional editors who are so extremely rude and insensitive were to drop off the mortal coil. Would Wikipedia continue? Well, the answer is that it would. In fact, more than likely another interested individual or individuals would come in and start editing the same articles as that exceptional editor. So it's not like there is any editor here who can not be replaced.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we want to replace them if they are indeed exceptional. But I think we really need to draw a line on the sheer and downright hostility that is being generated, as GerardW says. I was hoping that this discussion would help us come to some sort of consistency when it comes to blocking, which I see as one of our greater challenges. It's not really an easy thing to achieve, but that's why I was suggesting the escalating blocks. This has proven fairly unpopular, so I think it's back to the drawing board - I'm hoping we can hash something out that, even if not perfect, gives us a guideline for us to apply fairly across the board and that shows no favourtism. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible test run

Here's a thought. When the language is hammered out to your liking, begin by applying these standards within the admin community. Demonstrate that these standards can be impartially and consistently applied among yourselves, and if you can do that, then extend it out to the community as a whole.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any admins in mind when you say this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not "any" admins, "many" admins.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand the frustration, but I don't see how targetting admins is very helpful. Admins are meant to be ordinary editors with a few extra rights. I realise some of them don't see it that way, and that's sad (power does tend to corrupt). However, we need to be consistent across all editors, not just admins. I don't really support this proposal. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean this as targeting admins, rather admins demonstrating they can fix their own behaviour before asking us to trust that they can fix everyone elses.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh... I see. I would have no objections to this, so long as it doesn't become a free-for-all pick on an admin day. Adminship can be pretty stressful you know. For every incivil admin I see, I notice that there are at 10 unreasonable, nasty or downright insane editors who must be pulled into line, which really takes a lot of time, energy and patience. I rather don't blame some admins if they snap, but I do agree that there are indeed some admins whose civility is sorely lacking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You've just verbalized by biggest concern perfectly. I rather don't blame some admins if they snap... How long till this becomes the standard for enforcement. Admins empathizing with their poor downtrodden bretheren yet dropping the hammer on the nasty and downright insane editors that must be pulled into line.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on a sec. That's not really what I was saying. I don't agree with admins snapping, perhaps I should have been more careful with my words. I'm merely saying that adminship is actually a difficult job to do - first of all these are all volunteers who devote a lot of time to the project when they could actually be doing other things. All the admins I've known have not done it for anything other than the love of Wikipedia itself and all it represents. As you are not an admin, and you've never had to enforce a difficult decision I don't think you quite understand how nasty and difficult some editors really are. It's all very well for editors to sit back and heckle from the bleachers, but the fact is that adminship is by and large a nasty and unthanked job. That's why a lot of admins aren't really active - we currently have 1,718 admins and only 883 of them are officially active. I can assure you that I don't see even a fraction of this number on WP:AN/I, WP:AN or the other admin noticeboards, so that leaves a fair amount of burden on a few dedicated and foolhardy souls. These few are frequently attacked by outsiders such as Wikipedia Review, or perhaps added to Daniel Brandt's (oh he of the hallowed privacy brigade) "Hive Mind" list, totally violating any privacy they might have enjoyed. And what for? Why, because they have tried to protect the project. I know of at least one of them who lost their job because of harassment, and I know of another who was slandered in the most horrible way you could imagine, which caused her a lot of unnecessary grief and mental anguish.

So I'm sorry if this has turned into a bit of a rant, but when you say that we should apply our standards to admins, I agree. But some understanding of the difficult job they do might be nice. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if that was supposed to make me feel more comfortable with this proposal it did not. You're continuing to take all my fears and post them in this thread. I'm sure that's not your intent, but if you were sitting in my chair you'd see it.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree with your proposal. Of course we need to apply civility blocking to admins, but I don't think we should be using them as guinea pigs. Why should an admin be blocked before a regular editor who is incivil? I say apply it equally to admins and non-admins alike. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My proposal was not about holding them to a higher standard, rather a request to demonstrate that they could apply this standard evenhandedly. However as long as admins view non-admins as hecklers and those who "just don't understand" there will be two standards applied. As you can not support my proposal I can't support a proposal that strengthens the concept of editors being second class citizens.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see editors as second class in any way. In fact, for quite some time I was happily editing without admin rights, certainly not as involved as I once was but I didn't see the need for the admin bit even though I was asked a number of times. It's only recently I got them back, as I felt there was a place for my particular skills. To say that I don't understand what its like to be an "ordinary" editor is, I feel, rather unfair. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't claim to know you, I only know what you wrote, and it's frankly chilling to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful as a trial run. The stipulation would have to be that only admins play -- that is, only another admin would discuss with another admin not following the newly understood civility guidelines. Otherwise it would degenerate into pick on admin week. Gerard^PFAW 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That is my concern. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility should be seen as a symptom, rather than a punishable offence

The problem with this proposal is that it addresses symptoms, rather than underlying situations. There is no substitute for an intelligent look at a situation to find out why an editor is, or has become, incivil. This is harder, and impossible to legislate for, but irreplaceable.

For example, no one here should reproach a BLP subject and newbie that has been repeatedly libelled by Wikipedia for expressing their righteous indignation. Yet where such a situation has been allowed to develop, it is quite possible to come across a talk page where that person seems to be grossly abusing someone. Promoting a symptom-based approach increases the likelihood that such situtations will be grossly misjudged, adding insult to injury.

If we have to have an "incivility blocks" policy, it should oblige any admin considering an incivility block to first take the time to investigate the underlying situation, obtain both editors' input, and talk them down from their positions, or refer them to dispute resolution. Incivility should be seen not as a crime deserving punishment, but as a symptom of a situation that requires outside intervention, be it by an administrator or the community at large. An editor should only be blocked if they persevere without any apparent interest in having the situation resolved.

We should also look at the way in which we seem to discount editors' emotional responses as invalid. The work place comparison has often been brought up. It is true that I cannot keep calling my boss, colleagues or customers names in their presence and expect to get away with it. However, I believe it is equally true that all of us have discussed the perceived failings of colleagues, bosses or customers in unflattering terms, on some occasion or other. We are in danger of fostering a culture where any such discussion anywhere on the site is considered a punishable offence. Editors are human beings with feelings, not robots. The fact that spoken words fade away, while written words endure, has something to do with this, but we have to accept that even the enduring written word may simply have been the reflection of a fleeting emotion.

I am not against promoting civility standards. It is very important that editors assume good faith and all the rest of it. People can't work together otherwise. When negativity is allowed to bounce back and forth without end, the working climate becomes intolerable. However, it is equally true that AGF and civility are gamed. One editor may be wilfully deaf and uncooperative and accuse another editor of POV pushing until the other editor blows a gasket, only to then take them to ANI for "incivility". Likewise, there is a vast difference between someone being justifiably angry, and someone aggressing another simply because they have a chip on their shoulder and want to take their bad mood out on someone. What all these situations have in common is that you need to look at the underlying dispute to understand what you are dealing with, rather than punish those through whom the first symptoms manifest.

Lastly, people are different. Some have a delightfully flamboyant way of expressing themselves, and enjoy hyperbole, colloquial idiom and humour. Others are calm and matter-of-fact. Both types may be making essential input that enriches this project.

Punishment itself often exacerbates and prolongs disputes. I understand the good intentions behind this proposal, but the way to hell is paved with them. JN466 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heavens. look, in response to this, I'm going to come straight out and say something that I've been avoiding saying to this point. Yes, people have all sorts of motivational and personality differences, and they are important to consider. but there's really only one reason for incivility: childish self-indulgence. Now a little bit of childish self-indulgence in natural and unavoidable - tweak anyone one just enough in just the right way at just the right time and their inner child will come out to bitch-slap you - but wikipedia has gotten in the habit (through the misunderstanding of some very high-minded ideals) of indulging fits, tantrums, and other forms of childish petulance. If you go to intelligent design, global warming, or any of the other contentious articles on wikipedia (or look over some of the pseudoscience debates I've been involved in) what you will see is endless arguments in the unrestrained style of spoiled second-graders, and you'll see admins acting like annoyed grammar-school principles (i.e., ignoring everything until it can't be ignored it anymore, and then handing out semi-random punishments designed to shut people up more than to address the problem). I mean, can you imagine a board of directors meeting for a corporation, or an academic colloquium, where people behaved that way? I've only seen one case where a professor leaned in that direction, and as soon as it became obvious that it was ongoing behavior, he was politely but firmly asked to consider retirement, which is ultimately what he did. There is no way in hell wikipedia will ever be taken for a serious encyclopedia so long as talk pages look like they are written by 8 year olds.

The worst part of it, however, is not that it's indulged, but that it's taught to all new editors. to give you a typical trajectory (it happened to me, and I've seen it happen to dozens of others):

• A new editor arrives at a page of interests and starts to edit
• The page happens to be a contentious page (pages are contentious because they are of interest to large numbers of people, so many people end up at one, fairly quickly)
• The new editor is stuck in the middle of someone's dispute with someone else: his/her edits are reverted without explanation, s/he's called names, s/he's told s/he should edit somewhere else until s/he 'gets the hang of' wikipedia, or worse.
  • this is enough to put off most sensible editors, who will walk away thinking that it's just not worth putting up with that crap to edit some stupid encyclopedia.
• Any new editor who persists will find him/herself under increasing pressure, including:
  • more offensive language
  • warnings of administrative punishment (and remember, new editors are not savvy enough to distinguish between normal users and admins, so every specious warning they get sounds official, and threatening)
  • accusations of being disruptive, tendentious, SPA, trolls, vandals, or anything else from the wikipedia 'ghost and ghoulies' repertoire
  • possibly even be gamed into being blocked (with or without cause) by experienced editors who know sympathetic admins (every good grade school bully knows when it's the right time to call for the principle).

the result of this is (a) sensible editors walk away, (b) less sensible editors learn that the only effective style of editing articles is to be a spoiled, pugnacious brat.

when I read what you wrote above, what I hear is some indulgent parent saying "well, that was bad, but he's really a good boy, and he didn't mean to be mean..." I'm inclined to agree with you that most wikipedia editors are good people with good intentions. But sometimes even the best child needs a slap on the wrist or a sharp word to keep them in line, otherwise they become insufferable, and where there's one insufferable person, there will soon be two, and then ten. If we want to rid wikipedia of its current "Lord of the Files" aspect, we're going to have to rid ourselves of that tendency to indulge. --Ludwigs2 17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I agree with most of what you say. The problem is that "warnings of administrative sanctions" or "accusations of being disruptive, tendentious, SPA, trolls, vandals, or anything else from the wikipedia 'ghost and ghoulies' repertoire" are not generally held to be "incivil" here: on the contrary, they are exactly the sorts of warnings and accusations that sway some admins – and remember, one is enough – into blocking editors. These behaviours – which I agree are not helpful and indeed give civility a bad name – are not what this policy, as currently formulated, is able or designed to address.

Write one that is and I might support it. --JN466 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

actually, I don't think that's true. I think those behaviors are generally considered uncivil, it's just that no admin wants to enforce them, because the few admins who try get caught in a collective tantrum that can last for weeks or months (look at the mess of hysteria around WIlliam M Connelly from his supporters at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. From my own experience, I know that being calm, reasonable and persistent will always provoke uncivil behavior, because uncivil behavior is the only option available to editors who don't want to deal with actual reasoning. The block strategy is designed to force people to use reason rather than incivility. Trust me, with a civility block policy in place, I could break any page-ownership issue on wikipedia, just by sitting myself down in the middle of the talk page and being reasonable. other editors would have a choice between being uncivil and getting blocked (which would leave me free to edit the page) or actually communicating with me (which can only work towards NPOV). can't do that now because all I'll get is an endless stream of uncivil comments and misdirections. --Ludwigs2 22:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly with Jayen466, above. Incivility is a message and it often means that the other guy, frankly, deserved the cussing-out that he got. I'm not sanctioning personal attacks directed at anyone, even the deserving. Anyone reviewing some situation needs to filter through the noise and sus-out what's going on. It will rarely be as simple as Editor:A said 'fuck' and he's blocked. Ludwigs2, I'm please that you mention Lord of the Flies; there *is* that aspect to this project. There are too many littluns running about with pointed sticks. When they need blocking, it should be for being disruptive little shits, not for how many of George Carlin's words they said. In some cases, the two concerns will track the same and there will be a class of incivility that warrants an immediate block, but that bar is high. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I think that misses the point of both the discussion here and of the novel. Lord of the Flies wasn't about a bunch of kids running around with pointy sticks; it was about how a society without cultural ballast will rapidly devolve to reasonless, superstitious, tribal antagonisms. No one here cares about someone saying a few bad words; we care about one editor trying to use intimidation, bullying, or other non-reasoning forms of control to attack, silence, or dispose of editors they dislike. If you want to oppose the idea, that's fine, but please oppose the idea that's been presented, not some strawman position. --Ludwigs2 03:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am familiar with the novel. I know full-well how the themes map to this project. You did recognize Jack Merridew, right? There's a thread at ANI now about a littlun poking a bigun with a stick. What you're talking about is not 'incivility'. Fact is, 'incivility' is commonly used as a reason for prissy, puritanical blocks. What you are seeking to address is, frankly, not as big a problem as the thousands of immature editors that have beset this project in recent years; it a question of scale: too many anybodys editing wo/clue vs serious people. The death of this project will be marked by a mob of idiots. Jack Merridew 04:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry, I missed the reference - bit silly of me . but actually, part of the problem I'm having here is that I am talking about civility in its proper sense, it's just that the term has gotten watered down by the wikipedia fixation on individualism as a panaceae. The original use of the word 'civility', mind you, was "the state of being a citizen and hence [denoting] good citizenship or orderly behavior" - it's take on on a modern meaning of being polite, but that hard core of good citizenship is what I'm after and what I think is important here. to my mind, there's no class distinction here - no 'serious people' opposing a mob of 'clueless anybodys'. these 'anybodys' are usually people who have a perfect right to help build the encyclopedia but haven't yet learned the ropes, and the reason they haven't yet learned the ropes is that most vocal of the experienced editors are mostly trying to harass newbies off the project. The point of civility is to build a functional social environment, not simply to be nice to people, and if we reduce it to 'how editor X talks to editor Y' we miss the point of it entirely.

P.s. I've gone ahead and refactored my unpleasant words above, by request - probably best if you do the same. they don't really add anything to the conversation. --Ludwigs2 16:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

On a number of articles, I've noticed one thing that always seems relevant to civility - people aren't assuming good faith. Is this something we should take into consideration in this policy? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they sorta mutually exclusive? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd think! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought

You know, I think that part of the problem might actually be that we're trying to do something!!!1!1!! about this subject. If editors see that they can go running to the dramaz boardz and try to get someone "banned" (because they don't understand that we don't normally ban here), then they usually no longer need to address the actual issue which started the dispute. I'd guess that something like 99.999999% of stuff that lands on AN/I is the direct result of some content dispute. I like #Incivility should be seen as a symptom, rather than a punishable offence above because I can agree with most of the points made by everyone there, for various reasons. The thing is, I think that we may be creating more of an issue then there is by immediately jumping to address every minor complaint ASAP.

What about something like this idea: we set up some sort of procedure, similar to the way that RFC/U is supposed to work, where anything posted to AN/I needs the endorsement of others (or something). Exceptions for obvious emergencies could be made, of course.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is that too many threads on AN/I take the form of one editor complaining about another, who then responds, which then leads to several thousand words of accusations & vituperation between the two until either (1) one or both parties are exhausted, or (2) a third party offers an opinion. The responding party by her/his action ends up endorsing the issue, even if the matter boils down to something trivial such as a preference for spelling (or the inclusion of an infobox). Then there is the problem where someone has an appropriate complaint, but it doesn't get endorsed because no one is available to investigate & endorse it -- which is how Wikipedia works, unfortunately: no one makes anyone here do anything -- even help one another. But somehow it gets done a surprising amount of the time. That said, I wish there could be some kind of procedure similar to what you propose -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to re-merge this fork

At this point, there is nothing much to this proposal except for a rewording of Wikipedia:Civility. I propose that this be reintegrated back into that policy. The clue that this is needed is that the text of the proposal doesn't even mention blocks, despite the title of the proposal. Incidentally, the nutshell isn't accurate either, as it refers to "consistency in blocking" which is, again, not present in the text itself. Risker (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The blocking section was removed pending ongoing discussion - it's there, just in the aether for a bit. that being said, we could consider uniting this with the main civility policy, but I suspect that trying to do that before this idea is established on its own will just result in a minor conflagration. it might be best to keep the ideas of giving that policy some teeth and changing that policy separate for the moment. --Ludwigs2 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support this, for different reasons. I think it was an incredibly bad idea from the jump. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• No reason to merge. While I agree that this is part of Wikipedia:Civility, it is a particulatly well-defined subtopic, and may well be in a separate subpage. Mukadderat (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. There's a difference between being a general dick and not showing anyone any respect versus hounding a new user who made an edit someone didn't like. Both get a scolding under WP:CIVIL, but it gets to a gray area after that. None of the others at WP:5 are anything that could/should/might ever lead to a block. This is, or seriously needs to be. I'd argue that the unique nature of needing teeth behind one of the 5 warrants a separate page/policy. Would it be better if we billed this as "enforcement of 'do no harm'"? *Shrugs* I know the meta nature of civility makes things fuzzy but there's at least overwhelming consensus that the current "system" really sucks when it comes to ad hominem incivility. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea of a merge, mainly because this further dilutes discussion. As if there weren't already enough places to discuss this sort of issue...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just mark it rejected. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rude but rule-following?

• No, I'm not narcissistic. I'm seriously offering my former (and potentially, future) behavior as a test of the water of what people are concretely thinking here. Anyone here know my history? In the past (and potentially in the future) I have been very harshly dismissive of anything or any behavior that smells fishy. I have little time for idiots who think they aren't. I most especialy have no time for people who throw crap up on the board and then demand that people treat it like caviar. I have ranted nd raved on many an occasion. I have been insulting, and deliberately so. I have thrown fits, and on rare occasions, they were huge. BUT. I back off (sometimes in a sudden 180-degree turn) when I see I am wrong. BUT I refuse to back off when I do not see I am wrong. BUT I often just stop... walk away from things that piss me off. I can be very excitable, but I never go to peoples' talk pages to harass them. In short, it may be fair to say that I am "distinctly rude but consistently rule-following." So, what about me? Is some doofus of a WP:Randy from Boise admin who has been on-wiki three months (all of which was spent spent vandal whacking, working on one or two video game articles, and chatting on IRC) gonna speak to me in a faux-polite Adminly Voice^TM and use this project as justification for blocking me because I don't play nice??? Where do you draw the line? Do you know? Should you know? • Ling.Nut 09:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You can be whacked not only by Randy from Boise, if you will be deliberately insulting, as you say, and rightly so. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Insulting people will not make articles better. Mukadderat (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Facebook is thataway --> • Ling.Nut 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well this conversation has officially hit bottom. I don't see any forward progress here, especially not in this particular thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

well, the problem is that a lot of people are having a hard time distinguishing between being crusty and being uncivil, and are worried they will get zapped for being crusty when they haven't actually been uncivil. I have the same worry, actually - I have some decidedly crusty moments in my wikipedia life - but I'm rarely overtly uncivil.

me, I wouldn't mind taking a couple of hits as a reminder to play nice if I knew that the hits were being parceled out equally. One of the big problems that civility has on wikipedia is that there's a strong impression that civility is actually a tool for punishing people with 'bad' ideas: Right now I'm getting the short end of that: got an editor assaulting my character in every single post - accusing me of pov-pushing, edit-warring, incivility, the whole gamut - and I'm having to be very careful to hold my tongue (because he's one of those pseudoscience mavens, and I damned well know I'll get sanctioned by someone if I make an incautious retort). fortunately he's not very good at it, so I can hold my own fairly well, but I have a hard time imagining what extremes he would have to go to before one of those same someones cautioned him about it. as long as that kind of thing exists on wikipedia there will be no civility anywhere - that's why I like this idea. make it even, make it fair, make it strong, and then that kind of gamesmanship won't be able to get any traction. --Ludwigs2 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwig, though I also say that if you just ignore the uncivil remarks and let them brush off and dont retaliate then Wikipedia would be a better place. Just like in grade school bullys want the attention and for the drama, we are giving in to them with the discussions and the processes and the AN/I and ArbCom and wikittiquete noticeboard and all the "rules" and all this does is give them an opportunity to evolve into the type of bullies that stay just barely within the "rules" and STILL find ways to harrass. In the end "innocent" people who are pushed over the edge and say something they shouldnt because of harrasment from a bully's actions such as edit warring, refusal to adhere to consensus, wikihounding, etc; as opposed to words and insults; end up getting blocked and other sanctions. The stricter we make the punishment and the broader (or even if stricter) the definition the more we end up just creating more drama and the opportunity to hurt good editors who contribute good content. For those in Criminal Justice, Poli Sci, or from the state of NY may know the folly of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. That's where we're heading with all this talk of uncivil actions and incivility.Camelbinky (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)