Rudeness and aggression: Suggested changes

These suggestions need to be fleshed out with specific detail before they can be taken to the relevant discussion pages.

Identifying Incivility (WP:IUC)

Rationale

Rudeness is about more than just words. Aggressive behaviours can be equally rude, not only in active aggression such as reversions but also in passive aggression such as refusal to acknowledge or discuss an issue or to admit any personal failing. WP:IUC could make this clearer.
Overly-detailed prescriptive guidelines are the wrong way to implement policy. An enlightened and empowered moderator (i.e. the Admin coimmunity) is absolutely essential in dealing with incidents that escalate. As it stands today, WP:IUC is a classic example of how not to do it and does nothing but provide ammunition for logic-chopping excuses and wikilawyering. If it is simplified and refocused on perceived intent, that should help the moderating Admins to make better decisions.

Current state

It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Editors should take into account factors such as (i) the intensity and context of the language/behaviour; (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behaviour has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behaviour of others need to be treated at the same time.
The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:
1. Direct rudeness

(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions

(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities

(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")

2. Other uncivil behaviours

(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.

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

(c) sexual harassment

(d) lying

(e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them

In addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.

Proposed changes

It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Editors should take into account factors such as (i) the intensity and context of the language/behaviour; (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behaviour has been provoked; and (v) the extent to which the behaviour of others need to be treated at the same time.
The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:
1. Direct rudeness Direct rudeness includes, but is not limited to, outright profanity or personal and discriminatory attacks to ill-considered accusations of impropriety or tacit belittling of a fellow editor, including derogatory judgements on their edits.
2. Other uncivil behaviours There are many other overtly uncivil behaviours, you do not need to be told what they are. The most unacceptable include, but are not limited to:

(a) [Wiktionary:taunt
— taunting]], baiting and bullying

(b) harassment in all its forms and especially when it is discriminatory, Wikihounding and other forms of stalking

(c) posting personal or legal threats, personal information, lies, or quotes from another editor out of context

deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
3. Aggressive and passive-aggressive editing

(a) Repeated reverting or other persistent edits without explanation or discussion

(b) Refusing to acknowledge or discuss an issue on the article talk page

(c) Refusing to admit any personal error, even when the mistake is obvious

(d) Avoiding answers to direct questions but merely repeating the previous rant.
In addition, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong.

Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Apologising for unintended harm, such as a perceived insult, can often yield a positive outcome. Such an apology may make no sense to the person apologising, but it has been seen to be made and that is the crucial thing. Once somebody has been asked to deliver several such, they will begin to get the message. WP:CIVIL is grossly behind the times in this respect.

Apology (WP:APOLOGY)

This or a similar essay needs to counterbalance the current content by putting the more positive side of apologising.

Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN)

To be effective and deal with expert wrigglers, moderators (i.e the Admin community) also need a generic getout clause allowing, "we just find it unacceptably destructive overall" judgement even though specifics may be vague. An example would be an unjustified demand for an apology, where the demand is really just a cynical revenge manoeuvre. I don't know to what extent our Admins have this already.
Logging and tracking of escalated incidents can help identify destructive individuals, but also raises concerns about retaining such information for too long. "You have been called here on three separate occasions already" type information should be available to moderators (i.e the Admin community) at the click of a button. The data needs to be strictly time-limited to prevent lifelong black marks. Perhaps one calendar year would be about right, perhaps a few months? I don't know if our Admins have such tools, but I would suggest that they should.