Wikipedia talk:Civility

Organising this policy page

I suppose that even a policy page should be organised logically? And that inconsistencies, redundancies and illogicalnesses may be repaired directly, just as they may be repaired directly on any ‘normal’ Wikipedia page?
Seeing that the page is titled ‘Civility’, I’d propose this logical outline:

1. What is civility.

2. What is incivility. (This section then ofcourse includes present §3 “identifying incivility”, because we identify anything, whether it is macaroni or Volvo or James Bond or incivility, by checking whether it fits the definition.)

3. Preventing our own incivility (Which then ofcourse includes what is now in §1.1, 1.2, and also §4.3 but much more condensed.)

4. Reacting on others’ incivility (Will contain the good rest of present §4.)

• Present §3.1 seems out of place on this policy page: ‘assume good faith’ is a separate, independent, Wiki policy. Just place a Wikilink on the term ‘assume good faith’ as soon as that term pops up—don’t try to repeat another policy page here. Keep things simple, concise, surveyable.
• §4.4 seems also out of place: ‘Blocking’ can be the consequence of what is said in §4.1: Dispute resolution→Arbitration Committee. It is enough to just add one line to that paragraph saying that ultimately the arbitrators can decide to a block.
• If ‘offensive language’ does not appear mentioned anywhere in the policy—as is now the case—it can’t appear in the nutshell, because that is then illogical and inconsistent.

Everyone is free, and invited, to react on these ideas. But having started this discussion section by no means deprives me of my right to directly repair gross or clear errors on this policy page, just as I’m entitled to repair obvious errors on any page, unless someone proves me wrong here. I also ofcourse have the right to directly include good ideas given here by others in any ‘improving’ edit of mine on the policy page—I don’t have to first ask their permission to use a good idea, and I also don’t have to first laboriously seek ‘consensus’ just to make an improving edit, on this page or or any Wiki page. If any (motivated) edit appears to be no improvement, anybody can remove it, with a good motivation ofcourse. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You might consider using a sandbox to prepare a draft. As I suggested elsewhere, people do not need precise definitions of civility and incivility—if a contributor does not have a pretty good idea of what those terms mean they should not be editing Wikipedia. Examples are good, but they should not attempt to be exhaustive and should not clutter the main points of the policy. This is not a legal document where terms have to be defined so courts of law can later decide whether to imprison an alleged offender—that's not how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone will argue, incorrectly, that a block is equivalent to imprisonment. If I were to say that I didn't know that we didn't imprison people here, on the Internet, no one would know that I was being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia doesn't imprison people, but it does matter. A block is a serious thing, and i support defining as well as possible what is civility and what is incivility. It does matter when someone is blocked, both for the editor who is blocked, and to the world who then does not get the benefit of the editor's input. The less well defined the policy is, then then more discretion is left up to others to either persecute someone or let things slide, based on favoritism or agenda, as well. That's not how we want Wikipedia to work. We want it to be more objective, i believe, more predictable. SageRad (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs some details

Some editors may make disrespectful or rude comments at talk pages. Since a user is forbbiden to remove such comments, what should you do about it? And why not tell so on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am new to this forum. There are some interesting topics here. Nice to meet you guys. Hope everything of your goes ok.God blessed.http://shiragik.jp/cgi/diary03/data/view/sitemap.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by LomediaLomedia (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

'Offensive language'

There’s no consensus on “avoid offensive language” in this policy. It is a wish of only two editors: Reenem in 2010 and Johnuniq in 2015.

You can’t forbid, in a (compelling) code of conduct, the use of “offensive language”, if that concept is not clearly defined. Apparently, Johnuniq (9 August) agrees that the concept ‘offensive language’ is not clearly defined.

Yes we must try to avoid hurting others, but that is implicit in “participate in a respectful way”, in our policy (nutshell). Trying nevertheless to forbid, in a code like this, what is not (and can’t be) clearly defined, is totalitarianism, and reminds me of the style of some of the recent legislation in Russia.

You can shrug your shoulders now and think ‘yes, Corriebertus is right, but why should we bother about such silly things?’ But that is exactly how totalitarianism comes to thrive: people on the high ground, who know it is not right, but don’t care to bother, because they take for silliness what is deliberate contrivance.

If people feel hurt by language in Wikipedia, they should talk about it with the ‘offender’. If that doesn’t help, ask a third person to look into it. But not coarsely and lazily and condemningly point to a Wikipedia policy page and say (or suggest): you are being uncivil. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A more accurate way of presenting the diffs would be to say that Reenem added "and avoid profane and offensive language" in January 2010 (diff), and that wording was retained in the policy (see WP:SILENCE) with some modification until Corriebertus removed it in August 2015 (diff). Johnuniq reverted that removal, and the text has been retained until now. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Link to workplace bullying article

I added a link to workplace bullying, following the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Anti-bullying task force. I agree with SageRad's observation that workplace bullying is a more relevant article in the context of Wikipedia than bullying. We already have links to the encyclopedia articles on Harassment and Sexual Harassment, so why not bullying? EEng reverted the change with the comment, "Linked article makes significant implications which I don't believe apply here." What are they? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC); edited 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, "workplace" for one. But let's turn it around: what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy? EEng (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

yep, me too - you seem to be unilaterally declaring Wikipedia to be a "workplace" on the basis of one editor in that VP discussion offering their opinion that Wikipedia is "somewhat like a workplace".  pablo 09:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything remotely controversial about describing Wikipedia as a workplace. This policy promotes a "positive, productive working environment". Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific policy definition of "bullying". The link clarifies policy by providing a pointer to an encyclopaedic description. This may help people who wrongly believe that bullying is defined by the feelings of the victim, that confronting it means it wasn't bullying, or other misconceptions. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Wikipedia has some qualities of a workplace, many of which are relevant to the article workplace bullying. An actual Wikipedia essay is WP:BULLY, but i find that essay somewhat lacking and the workplace bullying article to have more nuance and relevant dynamics described. To answer the question asked by EEng above, "what in the linked article clarifies WP's civility policy?":

• "workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society" --> relevant in that it explains that bullying can use the rules of a place, like Wikipedia, and i have seen that so much here.
• "Bullying in the workplace is in the majority of cases reported as having been perpetrated by someone in authority over the target. However, bullies can also be peers, and occasionally can be subordinates." --> I've seen people with "authority" here such as admins wield their power (such as it is) with a bullying stance and attitude.
• "Bullying can be covert or overt. It may be missed by superiors or known by many throughout the organization." --> The point about covert bullying is important because it's a big aspect of much bullying on Wikipedia that it maintains generally plausible deniability such that it's fairly obvious to the recipient, and perhaps noticeable by observers who pay attention, and yet there is typically an easy way to deny it, just because one cannot get into another editor's head. It's a classic aspect of abusive relationships, generally, to maintain a level of deniability or covertness to bullying, except in the most extreme or reckless cases.
• Then there's the section on profiling, which recommends against profiling people as "bullies" thereby pathologizing it and labeling the person rather than the behavior as a "bully" rather than "bullying behavior".
• Then there's the section on organizational culture, which makes the point that "Bullying is seen to be prevalent in organisations where employees and managers feel that they have the support, or at least implicitly the blessing, of senior managers to carry on their abusive and bullying behaviour." --> relevant at Wikipedia to the extent that much bullying behavior seems to have the green light or at least the "look the other way" response from admins and ArbCom, depending on who it is and what the content-related agenda may be and how it falls in relation to those with the power.
• There is the section on culture of fear, which could speak to some people's experience of a chilling effect by veiled threats of others being recognized as part of bullying.
• There's also a typology of bullying behaviors, and a list of tactics, and forms of bullying. All very helpful to someone who is in need of seeing these dynamics named and described, in order to combat the gaslighting and self-blaming aspect that can occur in a recipient of bullying behaviors.

In short, i clearly support its linking to the civility guidelines, and i thank Burninthruthesky for thinking of linking it. It would have helped me, had it been there a while back. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are three ways in which Wikipedia is clearly not a workplace:

• there's no contractual relationship between the "worker" and the "employer";
• none of the legal rights, obligations, and restrictions that apply in the workplace apply to Wikipedia;
• (most impotantly) no one's livelihood depends on editing.

I asked what in Workplace bullying help to clarify the Civility policy (from which you want to link it). SageRad's response tells us a lot of interesting stuff about typologies of bullying, but I still don't see anything about how the link makes the Civility policy clearer. If any link at all is needed, I think wiktionary:bullying#Noun says what needs to be said in 1/1000 the words. EEng (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a workplace in the sense that it's a place where people work together.

Specifically:

• There is an expectation of civility very much like most physical workplaces and other situations where people work together.
• There are ongoing relationships among people who rub shoulders and cooperate and sometimes get on each others' nerves.
• There are some power dynamics, as some are admins and some are arbitrators, who have more formal power as well as social status in some regards than "ordinary editors".

These are real way in which Wikipedia is like a more traditional "workplace". Also note that the concept of a "workplace" has never required it to be a single physical location, and this trend has expanded hugely since the age of telecommuting by Internet, so the "workplace" is a virtual concept as much as it is a "building where you go in the morning and leave at night". SageRad (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of a word isn't reliably arrived at by breaking it into pieces and giving uncontextualized definitions to the fragments. Highschool athletes may "work" together on the football field, but that doesn't make a football field a "workplace" (though no doubt bullying does go on there‍—‌just not workplace bullying).The entire Workplace bullying article makes it clear that it's about bullying on the job‍—‌or will you now claim that Wikipedia editing is a job?

And everything in your list applies to, say, a classroom as well. Is a classroom a workplace too? EEng (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia is a workplace (no) is irrelevant—what matters is that links added to an important policy must be helpful, but workplace bullying is not. We don't care what kind of bullying it is—it ain't allowed here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The word "bully" is mentioned twice in the policy, and there is no link, not even to WP:BULLY. Would you support a link to that essay? I think the policy would benefit from a link to a nuanced description of bullying behavior. SageRad (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to remove some of the links currently present. The line in question is:

• (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings

The two links are useful as they define terms as used at enwiki. However, we don't need to link "bullying" because anyone capable of reading the policy page knows what bullying is, and knows that it is regarded as "bad". If users A and B clash, A might take to using the thank function to let B know they are being watched. Someone could report that and describe it as "bullying", but no page we link to is going to say that thanking someone is bullying. More links = more confusion [do I have to read the linked page to understand WP:CIVIL?]. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Overlinking is bad in project space for the same reason it's bad in article space: low-value links water down and obscure those that actually assist the reader's understanding of the subject. Above I said, "If any link at all is needed, I think wiktionary:bullying#Noun says what needs to be said in 1/1000 the words", but I don't think anything is in fact needed, because as Johnu says, everyone already knows what bullying is. EEng (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the point that low-value links reduce readability. I oppose a link to wiktionary:bullying#Noun for several reasons:

• It doesn't give any examples of bullying behaviour.
• It gives an example of "in all schools" which may be misread to reinforce the misconception I have seen expressed on WP that bullying only occurs between children (as it used to imply in point 18 of this essay).
• It says "acts intended to...". Workplace bullying only mentions "attributed intent" and says the bully may be "laboring under the impression that this is the way to get things done".
• It doesn't mention "a bully’s mistakes are always concealed or blamed on underlings", which is something I see frequently on WP.

Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• The policy already has a lot of links. Links are ok. In fact, they're often useful and good.
• Not everyone knows what bullying is, and everyone can learn something more.
• Why is there such opposition to enriching the policy with a link that develops the concept of bullying more?

SageRad (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to the arguments raised above (examples: "define terms as used at enwiki", "water down and obscure"). And to repeat, how does the proposed addition help? Is it to convince readers of the evils of bullying? Anyone needing that is beyond contact, and all we can do is remove them from the project if they engage in bullying. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more to help a person who is recipient of uncivil behavior in understanding the characteristic dynamics of bullying, in order to be able to explain a behavior that feels uncivil, to understand and be able to apply the policy more fully. It's to help the Wikipedia community maintain civil behavior. As for the watering down, i don't think we're near link overload, and this one seems important to me. SageRad (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The effect would be to import into this policy very broad (and possibly conflicting -- Workplace bullying gives six) definitions of bullying that there's no indication the community endorses. EEng (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The policy already has a link to profanity to explain that word, and a wiktionary link for taunting and a link to an essay for baiting... in the same sense that the policy currently invokes profanity to explain that concept, i don't see how it would be bad to invoke an article on bullying to explain that by hyperlink. SageRad (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Links like that are what I was thinking of when writing "remove some of the links currently present" above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see taunt and profanity unlinked, but I'm unsure about baiting -- the linked essay gives worthwhile advice, and I think it's uncontroversial. EEng (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree—it's the attempted dictionary definitions which are pointless. The baiting link has useful advice for an editor, and a standard dictionary might not provide a useful definition of what is meant. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bullying is against the civility policy. Are there behaviours listed in workplace bullying that you believe are allowed by consensus on Wikipedia? What specifically is unhelpful about the article Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What specifically is unhelpful in the article? Well... "Bullying behaviors shows as an abuse of power between supervisors and subordinates in workplace. Supervisors release their own pressure to bully subordinates with their higher power due to workplace bullying. It is always related to management style of the supervisors. An authoritative management style is accompanied by a kind of bullying behaviors which can make subordinates fear so that supervisors can become authority themselves. On the other hand, some researchers agree that bullying behaviors is a positive performance in workplace. Workplace bullying can attribute to the organizational power and control. It is also a representative of power and control. if an organization want to improve this situation in workplace, strategies and policies must be improved. Lacking of policy in bullying like low-monitoring or no punishment will result in tolerating in organization. Bullying behaviors in workplace also exist among colleagues. They can be either the ‘target’ or perpetrator. If workplace bullying happens among the co-workers, witness will take side between target and perpetrator. Perpetrators always win, because witnesses do not want to be the next target. This way, it does encourage perpetrators to continue this behavior. In addition, the sense of the injustice by targets might become another perpetrator to bully other colleagues who have less power than them. Varitia who is a workplace bullying researcher investigate that 20% of interviewees who experienced workplace bullying thought the reason why they became a target is they are different from others.[31] In a word, bullying can increase more bullying in workplace. The third relationship in workplace is between employees and customers. Although it takes a little part, it play a significant role about the efficiency of the organization. If an employee work with unhealthy emotion, it will affect the quality of the service seriously. This relationship is closely related to emotion label. Lots of examples can be listed from our daily life, like customers are ignored by shop assistants, patients are shouted by nurses in the hospital and so on. On the other hand, customers might despise the employees, especially blue-collar job, such as gas station assistants. Bullying behaviors in workplace can generate effect mutually between the employees and customers. The Fourth relationship in workplace is between organization or its institution or its system and the employees. In the article of Andreas Liefooghe (2012), it notes that a lot of employees describe their organization as bully. It is not environmental factors facilitating the bullying but it is the bullying itself. Tremendous power imbalance enables company to "legitimately exercise" their power in the way of monitoring and controlling as bullying. The terms of the bullying "traditionally" implies to interpersonal relationship. Talking about bullying in interpersonal level is legitimate, but talking about the exploitation, justice and subjugation as bullying of organization would be "relatively ridiculous" or not taken as serious. Bullying is sometimes more than purely interpersonal issue."

Editors shouldn't have to wade through 5000 words like that before realizing it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Aside from needing some copy editing, I think this paragraph is useful and mostly very relevant to Wikipedia. I agree that "strategies and policies must be improved", which is precisely the purpose of this discussion. The fact a document is long does not mean it is poor.

If you are unwilling to give a substantive answer my question of what "significant implications" this link would have upon policy I will not attempt to engage with you any further in this discussion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Normal procedure is to explain how adding something such as a link is helpful. What at workplace bullying is helpful for someone trying to understand the CIVIL policy? Is anyone suggesting that a bully might click the link and be reformed because of what they read? Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See what above? EEng (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad's and my extensive replies to your (EEng and Johnuniq) questions, with which you appear to be unwilling to engage in a constructive manner. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you've "Unjustly discounted our thoughts or feelings" (Workplace_bullying#Tactics #3), "Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence" (#7), "Abused the evaluation process by lying about our performance" (#15) and "Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out" (#21). EEng (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I have asked you to clarify a comment of yours. This is not the place for a conduct dispute. I would prefer to have a constructive discussion about this minor change to the policy document, which I believe is an improvement. I must finish up for today (UK time), but I hope we can make some progress when I return. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

<rolls eyes> I think it's better if we wait and to hear other editors' opinions on the usefulness of the link you wish to add. EEng (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironically for this page, the dialog appears to be becoming uncivil, disruptive, a bit of IDHT. Let's turn this around.

• I am open to hearing about how including the link to workplace bullying in the policy would lead to false conclusions about bullying behaviors by Wikipedians, or about how it might "water down" the policy with too many links. This would be a copyediting question. Editors who come to WP:CIVILITY in hopes of finding a remedy for bullying when it's happening to them would benefit from having a suggested article to read more about the texture of bullying, to help them recognize and name it. That's my position. I'm open to hearing about why you think this is not true, or other factors outweigh it. SageRad (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See above. But really, let's await others' comments. EEng (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I too would be interested to know if anybody sees a legitimate concern against adding this link. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A link to workplace bullying should not be added as, despite any number of similarities that may exist, Wikipedia is not a workplace for the vast majority of those who choose to contribute to it. It could be argued that including such a link may in fact foster confusion amongst new (or perhaps even not-so-new) editors as to any agreement that they enter into by choosing to contribute to this project. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: Thank you for highlighting the contractual relationship between editors and the WMF. The Wikimedia:Terms of Use say, "You are welcome to join these teams and work with them to improve these Projects." So Wikipedia is a place where people work. I don't believe the link implies joining the project is entering an employment relationship, although that is the situation discussed in the article. However, I will suggest something else. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

As a compromise I propose instead to link bullying. This article also gives an informative description of the topic, and contains links to more detailed articles on several types of bullying. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That article opens:

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power, which distinguishes bullying from conflict.

"Force, threat, or coercion"? "an imbalance of social or physical power"? I'm sorry, but the problems of "low-value links" (implying the reader should plow through something that really has almost nothing to do with Wikipedia), and implicitly importing ideas into the policy that really aren't part of it, remains. (And later we've got, "Bullying may also result from a genetic predisposition or a brain abnormality in the bully" -- can't wait for those ANI threads. Maybe we'll start giving checkusers access to editor's MRIs.)

In contrast, Harrassment and wikihounding are linked to other WP policies. EEng (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You see, that's why the workplace bullying article is more appropriate and more useful. The "bullying" article needs work to cover bullying that is more psychological and emotional rather than physical.

But, bullying behavior has a lot to do with Wikipedia, and there are indeed imbalances of social power on Wikipedia. There is bullying going on, and it is useful for people to have more knowledge about this. Your eye-rolling does not make it go away and your perspective is not the only one here. Your sarcasm is not helpful in my opinion, either. It's a real problem and real editors are here saying that it would be useful to include. So, please make your arguments succinctly and directly as to why the policy on civility should not provide any links to any material about bullying that would be relevant to Wikipedia and the experience of editors who have experienced bullying dynamics here. You cannot simply deny that these dynamics exist, can you? Do you? Are you denying there is bullying behavior on Wikipedia? SageRad (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything except that neither article helps editors understand what's expected of them here. As before, let's wait to here what other editors think. And the next time either of you says I'm "unwilling to engage in a constructive manner", yeah, I'll make fun of that, 'cause it's silly and meaningless. EEng (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: The whole idea that we have some "vested contributors" who have social power because they are valued by the community and can get away with treating people however they like is a recurrent theme, if you look at the drama boards. I do agree with your implicit point that accusing someone of having a "brain abnormality" would not be an acceptable form of complaint (no matter how strong the evidence). Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you improve the essays at WP:VESTED and/or WP:UNBLOCKABLE? You guys are so fixated on this word bullying, and it's working against you. EEng (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I could equally say that you seem "fixated on" blocking this proposal... the whole phrase "fixated on" is a sort of slight. It's not useful and it's not about content. So, in terms of the content, you claim that "neither article helps editors understand what's expected of them here" whereas i and the other editor here apparently do think that the articles, especially workplace bullying definitely does help readers of the policy understand what is expected of them here, and would also help readers to identify certain dynamics and behaviors as bullying, moreso than if the link were not present. We've made a pretty clear case, i believe, to that effect. Please don't suggest that we both stop wanting to include that link because you want us to stop wanting to include it. You're not in charge here. We are here to discuss the content of the policy page. Two editors here have given reasoned arguments as to why a link would be useful. Please do not hold yourself in judgment in the way that the phrase "it's working against you" does position yourself. Please engage in the question of the content itself, or hold your peace. Please also do not be obstructionist. We're not in an urgent hurry, but speaking for myself, i'm also not willing to wait forever. Sure, i hope that others will weigh in their opinions, as well. Let that happen, if it does. Meanwhile, we're in a dialogue here to discuss this content. Now, do you think that including the link is harmful to the policy page? Do you think it misleads people? Do you think it's not going to be helpful to anyone and therefore it's just extraneous? Please explain your objections. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything's been explained several times. Until there's a genuine consensus for a change to this policy page it's not going to happen. I suspect you will call that bullying, but it's the way things work here. EEng (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there some form of WP:DR that doesn't involve wearing down opponents? Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not being worn down. Are you? EEng (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd call this getting uncivil and disruptive and yes, kind of bullying. SageRad (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And they say there's no such thing as clairvoyance! EEng (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't welcome your attitude. I find you to be being obstructionist with delight.

Anyway, why don't we call an RfC? Get a random sampling of editors eyes on the question. I would suggest we frame it as a few options: (1) link to workplace bullying (2) link to WP:BULLY, (3) describe the concept and dynamic of bullying within the WP:CIVILITY guideline itself, or (4) make no changes. SageRad (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm using humor to highlight the absurdity of your seeing everything as bullying, which your talk page shows is a longstanding habit with you. I thought we were going to wait to see what other editors think -- now suddenly you want an RfC? EEng (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see everything as bullying. I see bullying as bullying. Yes, i suggested an RfC as you're seeming to be obstructionist to me. SageRad (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

QED. EEng (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Stonewalling tactics certainly are disruptive (and you might say, bullying). I think an RFC would be premature at this stage. What we need is a substantive explanation for this revert. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: If you don't wish to defend your revert, you may of course re-revert yourself. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary is self-explanatory and its prediction that disagreement (and not just by me, BTW) would be characterized as bullying has proven prescient. EEng (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Broader participation and a higher level of consensus are required for a contentious change affecting how (in)civility is defined on Wikipedia. An RfC would be an appropriate way of achieving such consensus. --Boson (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested compromise (2)

The reason I added this page to my watchlist was to try and understand why WP:CIVIL was used so often as a weapon in the nastiest disputes on WP. I don't normally comment on CIVIL ,as I find the tactics used here to belittle non members of the 'in-crowd' amount to besevere workplace bullying, if you accept the premise that for some editors, WP has all the characteristics of workplace. We would be making a giant leap forward if we deleted the section WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL and replaced it lock, stock and barrel with Workplace bullying#Tactics. Of the twenty five examples given I have seen twenty being used in the last two years (and I expect that five will be used against me for making this comment). WP has 5 million edits, for anyone who has made more edits than me and has not been frightened off WP is an online workplace, in the same way as any volunteer charity. Until we have taken on-board the needed changes to WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, put the wlink in a prominent place. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Many thanks for speaking up. I know just how intimidating it can be here. I think your suggestion of a prominent link is very useful, and mitigates to some extent the complaint that we are seeking to redefine either the "workplace" or "bullying". As a step in that direction, we could add

See also: Workplace bullying § Tactics

to the start of the IUC section (cf. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information). Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Clem Rutter says: "Until we have taken on-board the needed changes to WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, put the wlink [i.e. Workplace bullying#Tactics] in a prominent place". Why not just propose that certain things listed at Workplace bullying#Tactics be imported into WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL? EEng (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that because the community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively. To me, the See also link seems to be the best compromise for the time being. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you propose that certain things listed at Workplace bullying#Tactics be slowly and conservatively imported into WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL? Linking to this article seems like a backdoor way to imply its content informs this policy, for fear the community won't approve the actual, explicit addition of that content to this policy. EEng (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Because I see at least two of us that would like a link to further information on the topic, for the benefit of users involved with bullying on WP. Importing some of the information would not achieve this. This policy already has a link to a paper book about workplace bullying, but an encyclopaedic link would be more accessible.

Bullying is against policy. I do not appreciate your suggestion that I am trying to change policy in an underhand manner. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's true, as you say, that "Importing some of the information would not achieve this", this being "a link to further information on the topic". But it would achieve actually giving such further information, directly in this policy, that the community agrees the reader should receive. It would also mean that changes to the article, which isn't a project page, wouldn't silently change the implications of this guideline.

I actually think the external links should be removed, because this policy isn't a self-help guide. And while underhanded is a very strong word, I think the effect of what you're asking is to bring something in by the back door, whether you realize that or not.

My skepticism about the wisdom of trying to delimit the bounds of civility every more elaborately, and I suspect that of many other editors, is well expressed by the words of the great John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, Chapter II, "On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"):

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.

EEng (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to like the fact there are external links in the policy. There are also several links to essays (one of which is in user space). I see the article on the book I mentioned includes a link to workplace bullying, so my proposed change is even more minor than even I thought it was. In fact it brings the article from 2 clicks away to 1 click away. I don't agree this would be bringing in anything "by the back door".

If you think policy forbids freedom of expression of opinion, you are mistaken. It is possible to disagree with others without insulting or abusing them. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me I don't have to like the external links, but I wasn't expressing a dislike, but an opinion that they should be removed because (as I said) the policy page shouldn't attempt to be a self-help guide.

Essays are explicitly marked at the very top, "These are just some editors' opinions‍—‌buyer beware!" (or whatever), so I'm less concerned about inappropriate implications with them. The fact that the article on the book has a link to what you want to link directly to from here (man, this is getting complicated) is irrelevant‍—‌so some editor (of some article on a book that someone linked from a policy) added a link five years ago [8], that means its a no-brainer to add it directly as a link from that policy?

I don't "think policy forbids freedom of expression"‍—‌that would be ridiculous as stated. I (or actually Mill) is saying that it's almost impossible to set firm rules on what's OK and what's not, plus that people have a strong tendency to cry foul when in fact all that's happened is that they've run into someone who strongly, and effectively, opposes them.

EEng (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You miss my point. This discussion is not about removing all external links from this policy. If you propose to change that, you may do so elsewhere.

Your assertion that "the policy page shouldn't attempt to be a self-help guide" is addressed eloquently in the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY. Any therapeutic effects derived from working here are a bonus, not the primary intention. I believe adding the suggested link can help users from all perspectives:

• The target can find information on how to cope with the situation (see also Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment).
• Administrators can learn how to better identify and prevent abuse.
• The perpetrator may be able to identify what is wrong with their behaviour and learn to do better in future.

I agree that it's almost impossible to set firm rules on what's ok. The devious can always find a way to couch their attacks in suggestion and vagueness, in a way that gives them plausible deniability. In that case it takes time and patience to find the pattern in their behaviour. However, there are some forms of behaviour that are clearly not ok. See also the article on Verbal abuse which is already linked from this policy. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The devious can always find a way to couch their attacks in suggestion and vagueness". No doubt. And those with fragile, easily bruised egos will always find ways to call vigorous, skillful, effective disagreement "bullying".
• "This discussion is not about removing all external links from this policy. If you propose to change that, you may do so elsewhere." You're bullying me by making up rules (Tactic #6): there's no rule that a discussion can't cover multiple ideas for changes, nor that new ideas cannot develop during a discussion of some other idea or proposal. Please do not further bully me by "Falsely accusing me of 'errors' not actually made" (Tactic #1). See how easy it is?
• "However, there are some forms of behaviour that are clearly not ok." Yes, and maybe we should list such behaviors in this policy instead of linking to a long, long article of questionable applicability. However, if these behaviors are clearly not OK, I wonder how necessary it is to list them.

EEng (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng:I have been attempting to discuss this edit that I made, and you reverted. I have suggested several possible compromises. Your proposing further changes which remove even more external links from this policy is not working towards compromise, it is the exact opposite. I am not willing to continue discussion in this vein. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, gut feeling time. those with fragile, easily bruised egos will always find ways to call vigorous, skillful, effective disagreement "bullying" gives me a sense of denying that bullying is a serious problem, and of blaming the victim. Will someone ever make claims that bullying is happening, will anyone ever be overly sensitive? Probably. Is that a reason to not define bullying behavior in the policy? No. Mocking of the concept of bullying is not amusing. The comment above by Burninthruthesky resonates with me and the response by EEng feels hostile, mocking, and tending toward obstructionist. SageRad (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't mocking the concept of bullying; I was pointing out that inappropriate behaviors can run in both directions. Will you please get on with actually proposing something [9] instead of this interminable dissection of who said what? EEng (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• EEng, i can see your point about links to other articles implying that the other articles define the policy and thereby when the other articles are changed, it sort of changes the implied policy. I think that's a fair point.
• I also think that importing some material into the policy itself would be a good step -- or adapting or writing afresh content to define bullying.
• On what bullying is, i think it should not at all limit freedom of expression unless the purpose of an expression is to emotionally attack or undermine the other person, in which case i think we do want to curtail that kind of expression. There is not a guarantee of freedom of speech within Wikipedia, as it is a place of work, a place where people come together for a purpose of writing an encyclopedia. There is a basic agreement that if you wish to work here, you must be civil, and part of being civil is not just to refrain from "naughty words" like "fuck" but more to the point, that a person's intentions are to communicate but not to emotionally attack or demean others into submission.
• Reason and evidence are the currencies on Wikipedia -- sourcing and knitting together content from those sources. Things can get contentious. There is a lot at stake. But people should be able to take part with respect and be given respect in return. The reason for including more on bullying here would be to focus more on actions -- including subtle long-term patterns directed at specific users -- that are intended to knock the other into submission by emotionally hurting them or by otherwise making them back off for reasons other than seeing that their point is incorrect. That is a judgement that takes discernment, nuance, subtlety. And of course nobody has a window into another person's mind transparently and so there is always a layer of judging the motivations of another, and that is very tricky and must be limited in some way. There is often plausible deniability (a bully can say "I meant no harm" and it can't be completely refuted) but we are humans and must use human senses, with a lot of leeway and margins, to make these calls, and the alternative of letting people just bully their points into articles is not good for either the articles or the humans involved in the work.
• I respect blunt expressions, and i don't mind curse words, fuck it, i don't care about a curse word as long as it's not meant in a mean way. I care more about when an editor hurts another editor without curse words, by being condescending or mocking or bullying in some other ways that may occur over days or weeks even, on occasion. We must use our human senses and i think it would be helpul to somehow encode something about this into the policy to make it more useful to people. SageRad (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems we agree that proposing changes directly to this policy would be more appropriate and productive. I'll tell you in advance, however, that I'm skeptical of anything but a very boiled-down version of the kind of list in Workplace bullying will be accepted. It just seems too much like an attempt to give a statutory definition of bullying, instead of (what I really think we are trying to do) help people whose naivete is being exploited see that what they think privately may be happening is really happening. EEng (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Using a recent example as a guide to bullying

Not a productive approach for this venue: not relevant to question of linking or not linking, we're not going to call out specific people in the guidance, etc. If you feel the need to address the comment, take it to ANI rather than here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To use a recent example by one of the participants in this discussion, is User:EEng asking another editor "Can you fucking learn to indent your post like everyone else" an example of bullying, harassment or just ordinary incivility? What's the best way to learn from this example as part of this discussion? Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Poor Alansohn -- still following me around like a lost puppy. My comment was directed toward another editor who had persistently refused to simply indent his discussion posts in the normal way. He'd been asked repeatedly by other editors to stop making them to reformat his posts, and increasingly forceful means of bringing the matter to his attention seemed appropriate. I might note that it had the desired effect i.e. the errant editor was inspired to sit up and fly right (see [10], including the posts just above the one highlighted in that diff). There's nothing here to apologize for (not me, anyway). EEng (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC) I don't believe being condescending helpful either. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC) This is one of our most prominent forums discussing one of our most critical and fundamental principles. The shamelessly uncivil personal attack from an editor would be bad enough, but there seems to be something disturbingly ironic that this incivility is coming from an editor who has been intimately involved in discussions here about the true nature of civility. The minor issue of indentation failure hardly seems to justify this cardinal example of incivility and the failure to recognize this as incivility and the statement that "There's nothing here to apologize for" demonstrates a true lack of understanding of what civility means. Before we decide how to best reword our policies on civility, we ought to take a look at those who are crafting it and considering how we treat those "errant editors". Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to develop concept of bullying in policy

Currently, the policy contains two brief references to bullying:

Under "Identifying incivility" --> "Other uncivil behaviors":

(b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings

And later, under "Avoiding incivility":

Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.

I would like to suggest working some more description of what bullying is, and what it looks like, from Workplace bullying.

Bullying occurs when an editor experiences a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others that causes harm. It can include such tactics as psychological abuse and humiliation. This type of aggressive incivility can be difficult to confront because, unlike the typical school bully, bullies can operate within the letter of established rules and policies and still show a pattern of incivility that can harm other editors and make the editing environment feel hostile to some. Bullying can be overt, but is often covert, with plausible deniability maintained to avoid sanctions to the bully. Negative effects are not limited to the targeted individuals, and may lead to a decline in overall morale of editors, quality of articles, and a change in organizational culture. Bullying can occur in a single incident, but often it is an ongoing process in which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position socially and emotionally, if the bullying is "successful." Bullying can result in negative effects toward the bullied people, which can cause stress and carry-over outside of Wikipedia. Editors are humans, and human interactions of good kinds can lead to good emotional carry-over, while bullying can lead to negative emotional carry-over. Another aspect of bullying is that bullied people are often treated worse when they attempt to confront the bully or to deal with the bullying behaviors in a direct way. The very act of naming or confronting bullying behaviors is often used as more fuel for the bullying behavior, and the recipient may be accused of making "personal attacks" or "casting aspersions" or "creating drama" for the very act of confronting a pattern of abusive behavior. Bullying is more likely to happen in an environment where bullies feel they have the implicit support of the power structure, and that their bullying won't be officially called out or receive sanctions. Bullies can create a culture of fear, and the impression of petty tyrants who can rule pages, and has some crossover with WP:OWN. Discerning what is a bullying behavior is a complex matter, requiring examination of a history of interactions. Those who evaluate a situation must be careful not to blame the victim, or to see the recipient's defensive reactions as the problem in the context of bullying.

This is some language that i propose. It's not final and it's pretty long. I'd love input about what more needs to be included, and how it could be streamlined. Or any other input. SageRad (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It's a start, but as you say it's got to be boiled down. There are too many tangents e.g. I think the stuff about carryover to real life is just too far off point.

2. For better digestibility, you might try breaking out the material into bullet points. (Number them for easier discussion.)

3. We can't define bullying in terms of what the putative victim "experiences". It's got to be what the putative aggressor has actually done.

4. I think attention needs to be given to the common phenomenon (and what to do about it) of inexperienced users interpreting the normal mechanics of the site as bullying. WP is a much-too-complex place -- wish I knew what to do about that -- and it's easy to see how a new user might come to conclude that rules are simply being made up to frustrate him or her.

EEng (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Policies never contain details such as the proposed text—they are kept simple to be easily comprehended and to avoid pointless wikilawyering. My first comment regarding this topic included all that needs to be said: We don't care what kind of bullying it is—it ain't allowed here. The purpose of Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopedia, not an everyone can join in and be happy forum. If an editor engages in persistent unhelpful behavior, another editor might attempt to engage them, with escalating expressions of alarm. The proposed text could easily to be used to accuse the second editor of "bullying" when they should in fact be given a barnstar for caring enough to defend the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

... which is why WP's attempts to legislate civility continually fall down. It's "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". It's pretty uncivil to block a user or to ban someone from a talk page or a topic area – but sometimes these measures are necessary. pablo 12:48, 13 December 2015‎

Your proposed opening line "Bullying occurs when an editor experiences a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others that causes harm." is seriously problematic. For example consider fictitious case description.

I feel strongly about a subject in which I have a stake. I add information, I even find many sources. Yet other editors persistently claim my sources are unreliable, that I my edits are flawed and my contents is fringe theory. But I AM RIGHT, the conspiracy people try to hush it up and keep the truth from the world, harming all of us.

And they conspire with many editors to revert me, I feel bullied. I experience a persistent pattern of mistreatment that causes harm. No further evidence needed, my experience is sufficient for a conviction of the bullies.

Sadly this type of discussion happens (frequently). And sadly supporters of fringe theories tend to stubbornly hold to their convictions, and honestly feel bullied. But, and I will be blunt here, that is their problem, not that of the editors trying to stop such people. Any bully policy should make clear that editors stopping fringe edits should not be burdened with defending themselves against bullying allegations. Arnoutf (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Precisely points 3 and 4 in my list of points a little bit above here. EEng (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I hear you all clearly, Johnuniq, Pablo X, Arnoutf and EEng. I think your concerns are completely valid. I hear your concerns, but this doesn't mean a clearer statement on bullying is not useful.

To address one concern, i don't think that "bullying" is a subjective term based on the experience of the bullied party. There will be times when it's not bullying, but rather simple disagreement. Editors must be able to take criticism. Editors must be able to live with their propsoed content not being adopted. It must be judged from the outside, by uninvolved parties. Other editors must be able to come in and say "yes, this is bullying" or "no, this is not bullying." However, the policy must give a good definition of the behavior to enable it to be referenced and judged in each particular case. I think it would need some qualifiers, to define what bullying is not, as well as what it is.

It is not about being RIGHT, but simply about being right. Sometimes an editor is right, but gets bullied away from being as forceful as they might otherwise be, by emotional dynamics. Sometimes they may be wrong, and then they may perceive bullying when it's not there. That's a judgment call.

I see it happening too much on Wikipedia, and some other editors have, as well, from my recent discussions on the WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Anti-bullying task force. I think we need to define the term better in the policy, and give a list of what bullying is, and what it is not, such as:

• Bullying is a systematic railroading of an editor with aspersions, telling them them that they are not worthy of editing, that they don't know how Wikipedia works when they actually do, condescension, mocking, and the like. Discussion can be kept to content, except when an editor is getting out of line. Accusation of editing to push a point of view is not friendly, unless they're clearly true and necessary to state. Everyone should edit to sources. Every editor may have a different focus and goal for the article, but no editor owns an article or gets to determine content despite consensus. Every editor needs to participate in dialogue in good faith in order to establish a consensus. Sometimes editors will disagree with consensus and must accept content which they would not personally write, if it follows good sourcing and WP:DUE and especially WP:NPOV.
• Bullying is not being told you're wrong about sourcing or content suggestions. To edit on Wikipedia, you must be able to admit that you're wrong sometimes. You must be able to admit that your point of view is not the majority point of view and your designs for an article need to be mixed with other editors' designs for an article to arrive at a compromise consensus (especially on controversial or contentious articles). Bullying is not just saying that you "feel bullied" but rather that the community also judges that you are being bullied. It takes a village.
• Bullying is sometimes a mobbing behavior where multiple editors take part in trying to belittle n editor or outnumber them instead of to reason with them in a good dialogue. Bullying can also take the form of ganging up, including on arbitration cases and at dispute resolution boards like WP:ANI, WP:RSN, and WP:BLPN. Involved editors intervening at appeals can be construed as railroading or bullying.
• Bullying is not stnding up strongly for what you believe. Bullying is not using swear words. Bullying is an attempt to emotionally undermine another editor to get your way. SageRad (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, when you say –

It is not about being RIGHT, but simply about being right.

– is that supposed to be some kind of koan? Are you serious about "it takes a village"? We're I-don't-know-how-many-100K into this discussion, and I still don't see anything like text that could be added to the policy. EEng (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dialogue that is ad hominem profiling of one of the editors

• @SageRad: Three days ago I skimmed the GMO arb case and found these remedies which shows three arbs saying they would consider a site ban rather than the topic ban. A comment included 'behavior has been extremely combative, with constant accusations of "bullying" thrown at anyone who might disagree'. Searching your talk for "bully" shows more. I wasn't going to raise that here but since you are persisting I believe the background needs to be brought into the open because it highlights some concerns expressed above. Preventing anything which might be interpreted as bullying would be great for a family forum, but here it would give wikilawyers and POV pushers a weapon with which to drive away constructive editors. I don't think further discussion would be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's not be hasty, Johnuniq. SageRad really does appear to have a lot of experience with bullying [11][12][13][14] that ought to be helpful somehow, if we could only figure out how. EEng (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I hatted the above content because its not about content, and is opposition research based profiling and casting aspersions on me. Johnuniq unhatted it and suggested i take it to WP:ANI if i have trouble with this dialogue. Alright then. In any case, as far as i am concerned, this dialogue has now been made unworkable and been obstructed by Johnuniq and EEng by their underhanded tactics here, and Seraphimblade should notice how their offhand and irresponsible comments do damage to my ability edit. Thanks a lot, arb. SageRad (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq and EEng, the above comments are absolutely 'NOT ABOUT CONTENT and constituted ad hominem profiling and opposition research. The above comments are completely out of place and against guidelines for talk pages. If you can't comment on the content then don't comment at all. An arbitrator's words are no truer because they're an arbitrator, and those words are completely wrong. You cannot admit them in this dialog. Your behavior in attempting to paint me here are out of line and against guidelines for dialogue. SageRad (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

New dialogue after the blocked unhatting

Yes, i am serious. Why would you think otherwise? I see plenty of useful text that could be used. What specifically do you have a problem with, in the content ideas i wrote about above? Please focus on the content, and explain why you agree or disagree. SageRad (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this dialogue is over. I cannot talk with Johnuniq and EEng and their participation has ended in their profiling and casting these aspersions in an ad hominem way. This is not talking about the content, and it's poisoning the well. SageRad (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I was really hoping you might suggest some usable text on bullying that could be used here, because there really is bullying on Wikipedia. But after several go-rounds now of long, rambling lectures, it's more than a shock to read your treatment of others in the edit summaries I linked above. (No need for arb interpretation of them BTW‍—‌they speak for themselves.) (Personal attack removed). It's a shame because for a moment there I thought there was some hope of progress. EEng (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)