Wikipedia talk:Civility

Pillars

Wikipedia operates on the following fundamental principles, known as the five pillars:

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,865,893 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

1. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be repaired.

Shortcut Wikipedia:Five pillars

Discussion of the Five pillars

discussion of the five pillars

Essays on wikipedia civility

• Policies and guidelines  ; How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance

Feigning incomprehension

Under Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on content not on contributors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some history

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

Please take a look

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

Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposing bold addition edit

Equity of Enforcement

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

At least one related forum (Dispute resolution, wikiquette assistance, or community comments on user conduct) should have reached consensus that a pattern of incivility constitutes WP:disruptive editing before a block should be considered.

Blocks are for prevention, not for punishment. An "emergency block" should only be applied in instances of current and ongoing or escalating situations, and should last for no more than 12 hours in the first instance.

The greater the contributions of an editor (in quantity and quality), the greater must be our concern with the first three pillars of Wikipedia besides the fourth (civility).

Editors who infrequently but repeatedly display incivility are often reacting to Wikipedia stressors, such as spiraling conflicts with unctuous provocateurs or less clue-full discussants, or real-life stressors. A few minutes investigating interactions, particularly on the user's talk page, often reveals that the editor has become focused on a conflict; in such cases, a gentle admonishment that everybody should relax and edit other areas for a few days often resolves conflicts. If no provocation is visible, then it may be useful to ask an well-respected editor who has good relations with the uncivil editor to investigate the problem by email, perhaps after leaving a good-humored but firm comment on the editor's talk page, such as "I couldn't help but notice that you seem irritated. Why don't you write me and tell me what the problem is. In the meantime, perhaps it may be good to take a break from editing and to go for a walk." Good-humored notes often work wonders; admonishments with even a hint of sanctimony or condescension often escalate conflicts and should be avoided.

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

Unfairly-applied and ill-judged "civility blocks", in non-emergency situations and without consensus, could result in action being taken against the blocking admin. The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon.

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

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

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

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

Disagree, although I see where you are going. I would agree that there are steps that may be effective in quelling incivility from some editors in some disputes, and it is worth trying the "this is getting heated - how about everyone go and have a cup of tea" step. I have to say it rarely works though, only when two normally calm editors are getting heated. I also agree that if blocks are required to prevent civility issues escalating, they should be very short. However, I also recommend that you go and read through some old RFaR's, to get a flavour of real incivility problems. Try here , [8] , [9]. Incivility is more than saying the odd rude word, it can be a means of systematically bullying and belittling one's opponents, making false allegations against them, consistently downgrading them and their edits etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:civility, Irony-free zone ?

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

• Ah, the "unctuous provocateurs" bit wasn't mine! I take on board these points; OK - so someone else's turn to come up with some ideas to try and ensure that some editors aren't either (a) picked on more than others, or (b) blocked by an admin for something less uncivil than that admin does ... ;P All brainstorming welcome. Pesky (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  And I thought that "unctuous provocateurs" was one of my better Wikipedia contributions in days! ;) Perhaps that Wikibreak cannot be put off any longer...?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

First do no harm

See also: Wikipedia:No personal attacks

There is no excuse for being deliberately hurtful.

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

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

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

1. Be kind.
2. Be patient.
3. Be understanding.

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

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

The unforgivables – intentional harm with malice aforethought!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-thinking "Enforcement"

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

Rules of Enforcement

1. Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times

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

   Be sure to take into account all the relevant history; never make snap judgments without acquainting yourself with the background to any situation

2. Think very hard of the possible merits of all other avenues of approach before you take action

   Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do

   Remember that sanctions may be more applicable under another heading (disruption, personal attack, tendentious editing, etc.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A completely different perspective

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

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

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

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

I like the idea of a goal (kind, understanding, patient); and also some very clear do's and don'ts. (Bullet points are clearer than paragraphs, in many instances; see my Do's and Don'ts for edit summaries in Ched's sandbox.) It's always important to look at the whole picture (I should have made that clearer in my enforcement spiel). Failing to look at the whole picture (and especially if the history might go on for longer than is originally obvious, or is highly complex), if it's done by a blocking admin, strikes me as wanting in competence. I have other thoughts over at Ched's sandbox on both avoiding incivility oneself, and gaining a better understanding of others, and de-escalating, and so on. I may port some of those across here. Or not, depending. Asx Teh Arbs have told Teh Community to fix this stuff, we need to be working on it. Frankly, it's a bit of a mess at the mo, and causes problems. P.S. Elen: cool answer! Y A++ from me Pesky (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General interactions

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

Comments go here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do's and Don'ts

Edit summaries

Remember you can't go back and change them!

Do

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

Don't

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

Examples:

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

Comments here(5) =

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

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

Dealing with incivility

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

Comments on draft (dealing with incivility)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have added ...

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

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

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

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

Different places; different atmospheres

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

It's OK to say sorry

See also: Wikipedia:Apology

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

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

Comments here

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

Hi Pesky, I've removed part of what you merged in ([11]) because I think it sends policy off in a direction we don't want to go. Making "never report or sanction someone for something you or your friend does" policy is problematic - it essentially takes the concept of WP:Otherstuffexists (though that doesn't directly apply to blocking, it sort of ought to) and turns it on its head - if two people are, say, known for issuing massive personal attacks, and one lands themselves on ANI, "but so-and-so hasn't been blocked! other rude people exist!" is not an excuse for the person who was reported not being sanctioned. "But [blocking admin]'s friend [unrelated person] once used the f-word! They can't block me unless they block their friend too!" is also not an excuse.

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

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

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

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