Wikipedia:Civility/Poll

Herewith is a poll to gather consensus on how the community feels about the civility policy, in how it is written, applied, and enforced by the community, including the arbitration committee - specifically on how it impacts on the morale and running of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, upon thinking about it, if one were to change aspects of it, what would one change? Please keep comments to a minimum (except in discussion area). Exchanges which veer off the topic will be transferred to the talk page.

Finally, please revisit the page after you have commented, as further more refined observations may be made at the bottom, and consider making some yourself.

Essays which may be of interest (please add others here I may have missed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:FayssalF/Civility pages - a summary
• User:Geogre/Civility
• User:Giano/On civility & Wikipedia in general
• User:Moreschi/Alternative_Civility_Policy
• User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility

Current civility policy

Please place your view below the appropriate section with respect to how the civility policy, in how it is written, applied, and enforced by the community, including the arbitration committee. if you feel specific sections are problematic, please place new proposals or ideas at the bottom. If too strict or lenient, place a word to indicate where problem is (policy/interpretation/enforcement/other). I am interested how editors feel that civility (and breaches thereof) is being enforced in practice.

Satisfactory (current civility policy)

1. Seems to be working, in general there is a high degree of civility between editors here. This seems to me to be a reflection that the policy is working. added by Off2riorob too many tilds.
2. Yeah, I'm content with it. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I realize I'm in a strong minority here, but I think the Civility policy is good, it's one of my favorites. Most people are looking at this from a perspective of infraction and response. We're pretty inconsistent about blocking people for being incivil. If someone is editing in ways people don't like, we're pretty strict about civility... but if someone is an established editor that does recognized and valued work, we tend to put up with a lot, or issue short blocks that are soon overturned. But I honestly don't think this should be about the "law" of Wikipedia: the point to me is that WP:CIV effectively holds out an ideal of behavior. I have seen this policy, combined with WP:AGF, do amazing things in getting people to work together when they don't agree, which has a lot of positive consequences. Also, it does lead to blocks of a certain class of non-productive jerks that I think help keep the environment from getting toxic. Anyway, maybe it could be better but I'm a bit cynical that we can really do much better than this. Mangojuice^talk 03:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Too lenient (current civility policy)

1. The policy is simple and clear, but not applied consistently. Fred Talk 12:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. The combination of WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS makes it impossible to rid ourselves of the chronically uncivil. In short, per Fred. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I advocate, without irony, a zero tolerance policy on incivility, and would support any adjustments to the policy (which is not bad in general) to that effect, as well as much more stringent and even-handed enforcement. For good reasons, we do not generally tolerate name-calling in our real-life professional environments, and we should not do so here.  Sandstein  19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Far too lenient. I think the problem is that too many editors view the Wikipedia community as a microcosm of their own whole real-life community, where incivil behaviour is tolerated, and without strong consequences for unacceptable actions or comments. No big deal if you flip your finger at the guy who cut you off. But I think that analogy is flawed; Wikipedia is more of a workplace staffed by volunteers, and the workplace environment should be protected. If I volunteered my time at a local community center, but was rude and abrasive to my co-workers, I would probably be asked to leave. We ought to do the same more often here. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Also, long-time editors should not have relaxed standards or be forgiven for incivil behaviour by virtue of their contribution history, per WP:No vested contributors. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree with Fred. Keeping Wikipedia to the standards of a "real life" collaboration would be nice, but we need to figure out a better way of even-handed enforcement. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. This isn't exactly "too lenient" but it kinda fits... I'm going to toss in something to think about. Consider this policy (and the philosophy behind it, that we want a pleasant work environment) and then consider the general practices of the WP:RCP and the templates used, as well as the answers given when folk are questioned... is WP:CIVIL (and WP:BITE!!!!) compatible with the behaviour of some Recent Changes patrollers? What view do new users take away after being templated? ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Fred. Also, and more importantly, we should have consistency. Tough with people from various cultures, but we need a well-thought out policy everyone can follow, with a minimum of guesswork. IronDuke 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
8. The policy currently lists most of the actions that should be considered uncivil, but I would include that "personalizing an disagreement" with another editor should also be listed. Also, the policy should list the potential sanctions that may be imposed on editors who violate the policy, such as desysopping (if an admin), blocks, editing restrictions, etc. The policy is applied inconsistently. Long-term, "established" admins, for example have traditionally gotten-away with many more violations of this policy than newbie editors. I can find plenty of examples of this if anyone wants. Furthermore, the policy, if it doesn't already, should state that the policy applies to edit-summaries as well as to screen edits. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Far too lenient. I'm sure we can all think of editors who've had a permanent bad-faith snarkiness that's never enough to call WP:NPA, but which (as others have said) would be thoroughly unacceptable in a real-world collaborative interaction. It's one of the many toxic characteristics of tendentious editors and (supposedly) civil POV pushers. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
10. The civility policy is spelled out pretty clear, but it is far too lenient in its enforcement. The more "established" an editor is, the more he/she can normally bypass the system by bringing his/her friends into the discussion to discourage any appropriate action. I think that the current policy would be more enforcable if more admins had the guts to stand up for the policy, regardless of who the offending editor is. This requires a change in the way we view the policy but not a change in the policy itself. ThemFromSpace 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
11. The rules as written are fine, but the enforcement is too lenient on long-term contributors. The more job an editor does policing unpopular (to newbies) policy stuff like NFCC and NOTE, the more uncivil they are allowed to be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Fred Bauder. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 03:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
13. It needs consistent application regardless of whether the person is an admin, long term editor or whatever and the community needs to back those who do enforce it. Davewild (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Per Themfromspace. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
15. The civlity policy is perfectly clear, and the application of escalating blocks for violations of it, to prevent harm to the project, is absolutely one hundred percent acceptable, and is equal, not secondary, to any other considerations, not least reduction of drama, loss of contributions or fear of appearing unfair (although, far too often, admins deal with incivility without dealing with related infractions of policy, such as baiting or wikilawyering). In cases of 'unfair' blocking, incivility should not be mitigated, it should be dealt with at the same time as any contributing behaviour. Too many admins too often in incidents, either passively, or actively, participate in the undermining of blocks issued under the policy by one of their supposed colleagues, without prior consensus, with the result that the policy in practice is too lenient, and often, such as the Bishonen case, ignored completely. Wide community support for the civility principle is made abundently clear time and again, so admins should either be prepared to enforce its actual wording, change its actual wording, or resign as being unfit for duty. Personal biases or subjective ideas as to what is or isn't incivility have no place in use of the tools, if it cannot be shown that the particular judgement calls they so often come with have consensus regarding interpreting the actual policy wording. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Per Themfromspace. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-30t19:52z
17. Should be applied for regular incivility but isn't. It is only applied by stronger parties to weaker parties. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
18. I see waaay too much hostile and incivil remarks and confess I have slipped into it myself. There are middling areas where some warnings woud be nice but the bigger issue is the hostile environment it allows. We need to be supportive of good editors. -- Banjeboi 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
19. The atmosphere here is derived from the MMORG culture, where bullying was accepted. We still have considerable aspects of it here--when I joined, I could not believe that we actually had a policy-- BRD-- that encouraged hostile confrontation. (I know it has its uses, but I think they're overshadowed by the normal human response to being contradicted) With basic policy like this, conflict is encouraged. We want to rather encourage the sort of people who do not come her to fight, as a first priority; and in order to do that, to get those here to fight less. One good content editor whose rudeness is tolerated can drive off 6 others. DGG (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
20. ..in its application. Like DDG and others, where I have a real problem is the free passes given to abrasive, arrogant individuals because of their good content work. This has a corrosive effect on the community and drives away other editors; no-one is indispensable, and Wikipedia will not come crashing down because we've applied the same standard to, for example, a long-term FA writer that we expect newbies to follow. In fact, being seen to be fair, non-partisan and consistent would positively encourage new editors, some of whom would undoubtedly prove to be more of an asset than others we may lose. EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Per Sadnstein and to a lesser extent Fred William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
22. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Agree with above comments by Steve Smith (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), and YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Abolutely agree that it is too lenient. Nothing will drive someone away from the project faster than being the subject of demeaning and hostile remarks - especially when little is done to end it. Although a thick skin can be useful here, it should never be a requirement. ponyo (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
25. The civility policy is fine if it was actually applied. It appears that it is enforced with regards to newbies or IPs. However, once an Wikipedia becomes a "valued content" editor, our civility policies go out the window. The consensus (or, at least, the opinion of a noisy minority - which passes for consensus these days) is that providing content gives one carte blanche to bully, intimidate, insult and patronize other editors who are deemed to be less important (in their eyes). Admins and other experience editors should be held to a higher standard of civility than the inexperienced, and if they are knowingly and persistently incivil then they should be blocked. We should insist that Wikipedians treat each other as we would expect to be treated in a professional workplace. Rockpocket 17:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
26. The current policy has been made into a sieve designed to be too vague and lenient to be useful. It is no coincidence that very many of the names on its history pop up at regular interval when aggressiveness and rudeness are discussed. As written, it makes a complete farce and mockery of our fourth pillar. — Coren ^(talk) 19:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Civility policy should be strictly enforced, but also see the poll on baiting below. Almost anyone can be baited into some form of incivility; nevertheless, we should clearly warn and then short-block if necessary for incivility that currently is just blown off. And that means me as well as anyone else. "Valued contributors" and administrators not only not exempt, but held to higher standards. (Baiting is usually a form of incivility in itself, so when there is incivility and especially when someone is complaining about incivility, we should always look at the other side as well.) --Abd (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Too strict (current civility policy)

1. (And unenforceable). The framework of all that is needed for civility is encompassed in WP:PA: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Wikipedia isn’t a nunnery; it is the real world and Wikipedia’s civility policy has been overly influenced by squatters (Read: WP:OWN) until it has absurd and completely impractical requirements, such as [no] feigned incomprehension, “playing dumb” and [No] judgmental tone. Too often, flat-out mean and disruptive (but highly experienced) editors can pull stunts like harass editors by nominating a page in a users’ own userspace for MfD or delete someone’s RfC and get away with it without even a three-hour block because they use polite wikiwords while doing so. Wikipedia’s civility policy needs to be revised to prohibit what should truly be the litmus test: is the conduct disruptive? Greg L (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Agreed. Civil POV pushing has become one of the largest obstacles on wikipedia. The criteria for incivility is so ambiguous that many offenders who habitually violate the rules go unpunished because, as you say, are so darn polite about their agenda that no one dares question them. And in civil disputes, usually everyone involved shares some responsibility but the user who gets told on first tends to be the only one who receives punishment. Simply put, the process defies logic. It's created a tattle-tale-system that has no limitations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I am going to take the liberty of quoting something that user:Eusebeus wrote on the Wikiquette Alerts board recently:
   

Yes, yes, calling someone a nasty name is a violation of WP:CIVIL and is to be regretted. However, editors do not get to hide behind WP:CIVIL in passive-aggressive displays, which is the case here with [name of user]. If someone waltzes over to an editor's talk page and posts a deliberate piece of snide sarcasm, they should not be surprised if they get a reaction. If you, [name of user], cannot be civil yourself - and your comment is unequivocally neither civil nor helpful - then expect to be called out on it. Frankly, this page too often attracts variations on "I poked the bear and then it attacked me" from self-styled, wide-eyed faux-ingenus. We need to take a stronger line against this kind of stuff. So bottom line: if you behave like a dick, don't be surprised when other editors observe as much. Eusebeus (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Emphasis added by me; my quoting of the passage above should not be taken as a representation how user:Eusebeus would vote on this page.)

In general, I am of the opinion that many WP users would benefit from remembering the nursery rhyme, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never harm me."--Goodmorningworld (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's a case by case issue, but a license to block without warning after a one-off provocation is clearly against reasonable standards. Civil pov pushing can lead to such infractions, and common sense is needed to deal more strictly with disruptive behaviour. Superficial politeness should not override work for the benefit of the project. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unenforceable (current civility policy)

1. The policy, while laudable as written, has not been consistently enforced, and it's possible that as written, it is difficult or impossible to enforce at all. "Civility blocks don't work" is a truism. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. More to the point, it is impossible to enforce in a manner that is both consistent and objective. Ultimately what is and is not civil is a subjective manner; there are egregious violations of the policy but far more fall in to the grey areas. At what point should the policy be enforced? When someone is grossly incivil, when they are habitually rude? Curt and burusque? Trying to define a brightline cutoff is going to be arbitrary, but without a cutoff point any enforcement of the policy then becomes itself arbitrary. As stated above, the policy is laudable and the goal behind it is certainly worthy, but the enforcement thereof is just not workable. Shereth 15:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Both in practice and how it should be. Its status as a policy implies that it is an instruction to be civil, rather than advice. Civility is an abstract; you cannot force a person to be civil like you can force them not to use personal attacks or harassing methods; you can only advise people to be civil like advising them to AGF or be bold. Possibly the strongest evidence for this is how blocks are applied for violations: blocks for not following policy (harassment and POV-pushing) work, blocks for not following guidelines (RS and AGF) tend not to. In this respect, civility works more as a guideline than anything. Along the same lines, I'd support changing POINT to policy, as that's more quantifiable and would work better as a policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with Lar. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Agree with those above. لennavecia 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Obviously. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Though I don't feel unenforcable is the right term. It is enforced-unevenly and often unfairly, which is the problem.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Second RDH opinion. It's just a convenient witchhunt tool. NVO (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
9. It so much easier to 'block on sight' of any incivil word, but if that's all it took, we could block by bot. 1hr for 'sod' 5 hrs for 'arsehole' 10 days for 'Bernard Manning' (well he's a swear word in our house) etc. etc. The reason we have human beings as admins is so they can look at situations, investigate and then act accordingly. Incivility rarely just pops up out of nowhere - people can be driven to it, goaded into it as the result of unreasonableness on all sides, and yet we only sanction those without the cool to be cool? Bad idea. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
10. I agree with the above statements. Enforcement is completely arbitrary and based on the whims. Perhaps a start would be to at least get consensus before blocking for incivility. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Per Lar. As written, "incivility" could probably be found in 75-80% of disagreements, if one becomes a "strict constructionist" of it as it is currently formulated. Unitanode 00:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
12. I don't know if "unenforceable" is the word I'd choose, but it's the closest of the three options to "wrong paradigm" or "mu". -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
13. A major problem is that an obviously uncivil editor will routinely insist that accusations or descriptions of incivility are themselves incivil. The policy doesn't do enough to discourage that attitude, and it encourages it here: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior ... as it is to attack any other user." Art LaPella (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
14. A key component of civility is tolerance. Not only is the policy unenforceable, it should not be enforced. I am reading a book on civility at the moment to gain insights on how to deal with incivility. Civility is a skill that anybody can develop if they are determined. We don't normally block people for poor spelling, nor should we block them for inconsiderateness or rudeness. My personal standard has been that incivility can be indentified and suggestions made for improvement. If incivility becomes so severe as to violate WP:NPA or WP:HARASS that's when I'd apply a block. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
15. The reason why it appears to be unevenly enforced is because it is unenforceable. Standards vary as to what civility and incivility mean, and much of that is cultural in origin. There are editors who have a higher tolerance to what is considered incivility (whether using it themselves or when target at themselves), and there are others who are manipulative and conniving (or otherwise disruptive) but are always superficially civil to a tee. It may be relatively easy to act in cases of gross incivility (ie the most obvious cases of name-calling), but to include in the list 'Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"', 'Judgmental tones', 'belittling' as examples of incivility in a project as open and multi-cultural as WP appear incomprehensible and dooming the policy to failure. Language skills and intelligence vary, as does competence in self-expression and EQ. We would be just as wrong in drawing the line of acceptable levels based on the lowest common denominator or the highest common factor. I am with User:Jehochman above that other criteria are more likely to result in catches than WP:CIVIL. I am opposed to a no-tolerance policy as a breach of WP:CENSOR — I like the jestfully suggested 'swearbot' and would counter-propose a 'hailmarybot' which will deliver penances to usertalk pages. But seriously, while WP:WQA may be useful as a vent, it hardly ever results in a warning, and even more rarely in blocks. The skilled intervention of another uninvolved editor, whether in userspace or by PM, does more than anything to defuse the tension before a dispute ever gets to WQA or WP:ANI. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
16. I agree absolutely with Ohconfucious, and also with GregL in the "too strict" section. WP:CIVILITY is arbitrary, unenforceable, easily gamed, too strict, and is almost of no use at all except to cause a cry of "incivil" every time something vaguely negative is said. I consider myself civil and don't think I have a personal issue with the policy, but I see it being used as its own weapon and degrading conversation. Everyone will be affronted by something, and catering to that mindset is disruptive. Instead of getting something done, we instead have arguments about whether or not someone was civil, which is generally a waste of time because everyone's idea of "civil" is different and arbitrary and there is no desired outcome. Civility standards vary widely across the continents and from person to person, and just as we try to not have biased articles, the only way to have a truly fair and inclusive policy on civility is to make it much, much more basic than it presently is. Maedin\^talk 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Thinking about how to promote civility (or a collegial atmosphere, or whatever you want to call it) seems more promising than thinking about how to enforce it. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Different cultural standards of participants make it impossible to have consistently enforced "civility". And participation of people from different cultures seems more useful to me than catering to the lowest (or highest) common denominator of "civility". Also agree with Jehochman's statements about tolerance. Kusma (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Too subjective OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Incivilité, in French, translates roughly to "rudeness". On Wikipedia, it seems to mean something more. Civilité, while something one should seek, does not seem like good to legislate. To judge from other comments, the application inconsistent of the rule appears common. Reseaunaut (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Too subjective and I've seen enough of "rude, aggressive" editors suddenly turning into wounded birds flapping on the lawn when they spot the opportunity (Hint: they're often the despicable killdeer trying to lure you away from their nest in the gravel walkway and they will suddenly "recover" and fly off to resume their non-passerine noisy squawking ways). This policy is entirely correct as written, but is so badly and unevenly enforced as to become a mockery of the project. If I can persistently badger you until you respond with a nasty comment, then someone else drives by, sees your nastygram, blocks you but not me - something is wrong here. Also per pretty much everyone in the "Too lenient" section - it's unenforceable in the context of human beings. Franamax (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
22. What Lar said. Moreover I would agree that as written, the policy likely can't cope with the many and sundry good faith notions of civility held by editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    1. I’d like to point out that most of the respondents to this RfC are regular editors. I find it noteworthy that the above editor is an administrator, who has no‑doubt had her share of (read: belly full) of mediating disputes over civility. I suggest everyone read her words a second time; she has some facility in the subject. Greg L (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Per Lar, Ohconfucious, Greg L in the "too strict" section, and Franamax. Civility is desirable but impossible to neutrally or precisely identify; impossible to legislate, and attempts to do so cause far more problems than they resolve. Blocks are preventative, not punitive - ignoring or discussing any concerns is prefereable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Subjective and not inforced. Editors with a long edit history and admins are allowed to get away with a lot, and there is no way under the current policy to prevent them from doing so. On the other hand, its also to easy to cry out that someone was uncivil just because they get tired of editors that don't read, argue a pov endlessly, or insist on beating dead horses. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Essentially per Lar, Jehochman and Puppy. They've pretty much said everything I would have said better than I would have. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
26. No evenness of enforcement, and when enforced has no rational equality of treatment for those adjudged incivil. And where one user can call another a "nutcase" and "deranged" sans penalty, and another says "jerk" and gets a month-long block, it appears that something is grievously amiss. Alas, this is not the only area where this is true, but we surely should admit it is the current state of affairs on the civility issue. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Incivility is difficult to define. In any given incident, that difficulty is compounded by context, past interactions, and the prevailing temperature of the discussion. It's a tough call for any admin to make. If civility blocks are to continue, I'd like to see admins strongly encouraged, if not mandated, to get consensus at the admin boards before issuing the block. No consensus, no block. --MoreThings (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Blocking without warning is in itself uncivil, and should only be done in extreme cases where there is imminent risk of disruption to the project. Equally, chronic civil pov pushing should not be treated as more disruptive than occasional use of dubious language. . dave souza, talk 15:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (current civility policy)

WP:CIVIL is enforceable, provided that you're willing to ban the persistently uncivil. Only if you're unwilling to do so does the policy become unenforceable, and in that respect it's no different from any other policy. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the bright line? 3RR works pretty well because there's a pretty clearly delineated bright line, 3 reverts. You can say "blocked for crossing the line" or even "blocked because you're revert warring even though you didn't cross the line, it's a line, not an entitlement" and it usually sticks. But what is "persistent uncivility"? (don't get me wrong, I know it when I see it, but that's not a good enough definition) Better to block when the civility crosses over into disruption, perhaps. Except that fosters a culture of being snarky but not so snarky that you can be called on it. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is your contention that the only enforceable policies are the objective ones? That doesn't bode well for WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOR... Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

These aren't holy cows either... some worship the cows, others eat them. All it takes to feel the difference is a bus ticket. Time for the ride is long overdue. NVO (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Objective policies are easier to enforce, I think, given equal amounts of desire to enforce them and other factors being equal as well. I just fear that this particular policy isn't enforceable. The lack of a bright line is part of the reason it's harder, IMHO. but it is neither necessary nor sufficient (to make a policy unenforcable). Civility is not something easy to achieve in any online community, the general problem is far wider than English Wikipedia, and is a subject of some considerable academic research. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR isn't really enforceable in a consistent manner. People just circumvent it; some people block their friend's opponents for 2 weeks+ for doing two reverts in three days etc, the generally edit-warring thing undercuts. Some guys go and lock the page when their friends do 4 reverts and when an enemy does it they get blocked for 4. So nothing on Wikipedia is consistent except for black/white indefinite blocks for repeated vandalism, spamming, legal threats, death threats those sorts of things. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think talking about civility in terms of "enforcement" is a very bad idea. If we try to make civility into a statute, and then penalize people for breaking it, we'll have missed the point entirely. The suggestion that civility admits of "violations" that carry penalties necessarily gives rise to gaming behavior. That is, people attempt to use any lapse of civility on the part of another editor as a weapon to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.

Preventing this kind of gaming of the civility policy must be a priority that we address, or we'll never get past the problems we have with the policy now. We need to have a policy that somehow incorporates the fact that reporting someone for a civility violation isn't a very civil thing to do, and when the report achieves the desired result, it is a result of some enforcement minded administrator being even more uncivil. These errors are made in perfectly good faith, and we can expect no better unless we provide better guidance as to how the policy is to be used.

If the central message of the civility policy is not a message about how we can use actual civility and diplomacy to resolve disputes, then it's not worth its bandwidth. We should make it abundantly clear that this policy is not a "rule" that they can report someone for violating. Instead this page should be a helpful road-map that guides editors through conflict situations.

If we can manage to discourage the lawyerly claims of rule-breaking that mire most drawn-out disputes here, it will be a beautiful day for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• As you know from email culture, sometimes something you write may seem offensive to someone when you didn't intend for it to be. In borderline cases, the offending editor should be given a chance to explain themselves before corrective action is imposed. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, clearly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GT, are there any forbidden words or phrases then, in terms of being blockable? Or are there no limits on language for editors? IronDuke 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Forbidden"? That's a word I would stay way the heck away from. There are words that are extremely unlikely to be helpful for collaboration when used in any context outside of a very specific use (e.g., discussing the article fuck). Blocking is not a penalty for using the wrong word, nor a penalty of any kind for that matter. It's a way of interrupting and cutting off disruptive behavior. Disruption can only be gauged with a mind to context, and no two cases will be quite the same. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As the policy defines civility, it can indeed be argued that reporting or blocking incivility is itself incivil. That doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the policy; it would be better to remove the policy than to have it apply only to nice people who follow rules without needing enforcement. The trolls would joyfully overrun everything if our response were limited to "naughty, naughty", and nothing we say here would matter. The solution is to do a better job of recognizing that successfully dealing with unpleasant people requires some level of unpleasantness – even if it's expressed in bureaucratese, which many incivil Wikilawyers are fully capable of dishing right back at you. Art LaPella (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that I haven't suggested anything to the effect of saying "naughty, naughty." If that's what it seems I said, then I very much failed at communication here. Of course I'm not suggesting anything that stupid.

I'm still in favor of blocks for egregious and/or ongoing incivility, for example. However, for the person involved in the dispute to start talking about blocks is a Very Bad Idea. The policy should be written to educate that person how to respond to incivility without raising the heat.

Blocks are absolutely part of the toolbag from which we can draw. It would be smart to try and get some consensus about which tool to use in which situation.

Being willing to use blocks to prevent disruption in no way implies that the civility policy has to be understood as a rule, with consequences for breaking it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly: like AGF, it is often uncivil to say someone has been uncivil, and I've long being advocating for reforming the policy so that it is more of a guideline of how to be civil than a policy that one can be blocked for; civility is too abstract to be enforceable, while NPA and HARASS are not (and are my baselines). However, the majority opinion as that being a guideline makes it less important (one of the few opinions which is expressly wrong), so I haven't been able to make any progress. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Of course civility can be "enforced", but not with blocks and bans. The way to enforce civility is to a) model it yourself, and b) ignore or shun people who consistently refuse to meet minimal standards of decency. Part a) is basic common sense, but seems to be much less viscerally fulfilling than a punitive solution. Part b) is basic operant conditioning: ignore uncivil behavior (thus removing the "reward" and ending the positive feedback loop), and reward civil behavior. This works. At least, it works better than the current system of arbitrary blocks and "civility parole". MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  It probably would work, yes. I wouldn't complain to such a system, but the current use-the-tools approach is one that I do not like at all. Conditioning would be better than punishment. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  MastCell's words sound familiar. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Civility is a virtue that should be encouraged not enforced. "Be peaceful or I'll smack you" is not a good approach. Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. The focus of our civility policy (I see no sense in distinguishing "guideline" from "policy" unless we wish to encourage lawyering) should be on how to use civility to negotiate conflicts. If we can also make it very, very clear that the policy is not a weapon, that's even better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bacchus somewhere above. The policy should be made to work differently so that it can no longer be used as a weapon in a content dispute; if it cannot, it should be removed. It is constantly the central issue at Arbcom, and there's something wrong that it frequently gets like that with content disputes; then 17 people get to decide whether A, B, C, or D have been uncivil, and dish out blocks, bans and other "remedies" (read sanctions). It is true also that consensus can be subjective, but there seems to be a general consensus on what it constitutes. Anecdotally, though, it got pushed to the extreme by one editor in the dates case who insisted that the overwhelming majority had to accommodate the objections of a handful — Oh, he was civil to a tee, but had a way of baiting and harassing which was close to an art form and difficult to spot if you weren't following every detail, but that is another story. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the only blocks I've ever gotten meaningful flak over (not many, maybe 2 or 3) were civility blocks. Never mind they were policy abiding, the policy didn't match (non) consensus over the blocks. I don't think about making civility blocks anymore (and I'm ok with that). As it happens, I've found that if an editor is making truly over the top posts, they're more than likely doing something else that's consensus blockable, or will get to it, so there are bounds. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've been trying for days to figure out how to word my thoughts on this, and actually User:Sceptre articulately describes much of what I've been thinking. Should CIV be a policy? Yes. But simplify it and develop a guideline that lays out what is and isn't civil. We're a global community with so much diversity in age, culture, backgrounds and how we've been raised - that red-line "WTH" items just aren't that easy. As to the current CIV? Two things jump to mind: 1.) Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" - huh? WP:V comes to mind. And 2.) Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform. Hey, you can go ahead and volunteer people all day long, but if they're not interested - it's just a waste of keystrokes. But I'd hardly call it a blockable offense. When CIV bumps up against NPA, that's when we should be blocking. — Ched :  ?  10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, NPA is probably the approach to take, at least initially. Some things are unequivocally personal attacks--but even here, there should be a chance given to realise it and retract and apologise, and certainly not block for single offenses. I think the first step will be for us make long tenure here a reason for expecting better behavior, rather than tolerating what we would otherwise not accept for beginners. DGG (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

General comment/thought:

Civility has layers of application and meaning. As long as the policy focuses on individual behaviors without emphasizing a holistic application to group behaviors the policy as written now may not work very well. Civility, from the Latin civilis meaning citizen, in its original meaning pertained to the responsibility of the individual to the group. Wikipedia’s dual nature of building an encyclopedia and collaborative project means that the group must function optimally in order for the encyclopedia to progress fastest and best. As a holistic view this translates into, what is necessary at that time for that group to make the environment supportive of that editing process, is civil. If that includes warning or eventually blocking an editor who is poisoning the environment, then that’s what has to be done, but that same response to this kind of editor may not be appropriate somewhere else. The test for any editor,seems to me, is whether the actions they take will optimally support the group and the editing. If it doesn’t then its an incivility, even if that incivility only pertains to that particular situation.

The policy as it exists now provides a layer of concrete guides to what may be incivilities, but doesn’t and should, better lay out this more abstract primary responsibility every editor and admin has to this group dynamic. Both the more abstract holistic, and the specific concrete guides are necessary, including both but specifically naming responsibility to the group as the primary civility every editor must uphold. The worst scenario it seems to me is to lose any editor from the editing process since this can weaken the group, so all actions must take into account the value each editor has, not to judge but to see the usefulness of.

In my experience the best editors and admins are those who have come to the point where they can think independently per each situation inside the holistic paradigm. Not meaning to beat anyone over the head with this idea, but the editors create the encyclopedia from themselves, from the inside out as it where, and are the encyclopedia. The responsibility to the encyclopedia comes from this inside place. That responsibility can’t be placed on the list a policy provides, or on anything external to the editors themselves. This is a group created effort. Damage someone else or the project and you damage yourself.

In terms of a practical application, this means the policy needs to be rewritten to have an overarching paradigm inside which the more concrete examples exist, a guide in a way to help editors adjust thinking to the group mentality. This kind of thinking requires a certain level of maturity in a group dynamic. I wonder of Wikipedia has matured enough to move in this direction.(olive (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Should a user's own talk page be considered differently?

There has been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page, often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently than posting elsewhere on other discussion or WP pages where dialogue occurs. Please indicate views below.

Yes, a users' own talk page should be considered more leniently

1. My talk page serves as such a place. Non-directed incivility is fine there, as noted on my user page and to those who frequent my talk page. Directed incivility would, of course, be a personal attack. لennavecia 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, even though they are still "public" pages, I believe that users should be allowed to relax the "civility rules" on their own talk pages. — Ched :  ?  17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. -- Benders Game 19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
6. There are issues, certainly, with some comments, even when left at talk. However, I definitely do feel that talkpages should be treated differently, especially after an editor has been blocked, and is upset about it. Unitanode 00:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
7. The civility policy correctly says "If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page." So one expects more personally oriented discussion to be on a user page, rather than a talk page for a specific article. If it's more personally oriented, that is one of the factors that makes something less civil. So of course user talk pages will be less civil, whether or not we state the obvious in the civility policy. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Per all the above. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
9. yes, user talk pages are seperate from mainspace and are areas where communication can be "freer". There should still be some level of decorum, but not the same level as require on the mainspace.Fuzbaby (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
10. It's my house, so I'll swear at you if your comments/actions have upset me. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Freer, but not indefinitely so. Those who curse their visitors do not belong in a civilized community. DGG (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Users should get a certain amount of latitude on their own user talk pages to tell others to leave them alone, and to set and enforce reasonable rules for use of their talk page. Some of these things, by their nature, are kind of abrasive and offensive and might be taken as incivil elsewhere. So I do think we should be a little more lenient, but (for instance) personal attacks or obscenity-laden rants aren't acceptable no matter where. Mangojuice^talk 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
13. It's easy to walk a way from a user talk page; no-one has to be there. That's not so for article talk pages.--MoreThings (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, all areas considered equal (user's own talk page)

1. A post on someone's talk page is an attempt to communicate with them. A hostile or degrading response is inappropriate. Fred Talk 12:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Fred. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Talk pages are not private areas, they are public communication fora like every other discussion page.  Sandstein  19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with Sandstein. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
5. If someone is let off for the day at work, that doesn't give them the right to trash their desk and office... ok that's a poor comparison, but you catch my drift. Fred has prolly' said it better. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Civility is a state of mind, not a location. Civil Users are civil wherever they are. Users should be encouraged to be as civil as possible and not to say to themselves..Oh I am on a Userpage, I can be less civil here. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
7. If you want to personalize an argument with someone or tell someone that they're acting like a jerk, use email, not their talk page to tell them. User talk pages are viewable to the general audience and need to comply with the policies. Also, the policy needs to state that it is a violation of the policy for an editor to react rudely to posts on their own talk page. For example, deleting another editor's post on you talk page with an edit summary stating, "Your input is not wanted or desired" should be considered a violation of the policy. Deleting someone's post to your talk page with a neutral edit summary like, "Removing post" is not incivil. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
8. No matter where it is, incivility is incivility, and a personal attack is a personal attack. They must not be treated any more or less so just because it was made in the user space. MuZemike 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Talk pages are places to settle disputes, not escalate them. Just as with other methods of dispute resolution, the users taking part should conduct themselves with a resonable standard of dignity. ThemFromSpace 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Editors who enforce policies over many, many pages have a tendency to become less civil over time, this means they shouldn't do that work, not be allowed to be uncivil. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
11. The hope is that a user's talk page could be a place where people work things out informally. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Treat the same generally, but be understanding of the situation, such as not extending a block if the editor makes a brief incivil comment in response to a block. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Don't be a WP:Dick anywhere. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
15. It's really not about "dubya-pee-civil" being a rule. It's about rudeness being a foolish idea, and that's true no matter what page it occurs on. It's not as if being a jerk on one's own talk page will somehow make any situation better. This is not a call for "enforcement" (see above), but simply an observation about cause-and-effect. Things that will have negative effects: avoid. Incivility is one of these things. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
16. If the standard for civility is brought to a common-sense level based largely around “no personal attacks” (as currently defined at WP:NPA), and if the standard for civility is revised to something approaching this common-sense test: “if the editor’s conduct is disruptive, as measured by actions or written word, as gauged by a real-world, reasonable and responsible adult”, then the standard for civility should apply no matter where it is. Some flexibility should also be afforded if both sides to a dispute have a “gloves off” style that pushes the norm. Unless the words are so outrageous that it shocks the conscience of visiting Wikipedians or casts Wikipedia in a bad light as viewed by the outside world, we can ignore a talk page on, for instance, World Wrestling Entertainment, even if both sides of a dispute have a “judgmental tone.” Greg L (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Per Fred and others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Sorry, this is wikilawyering on why someone can be rude since it's in talkspace - a civil-free zone seems like a bad idea. -- Banjeboi 13:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Civility itself is vague, subjective and ambiguous, and hence vurnerable to wikilawyering. Why complicate matter for free by creating yeat another tier of wikilaw? We also already have enough in our hands with WP:IAR and WP:BITE exceptions (both of which I support, BTW) - why add to the exceptions? And in a practical sense, do people really are able to once they can escalate in userspace, keep it civil in mainspace? I would like to think they could, but I am afraid I might be being too idealist.--Cerejota (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Agree with above comments by Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) and David Fuchs (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
21. If someone has the decency to come to your talk page to discuss issues with you, you should shown the same decency in your communications with them. Too many people see their talk pages as safe refuges from where they can insult others. Rockpocket 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
22. One of the most neglected aspects of the debate is the atmosphere that incivility breeds, even on talk pages or project pages. It scares away contributors from participating in what is (rightly) seen as a gutter brawl. — Coren ^(talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Talk pages not exempt. User doesn't like an editor posting to their talk page, they can and perhaps should ask the user -- politely or at least not uncivilly -- to stop, and continuing is harassment, with some exceptions. No excuse for insulting someone who comes to your door to ask a question. However, well-established exemption: an editor who is blocked or maybe even just warned may reasonably blow off a little steam, it should not become an additional offense. --Abd (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (user's own talk page)

Myself I am leaning towards this - a userpage may allow people to vent in borderline cases only. Not unequivocal attacks though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, anything except from main article space is really the same. Article space has no place for any user bickering at all. So I recommend specifically excluding it from the scope. NVO (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I would have thought that was obvious really, so might reword above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that venting after a block should be looked on leniently, but not general incivility, so don't know where to sign. IronDuke 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that venting after a block should be acceptable. This accepted practice has probably developed over a period of time, a kind of..watch out, Johns unblocked tonight and he's gonna be venting his anger all over the place. Users coming off a block who start venting should be blocked again and should only be unblocked when they calm down and agree to return in a civil way. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, I phrased it badly: I meant that users who had just been blocked, and were venting annoyance on their own talk page at, say, the blocking admin, can/could/should be cut slack. Thoughts? IronDuke 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I voted to treat all pages the same. As yet I have not seen that happen, the venter returnees seem to generally vent all around. They should be encouraged to vent in a civil way, and to enter into discussions with the blocking admin if they still have issues..and if they can't discuss the issue with the admin civily then they should leave it alone. Standards should be kept as high as possible. When venting is allowed to happen it rubs off on other users and lowers the general standard of the whole project. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Venting after a block may be a poor idea, especially if it verges into incivility, but attempting to prosecute someone for venting on their own talk page has the unpleasant feel of kicking someone who is down. This is the kind of situation where gentler methods of persuasion become good ideas. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonably safe estimate that behavior after a block would have an influence upon the discretionary leeway in the length of subsequent blocks. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 05:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely fair, yeah. An editor who blows up in reaction to a block is less likely to be unblocked early, and more likely to be under close scrutiny on return than one who refrains.

The scenario of the talk page of a user who's just been blocked reminds me in a way of that TV show Dog the Bounty Hunter. As soon as he's caught someone, he switches entirely into "good cop" mode, and attempts to befriend them and to model desired behavior. Once they're "blocked", there's no further point in playing "bad cop", because it would aggravate them and reduce the possibility of rehabilitation.

I didn't expect to be drawing lessons from that show, but... there you are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My main objection is to lengthening a block based on talk page vents, which I've not seen often but which certainly gets discussed from time to time. Example: X blocks Y. Y puts up unblock request, saying "This block is bullshit". Reblocking for this wording is just kicking while he's down (though the wording is probably pretty good grounds to decline the unblock). Reblocking should only be done in the most extreme cases, such as one many of you will likely remember in which a user kept adding "oh, and X you sure are an arsehole" to his talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation - is civility a particular problem in how we deal with new users at Recent Changes Patrol?

Yes (RCP)

1. Yeah, but it's a situation that doesn't leave much time for civility or even any sort of conversation. When I create a new page, I like to say something in my edit summary like "I've been editing WP for several years (see my fancy userpage), so please, please don't delete this article, I'll add references soon." That works 90% of the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
2. The templates used are, for the most part, written to be as civil and helpful as possible, with links to relevant reading. And yet, they have an aura of unfriendliness. But I think some of the interactions with editors who spend a fair bit of time at RCP, if you happen to question them about what they've done, are also an area where we see incivility. Newbies get bitten and those who question the RCPers get bitten too. Not always, but sometimes... and often enough that it's an area of concern. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Newbie-biting is more widespread than one would think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Some RCP people act in a robotic and mechanical way when serious newbies ask them about why there is a problem. I know one fellow with tens of thousands of deletions/AfD closes who always gives 2-word poker faced explanations for everything. Some certainly like to have a police state dead end mentality, ie their actions aren't because of a deletionist streak but more a power thing with rebuffing people. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Per above and per my experience. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Likely, we need to be firm but remian civil and model the civility we wish to see. We need to win over people to do better. -- Banjeboi 13:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
7. One of our biggest problems. I think we first need to rethink our templates--people take templates as inherently mechanical and thus unfriendly, so they should be really carefully thought out and not always used. If I want to actually warn someone , i tend to do it in my own words. "Please don't do this again " is usually understood very well. DGG (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
8. It's a place where a lot of users are keen to get involved in Wiki-cleanup but where most such users are inexperienced in dealing with people, and so, yes, people can get really nasty, and it's a big problem. Mangojuice^talk 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Unquestionably. There's a target shooting mentality amongst some RC patrollers that can be very discouraging. I experienced this just recently, with a new article getting tagged within a minute of creation. I have to admit my own response could have been more civil... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Definitely, and far too many errors are made here when they shouldn't be. Incorrect CSD tags and non-vandalism edits being reverted are too commonplace. Those who use automated tools very rarely seem to take a little bit of extra time to undo and leave an explanatory edit summary, instead rolling back even for borderline cases. Maedin\^talk 08:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
11. I agree, but see my comment bellow. Lets be careful and not confuse civility issue with the biting issues, and address both correctly: the problem is how we treat noobs in general, we could be civil and still CSD and not give people a chance to appeal or to transform their good faith contributions into allowable contributions. So it is more about general WP:BITE than of the more narrow WP:CIVIL.--Cerejota (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. I don't know so much about RCP, though I've done a fair amount. (Maybe that's why I don't see it!) However, I've seen some serious linkspam patrol incivility, where an editor was adding many links, in good faith, links that much later were discovered to be legitimate; that editor was absolutely crushed with no mercy. One of the saddest cases I've seen. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No (RCP)

1. Wouldn't have thought so. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (RCP)

Interesting. My experience has been that while work has been done to improve the templates, the CSD templates are still a bit WP:BITE non-compliant when it comes to new users. However, with few exceptions, discourse is generally civil. Speaking anecdotally, out of hundreds of RCs (not much but hey), I had not had any civility problems - even from people who seemed to be outright spammers. New page vandals are seldom trolls in the classic sense - they are mostly people testing the system. What I have encountered is a lot of RC admins ruling with an Iron Fist of WikiRage, throwing Banhammers around like RoboThor in Must.

I think that RC issues fall under WP:BITE, not WP:CIVIL, so they would outside the scope of this discussion. I will be voting yes, after giving it some thought, mostly because this discussion is happening and there are problems with civility. However I do not think WP:CIVIL should be used to deal with it, I think WP:BITE should be strengthened, templates made less bity, etc - in other words, civility is not the main issue, treating new users like idiots (OMG, n00bs!) is.--Cerejota (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation - is civility a particular problem on the Admin Noticeboard and Incidents board?

Yes (ANI)

1. Depends on who's being uncivil. A newbie (or newish) editor with no friends may get laughed to scorn on AN/I, then blocked for complaining about it too much, while admins (or regulars) who violated WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE walk away with no consequence. This is understandable -- a lot of ANI admins are on the front lines, doing tough work, and so liable to feel impatient or burned out. But, since you ask... IronDuke 00:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with IronDuke. We're much less effective at managing incivility by established editors and administrators. Ultimately that undermines our collective credibility when people get blocked. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 03:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Agree with the comments, care should be taken to treat all equally, creating a two tier system were newbies and IPs are treated differently from trusted users sends out a them and us message and undermines credibility and trust. (Off2riorob (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
4. ANI has become inherently uncivil because it is used as a vehicle to continue content or personal disputes which further exacerbates conflicts. Targeted editors will often respond with anger and frustration, further solidfying the impression that he/she is "uncivil" when in fact the response is more than natural. It has become a rarity to see true, genuine ANIs that have no hidden motive; such as attempts to steamroll users out of controversial articles or ban them from editing all together. It's very disturbing to say the least.. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Ideally, ANI should be a place where we model desired behavior by using civility to resolve disputes. It currently hosts way too much snarkiness and general rubbernecking to do that. It's not the water-cooler at work, where we hang out and talk about who's a troll. Those treating it as such should be politely but firmly discouraged, IMO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
6. In terms of belligerence, no, but in terms of disrespectul irreverence, there is definitely more of the lampooning/teasing/mocking type YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Too many things are posted to ANI that belong elsewhere. A while back I proposed establishing a clerk system to maintain order on ANI, which was laughed down. ANI is a messy page where tempers flare. Clerks could help direct people to more appropriate pages, and could help prevent tangents and personal conflicts from cluttering the discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Definitely. -- Banjeboi 13:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
9. That's the obvious place where people go when they want to fight, and so they do, as strongly as they can. But to some extent it can be tolerated there as it doesn't disturb things elsewhere. I don't really mind uncivil complaints; I do mind when some established person here gives an uncivil answer. DGG (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
10. WP:DRAMA redirected to AN/I, until recently "fixed". Enough said.--Cerejota (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Agree with above comments by IronDuke (talk · contribs) and YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. First of all, AN/I is way overused. We should tighten up on it, AN/I should be a place to "call the police" for immediate assistance, it's a poor place to make enduring decisions. Imagine calling 911 for an emergency and having to argue with the operator and anyone else in the office at the time. Dispatch a neutral admin, quickly, and let the admin sort it out. No discussion on AN/I. Want to discuss the matter? Do it on the Talk page for the admin who volunteers to respond, who can tell you to fly a kite, or not. And if you disagree, there is ordinary WP:DR. Secondly, it amazes me to see a complaint about some behavior on AN/I, and editors display worse behavior, openly on AN/I, and the poor editor complained about gets blocked, and almost nobody pays attention to what is happening right in front of the crowd, or if it is noticed, nothing is done. After all, the complaint wasn't about BusyBodyBanEmFast who was demanding that the ignorant POV-pushing troll be site-banned. I wish I was exaggerating. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No (ANI)

1. I'm somewhat out of the AN/ANI loop, but from what I've seen it's no different than anywhere else. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with Julian. If anything, people behave better when all the block happy admins are around, which is AN/ANI. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
3. People seem to behave better on ANI and AN. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
4. ANI has a problem with non-admins making inappropriate comments in response to requests they generally cannot help with, but not to the level of incivility. لennavecia 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
5. cf. User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior#37: When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. MuZemike 03:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Not really. Actually I'm consistently pleased at how well really explosive situations can get defused at ANI. People are mad, ready to attack each other, but there are enough level heads around that people tend to quickly reform their behavior, or get blocked. Mangojuice^talk 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Agree with Cla. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (ANI)

• An odd question. AN/I is a venue where people go to complain, mostly about other people. It seems reasonable to expect more "personally targeted behavior" and incivility there than at, say, Talk:Proto-Three Kingdoms of Korea. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In reply to IronDuke's comment above, about admins on the front lines being frustrated, I wonder if we currently give insufficient support to these admins, and thus contribute more than necessary to that frustration level. It would seem good for the admins who handle the toughest cases to be the best diplomats, and not the shortest fuses. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it would be good for those who handle the tough cases to be the best diplomats. But my observation over several years is that those who are recognized in the community as even-tempered and diplomatic have little enthusiasm for the hard cases. Maybe that's why they've managed to remain diplomatic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair observation. I wonder what we can do to encourage a change in that direction? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• AN/I should be Wikipedia 911. Got a problem that may require administrative intervention? State your problem briefly on AN/I. State the names of involved editors. No debate allowed. Details will come out with an administrator investigating. Yes, if you file an uncivil complaint -- it's not uncivil to describe actual behavior, such as edit warring, accurately, or even clumsily, but without accusations of bad faith -- you could be warned or blocked for incivility. An admin who considers himself or herself neutral with respect to the named set of editors then signs on to the complaint, which freezes it pending resolution. The admin then investigates, may ask questions, and may even set up a case page if necessary, for evidence and discussion as he or she deems appropriate, and does what is needed to restore order immediately (which might include short blocks if editors aren't responsive to warnings), but this admin should not be making long term decisions, just what's necessary to restore order or deal with an immediate problem. Just like the police. In serious cases, though, an admin could indef block and recuse (which then allows any other admin to reverse it without discussion, it's not a long-term decision, though it might last, particularly if well-explained). The admin, when the case is resolved, closes the original report with a description of the result, perhaps citing discussions, etc. No discussion on AN/I. If there is disagreement with the admin, that's an ordinary dispute and WP:DR is followed, though if someone is blocked, that could be considered an emergency and another neutral admin solicited at AN/I; if an editor abuses that, it, as well, could be the subject of a report and action taken by a neutral admin. AN/I should be purely as it was originally designed. Not a discussion board. --Abd (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation - are we too harsh on new users?

Following some leads - consider this WRT new users, recent changes patrol etc.

Yes (newbies)

1. Yes. Will explain upon request, but a bit busy at the moment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Yeah. Wikipedia is kind of set up to BITE newbies, but that's also known as our policies and guidelines. Most new editors, with their first substantial (non copy edit) edit, will run afoul of WP:V or some other rule. Their edit is then reverted. Some come back, some don't. Fixing this is up to the usability study guys, otherwise the number of editors will continue to decline until WP is a ghost town. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes. Per PF, and YM's comments in the discussion section below. ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Per everywhere. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Definitely! Just because experienced editors have "seen it a thousand times", or "been there - done that", doesn't mean each new user has. — Ched :  ?  09:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes. Most of were anons once and newbies remain the majority of the community. Mistakes happen and guidance is often quite appreciated. -- Banjeboi 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Very much so. This is a hard place to learn, and people get exasperated by the formality and requirements. We need to not concentrate on telling them what they are doing wrong, but help them to do it right. I was aware of the nature of places like this, and watched it and studied it before I started, but most people don't & shouldn't be expected to. Even so I was warned off one or two articles which I could really have helped by those already there & as a result have never edited in those fields again. DGG (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Absolutely. Out of curiosity on this point, I've occasionally used an alternate account to get an idea of what it's like being a newbie. Quite an education. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Totally. We lose valuable contributors by not taking more of an effort to welcome them rather than criticizing them. Mangojuice^talk 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
10. WP:BITE seems like dead letter.--Cerejota (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Absolutely, per most of the above. Rockpocket 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Way too often. Especially if an editor arrives at a controversial article with a minority POV and tries to "restore" the article to neutrality. Whether right or wrong, editors like this are quite likely to be insulted, reverted without comment, or with uncivil comment, and then blocked if they respond like a normal human being. You would cry too if it happened to you. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Although I think this has gotten better compared to 2005–2007. Pzrmd (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (newbies)

• Generally, I think the atmosphere on Wikipedia in the 3.5 years I have been has become ever increasingly cold. When I first popped up, a few people from WP:CRIC popped up straight away to see if I was doing ok. Nowadays, some guys make more than 300 edits and still have nothing on their talk pages except a machine-template. I haven't helped as much as I should to help new users. A lot of wikiprojects are nominally helping people to settle in but perhaps an impersonal pre-prepared template isn't great when not accompanied by a personal note. On the other hand, too many chances are given to people who are flagrant POV pushers and other troublemakers who are clearly not well meaning. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with all of above. When I started editing I was more likely to get someone demanding I prove what I put in "their" article right away than anyone saying weclome and offering to help. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation - are we too harsh (or lenient) on experienced editors who may be exasperated?

Following some more leads - ongoing disputes. content etc.

Too harsh (Experienced editors)

1. If somebody is exasperated, the fastest way to defuse the situation is to ask them why they are upset, and then to try to help them resolve their concerns. At the same time, incivility can be pointed out, and they can be asked to refactor or make amends. Jehochman ^Talk 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Yup, especially given the problems we've had with a lack of a way to stop persistent POV-pushers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Often, yes. We have so many problems with POV pushers and it can sometimes lead to incivility by established users. An admin comes across the incivility, and does not bother to do the hard work to figure out what caused it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC) However, on the other hand, I can think of some experienced editors who have been habilitually incivil, and who get way too many chances.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Too lenient (Experienced editors)

1. Can I say Betacommand without being uncivil? Anyways, there have been innumerable cases where people were deemed a "net positive" and allowed to be uncivil all they wanted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. The fact that someone's been editing here for many years does not mean they should be allowed to get away with being the crazy uncle. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-01t13:53z
3. The longer they are here, the more they should know how to work properly. DGG (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with above comments by Jeandré du Toit (talk · contribs) and DGG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. We are, too often, excessively permissive with high-value contributors, and the paradox is that this can have the ultimate effect of turning them into editors who believe "Le Wikipedia, c'est moi," and who must, in the end, be banned. We should be clear about boundaries, and enforce them evenly; if anything, experienced editors should be held to higher standards, which, properly, they should have no difficulty meeting. However, there is a serious burnout problem, which leads to impatience and incivility, and it particularly afflicts, of course, highly experienced editors and administrators. Leniency, though, where we cut a pass for "important" editors, simply encourages increased impatience and incivility, as the editor learns that the community will tolerate more and more. Until it doesn't. --Abd (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends (Experienced editors)

1. On people whose disputes are due to content, a bit harsh. On politically motivated things, far too lenient. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree. We do not bend over backwards far enough for people trying, albeit poorly, to contribute, and are too tolerant of people with agendas --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Per YM, both at the same time! (which highlights something raised earlier... policy application is inconsistent... and thus, unenforceable, at least currently) ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yellowmonkey puts it very well. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Per YellowMonkey; also, per context. See also my comments here, in Jan 2007, remarking on an established editor/admin being harassed to the point of finally saying something vulgar. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Rather than too harsh or too lenient, I think we may not be supportive enough in the right ways. An editor who deals with a lot of difficult situations on controversial articles should be supported in terms of actual editors helping to patrol the article in question, work out content issues, field questions from confused or angry IPs, etc., etc. On the other hand, support in the form of a get-out-of-jail-free card for incivility is precisely the wrong kind of support. It leads to editors becoming more and more entrenched in positions that aren't conducive to collaboration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
7. There is a big difference between someone blowing off steam and someone who engages in a campaign of abuse. Good to be forgiving to those who momentarily lose it and harsh with those who deliberately engage in abuse day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Fred Talk 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Per YM. You really can't create a policy on it. It depends on the situation. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
9. If we aren't looking at long term patterns, then we shouldn't be railing against a "one-of" situation. Even the most battle hardened veteran can become exasperated and overcome with frustration. Just because someone "responds in kind" to another (even less experienced user), doesn't make the original antagonizer any less responsible as an editor. Long-term patterns, big-picture; that's what we should be looking at. — Ched :  ?  09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
10. I've seen all sorts of cases and am willing to AGF. I'm not sure there is any set rules besides AGF that can help on this. -- Banjeboi 13:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
11. It depends who's dealing with the situation. As a community, I don't feel we're too harsh or too lenient, just too inconsistent. Mangojuice^talk 03:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
12. SmokeyJoe nails it. Rockpocket 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Experienced editors)

• curse you YellowMonkey for that astute observation, shall I make this section undergo mitosis? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Observation - warnings before blocking?

There will be exceptions either way on this one, but this is to get an overview of general behaviour overall.

About right, on balance

1. Warnings often seem to inflame disputes. I don't think more warnings are going to be helpful. Users should be told when they have crossed a line, but it is best to make warnings friendly and constructive. I've tried different types of warnings and found that poorly crafted warnings can lead to a lot of trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Seems fine to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Well some people warn once and then block, others about four times. Depending on how it is used, it can be inflammatory. Many warnings, especially between established users are meant to be inflammatory. Lots of admins do it to bait people. In general, the admin who wants to troll/bait is more skillful than a non-admin who tries to troll/bait, as they are generally more politically skillful YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
4. In principle, I do not believe that a person of decent character and good education (i.e., the people we want to write an encyclopedia with us) should ever need an explicit warning not to refer to one's editorial colleagues as "assholes" or the like. However, given the anonymity and the openness of Internet projects such as this, people may come here with totally different preconceptions, and may indeed need the occasional warning about our policies.  Sandstein  09:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Sandstein, with the added note that people who have been active at the project for years and have previous blocks for similar problems don't need to be warned yet again before subsequent blocking when they post something that is clearly inappropriate. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Per above comments. -- Banjeboi 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Agree with above comment by Sandstein (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (warnings)

A situation involving an IP address that has made a total of two (2) edits, both apparent vandalism, is very different from a situation involving an established editor who loses their temper. In the former case, I would use escalating warnings followed by a block if the disruptive edits continue and I wouldn't think twice about it. In the latter case, any warning template is a bad idea, and blocking is a much higher-stakes game, to be handed with a lot more delicacy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue with warnings is not the quantity... it's the nature. Templates tend to be cold. Someone that received four templated warnings in a row and then a block with nary a word actually written by someone familiar with their situation is going to feel very much trampled on, chewed up, and spit out by the machine and possibly never come back (unless they're a POV pusher or sockmaster to whom warnings are just a way of counting coup). Somone well intentioned but misguided that received just ONE hand crafted note, on the other hand, may well straighten out their approach and go on to success. ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility warnings are practically useless, especially when they come from the other party in a dispute. On the other hand, a calm editor politely pointing out how being incivil just makes you look bad can work wonders. Mangojuice^talk 03:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nod. Those are "technically" the same thing. And yet, they are profoundly different. A stock warning (especially a templated one) given to an experienced editor is indeed likely to do little good and may do much harm. But delivering what is in essence the same exact message, but with empathy and thought and crafting it to the situation, may well do a world of good. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is baiting underrecognised?

Comment here on whether comments which enrage or annoy editors who subsequently are blocked or cuationed for an outburst are underrecognised currently.

Yes (baiting)

1. Somewhat, yes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Too often administrators look at the most recent exchange and fail to get at the roots of a problem. Those who are more clever can bait an opponent into uncivil actions or statements, and then report them. When investigating a report, the first step is to look at the person filing the report to ascertain whether they have a current or historical conflict, and whether they have clean hands. Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Mm-hmm, especially since baiting is not necessarily obviously incivil itself. One can write a very nice, honey-sweetened post to bait someone, and admins will often totally miss the post that baited the user and block while the real cause is left ignored. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, lots of people do it. Lots of admins do it to bait people. In general, the admin who wants to troll/bait is more skillful than a non-admin who tries to troll/bait, as they are generally more politically skillful. Things like baiting and stalking are predicated on ABF/AGF, and frankly if an admin and non-admin/low-ranking person does the same thing, the non-admin will always get more of a negative reception. Admins can stalk to get an explosion and pretense to block without ever getting in trouble, especially if the other guy has a bit of an [overtly] spotty record when the admin has a good record [superfically at least]. I can think of one admin who tried to get a fiery guy banned at arbitration without proper evidence and when it failed, they just randomly followed them around and did tweaks and typo fixes etc until the other guy taunted him and got blocked. Admins are generally more skillful than non-admins at political gamesmanship as well.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. One word: Giano. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   As we are having a discussion about civility, could we please encourage civility by not making this conversation personal? I am opposed to talking about somebody when they are not present. Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

   Wait, what? I'm just saying: Giano is the main evidence for the view baiting goes unrecognised. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Not all of us are on the same page with you here, Sceptre. Being unfamiliar with Giano's history, I don't know what you're saying. Does Giano bait others? Is he baited a lot? What does "One word:Giano" mean? I know I should be more of drama-hound and keep up with this stuff, but... can you address a more general audience here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   He got baited, a lot. Mostly because he has a relatively short temper. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   I see. Thanks for explaining that. We, as a community, have certainly seen our share of editors with tempers who have been baited into some pretty bad places, and who continued to take the bait, again and again. I wonder if we have more control over preventing people from baiting in the first place, or over teaching our own how to ignore the bait. Both seem difficult. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Yes, but the baiting is not always intentional. A lot of POV pushers are not trying to get others to be uncivil. They just demand that they get their own way. And it sometimes leads to incivility.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
7. This should be patently obvious. It happens all the time and, while it's important not to rise to the bait, it needs to be taken into account when carefully considering whether or not to warn, block, or whatever. I'm always a fan of more though before blocking, not less. Unitanode 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Definitely. It's particularly distasteful and part of a battleground mentality of conquering perceived enemies. This builds a hostile environment and should be well codified as something evil characters in movies do but not Wikipedians. -- Banjeboi 13:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Yes, it is underrecognized because it's done by Established Editors (neo-Esperanza) who know the letter of WP:CIVIL like the palm of their hand and know how to elicit uncivility in such a way that they themselves appear to have done nothing wrong whatsoever. The new user who complains about being baited then looks like he's completely crazy for even suggesting it. Some Established Editors are particularly brilliant at this sort of thing. They are master baiters. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

   Doesn't your user page User:Willi Gers07 actually instruct people to seek out your edits and revert them for no reason? And on more than one occasion you've announced imminent reverts in your edits [1] that you expect a revert coming when your edit deceptively contains more that what your description said it did (citation was good but picture had been reverted before). It takes some nerve for you to complain here on this page. In all honesty, I'm afraid to revert your edits for fear of being sucked into a flame war. You've called me an apologist for people you dislike more than me, but to tell you the truth, I'm less likely to revert your edits because of your demeanor.DavidRF (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

10. Under-recognized, but not always that easy to tell from an actual attempt at dialog. DGG (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Baiting, to me, is indistinguishable from trolling. The difference, in practice, is that people are pretty reluctant to call anything trolling when a user isn't solely dedicated to it. A contributor who is otherwise valuable can become a troll in certain circumstances. I agree with Sandstein and others below that baiting is no excuse for incivility... but it is the kind of thing we should block people for more often IMO. Mangojuice^talk 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Yes, I have been baited before, and nothing has been done to those who were baiting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Yes, a fresh example here. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Yes. Very much so. Verbal chat 11:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Under-recognized. When an editor is uncivil, baiting should always be suspected, just as when there is edit warring, uncivil or excessive reversion on the part of other editors should be suspected and considered. Admins should be free to make, if they are neutral, ad-hoc decisions on short blocks as needed to restore order, and we should deprecate the importance of these. It shouldn't ruin the reputation of an editor to have some blocks on record, and if a block actually turns out to not represent misbehavior, it can always be annotated. --Abd (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No (baiting)

1. There is no excuse for incivility and personal attacks, and the term "baiting" seems to be used almost only as an attempt to provide such an excuse. I expect people who are here to write an encyclopedia to have the equanimity to ignore "baiting" messages instead of reacting with outbursts.  Sandstein  09:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Totally agree. I was baited is no excuse at all. Although it is an excuse that has been used successfully recently, the baiter was blocked. (neither were admins)(Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
3. No. The "setups" on wikipedia are quite insignificant and don't deserve going on rampage. NVO (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with above comment by Sandstein (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Sandstein, I have only every heard the term "baiting" used as a post hoc justification for insults or incivility. Ironically, insulting someone is one of the best ways of "baiting" them into responding in kind, yet that is usually ignored by those who like to use if as justification. Rockpocket 18:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no

1. Per Yellowmonkey above, subtle baiting often occurs in long term content disputes. Yet in wikipolitical disputes, a single well-meaning and rather mild statement may get painted as baiting. The key thing is that our standards for defining baiting are underdeveloped: when someone claims that baiting occurred, we should require a set of quotes and diffs to support the claim--a single example should not be acceptable unless it's really obvious. Also, baiting and taking bait are two separate actions: two wrongs don't make a right. Durova^{273 featured contributions} 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A Plague to both their houses

1. While baiting is hard to identify, I could handle a community consensus around this question. However, baiting and incivility resulting from baiting are two separate thing. Being baited should not be a get out of jail free card for being uncivil. I get a sense that somehow some sort of immunity to civility is being developed, were someone can argue "I was baited", and abuse some other editor "who baited them". I say that if we sanction baiting, we should also sanction the incivility in response - in equal proportion.--Cerejota (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (baiting)

• It seems that Heimstern's comment under "yes" above highlights the problem with treating WP:CIVIL as a law, carrying "penalties" for "transgressions". Wading into a situation and blocking an editor without first figuring out what's going on does not seem to be a good way to model civility. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair assessment of what I said and its implications. There are certain admins, especially among those admins who are focused on administrative tasks and not encyclopedia-building, who have a whack-a-mole approach to civility and just block first and ask questions later. Blocking is not something we should be doing lightly except for vandalism and illegal/defamatory content. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have become enraged by a comment from anyone, whether it an admin or User and you are releasing your rage,irrespective of whether you are right or wrong, then you are in need of a litle block and until you agree that you can move on in a civil way then you don't get unblocked, like a open ended block which is only removed when you make a civility commitment. If you return and continue the anger then off again, three times in one dispute could mean a indefinite block. ...You have been Blocked..Open-ended, this block will only be lifted on your agreeing to continue in a more civil way, especially in regards to .............. Three repetitions in one dispute will result in an indefinite block. Please move forward with care and with a respectful attitude. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Sounds good in theory but civility blocks don't work. At least not in the current environment. ++Lar 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was talking about the more serious cases and not just perhaps a little bit of rudeness which would be better ignored or just with a request for the offending User to please raise up his standards of civility. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

OK, noted. But blocks for civility, no matter how egregious the "violation" is perceived to be, tend not to work. It's only when things shade into something else, disruption, direct personal attacks, or whatever, that the block sticks. A pure civility block tends to lead to drama and not much else. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Several comments here have made similar distinctions. Can we define the difference? I would think personal attacks, disruption and harassment are "uncivil" or "very uncivil". Art LaPella (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Care needs to be taken that Admins who become addicted to the power clashes of certain boards should be rotated from those boards as they seem to start to imagine themselves as some kind of unkillable knight wading in to save the encyclopedia from the evil wrongdoers, lashing their block sword from side to side as they go. What I would suggest for this would be a month rollover board where Admins add their name to a list and say the first five are chosen to start and then after the month those five are relieved and the next five take over, thereby reducing the problem of burnout and allowing more Admins to gain experiance in multiple areas.(Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

• As the author of WP:BAIT I have to say that GTBacchus nails it: Wading into a situation and blocking an editor without first figuring out what's going on does not seem to be a good way to model civility. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yea, what Heimstern and GTB said. — Ched :  ?  10:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Are we serious? This is the most wikilawyery thing in this entire poll. If we accept, as a community, that baiting is not allowed, we have to prove that baiting happened. Proving that baiting is or is not happening is like proving the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, that is, even if we are certain it does or doesn't, it is impossible to prove it.

All that this would do is create endless wikilawyering on the part of habitual editors with short fuses to continue to have short fuses "because I was baited" - and I tend to have a short-fuse, so I know. The fact is that to fight you need too people, but only one needs to escalate. If you escalate, its your fault.

This amounts to a permanent general amnesty on civility violations.

What we probably need is a mentoring program for good-faith editors with short-fuses. This has worked wonders in many cases, even with long-standing admins and editors in tough and controversial areas. Y'all know of a case that applies and know what I mean.--Cerejota (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that this section is suggesting a "ban" on baiting, or that we make baiting an "offense". I think people are suggesting that it be considered as part of the context in many situations. If it is not currently being taken into consideration by blocking admins, then it's under-recognized. I certainly don't advocate passing a law against it, nor indeed thinking of our policies as laws in the first place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think judging what is baiting (as with much of the rest of the civility related actions) is exceedingly difficult. Further, it is subjective, and when colored by our own perceptions of ourselves and our actions, liable to not be viewed the same by everyone. As an example I would point to #12 in the "Yes (baiting)" section, where User:Daedalus969 says "Yes, I have been baited before, and nothing has been done to those who were baiting."... but some observers would say that it was D himself that indulged in some considerable baiting, as well as other behaviors that exacerbate our civility issue. This to me proves just how difficult this topic is. We are none of us perfect. And that includes our own ability to introspect about our imperfections... some of us are better than others at this, and at taking constructive feedback about our actions, but no one of us is perfect at it. So what's to be done? No easy answer exists. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to back that up with diffs? I don't bait people, and to my knowledge, I have never knowingly baited anyone. Much of my work on wikipedia is based on purpose, and if nothing is gained by baiting someone, which, in the term of looking at things in the long run, there isn't, then I won't. As far as I see it, nothing is ever gained from baiting someone but continued unpleasentness, which is against the goal of this project, hence, I do not see why I would ever do so. I don't bait people, it isn't in my character.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Would I like to back what up with diffs? That you said you feel baited? [2] That some observers would say you have indulged in baiting? I'm an observer, and I say this struck me as baiting: [3]. I daresay I may not be the only person that feels that way, given how Bishonen characterised you. Read the thread just below for more. That some observers feel there are "other behaviors that exacerbate our civility issue" you engage in? I refer you to our recent talk page exchange in which I suggested you needed to do less templating, and less throwing your weight around. Again, I suspect I'm not the only observer that feels that way (start an RfC on yourself and you'll find out whether my suspicion is correct or not, I expect). But your response precisely highlights my point... a person does not have the same evaluation of themselves as others do (you, me, nor do any of the rest of us). Which is what makes this topic a difficult one. ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit that was a bad move, a move that I've recently tried to prevent in terms of future occurrence. Say what you want, believe what you want, but that move had no other purpose then labeling what looked like a retired editor as retired.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe that, now, and I am glad to hear you're trying to make things better by suggesting a new abuse filter, as well. But again, this makes my point. It LOOKED like baiting at the time, at least to some people. Surely you can see that. And that's why this is a hard area. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that it can, and did look like that. At the time, I had not considered it, as I have not really been following the boat around, so to speak. I'd been keeping my distance, and I admit I should have stayed distant.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another subtle form of baiting: see here, by Dædαlus. Then see “Spumoni” on Giano’s page and, until recently, on Bishonen’s. Anyone seriously believe “A humming bird on my back porch, balancing perfectly on a hook” isn’t baiting? “I [Dædαlus] don't bait people”? As Lar says, it's often subjective, and I'll add that it's all about context. It stretches credulity to assume that you added a hummingbird to your user page shortly after your dispute with the two others in good faith; the caption ices it. For future reference, see here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Simulated RFA question: would you block someone for calling another editor a "little shit"?

This Great Matter seems to be causing some users a bit of difficulty recently, so let's see if we as a community are all on the same page, or if some of us might be out of touch with any or all of our colleagues. Please treat the above question as if it were a mandatory question on your Rfa, (or your reconfirmation Rfa), and post your response below. I've posted how I think I would answer, to start things off. MickMacNee (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes (and probably yes)

1. A: Most likely, yes. If the user is obviously new and has not previously been advised of our civility policy, I would assume good faith, and substitute the block for a strong warning, and expect them to issue an apology. If the user is an experienced editor who does not in my view require a warning that such behaviour is simply unnacceptable, and then refuses to strike their comment or apologise, then yes, the banhammer is coming down I'm afraid, with appeals dealt with in the usual manner. Any evidence of mitigating circumstances will be investigated and followed up by myself or if requested by the blockee, a second admin, but if the blockee is still unwilling to strike or apologise, I would not expect anybody to grant an unblock request or unduly shorten the block. MickMacNee (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Most likely, yes. Clear personal attack, regardless of whether CIV is a policy, guideline, or essay. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. As Sceptre says, you can answer this RFA question and still ignore the civility policy, since insults are covered under so many other policies:
   • WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done"
   • WP:NOT "Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement."
   • WP:5P "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them."

   Really, any editor who uses such language here ought consider whether a collegial project like WP is the right setting for them. A temporary block gives them a chance to think it over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Yes, as a clear violation of WP:NPA.  Sandstein  07:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes, especially if the User had a history of such personal attacks. Only for an hour or two to let them consider their action, with a comment that if they continue along the same lines to expect longer blocks.(Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
6. Yes. Ha! (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes. And those little shits that voted no, should probably reconsider. I am all for context, but I cannot for see an exception not already covered by IAR.--Cerejota (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes, echo above by Sandstein (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Probably yes. Context is important of course, and I doubt I would block without first warning and requesting the person withdraw the insult. But if it is persistent and unrepentant then, yes, blocking should be expected if one chooses to insult other editors. Rockpocket 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Hell yes. Little grape (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Yes. No hesitation, unless the editor allegedly insulted has a photo and can be seen to be a small brown pile. And if another editor did something that baited the editor into that insult, which was itself uncivil or disruptive, I'd block that one too. I would not judge or condemn the uncivil editor(s), I'd merely be establishing that, as a community, we have standards which must be upheld evenly. I should qualify this. I'd block an experienced editor immediately. I'd warn a newbie. Once. Most sane people have no problem understanding civility rules. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No (and probably no)

1. A: It depends, but most likely no. First question to ask is, *was* the person so called actually acting that way? If not, then I agree with MickMacNee about the particulars about blocking vs. warning, but with a caveat about timing... blocks are meant to be preventative, so if there's not actual disruption in the offing, the block may be unwarranted, especialy if it happens somewhat after the fact. But if the answer is yes (the person was acting that way, or worse, has a track record of such), I'm not so sure that I would block, or support such a block, because then we've enabled the bad behavior by shooting the messenger. For people surprised at this answer, please review WP:SPADE. ++Lar: t/c 06:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. per Lar. Against policy; no disruption has been demonstrated. "Idontlikeit" is not a valid reason for blocking, nor is "that's a bad word". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. A: My impression when it happened was that the sentiment behind the comment of Bish's was more exasperation rather than malignance. In which case I would have posted an all-round warning to everyone to disengage first. I would not have blocked without warning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Per policy, a simple note asking the user to not make personal attacks would have sufficed. Discussion is always better than blocking, especially when there is no disruption being actively perpetrated by the user. Unitanode 06:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. No, per Lar and Cas; @yeses: WP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents. For cases where said terminology is spot-on, it is likely teh little user should haz block. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. In cases of newbie-biting, maybe, but I'd spend more time trying to make it up with the newbie instead. And not ever without repeated offenses. Purely punitive otherwise, as the real-life example being referred to in the question certainly was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. It depends, but no, I would probably not block on-sight. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Not if it was an isolated incident. An strong warning and request for strikethrough of and apology for the comment would go down better. Blocks have a tendency of stirring up trouble rather than preventing it, especially when they have to do with civility. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
9. No. because the question is "would you block someone for calling another editor a little shit." Not everyone is desperate to become an Admin and run around being pompous little men with big shiny guns. Most people cannot block anyone or would want to. Secondly, not everyone has this nauseating preoccupation with lower bourgeois civility many prefer to write an encyclopedia. Daedelus the recipient of Bishonen's wroth was behaving, at the time, like an irritating little shit - best word for it - so he was told so. We are not a Chapel Mothers' Union or a group of Nuns on a coach trip to Lourdes - we are a group of people writing an encyclopedia (something Bishonen does better than most of you) Had she called him a "foul little motherfucker" (Heaven forbid) that could possibly have been construed as uncivil and over the top - I don't know what world some of you people inhabit, but God it's a narrow one - some of you people need to travel more, get away from the computer and just see what goes on in the real world - it's a nasty place, you will meet some big shits there not little ones, get called all sorts of things and hopefully learn to let it roll off the duck's back - and realise that the person who calls you a dick when you are behaving like a dick will probably be buying you a beer tomorrow. In other words grow up and get real - and that goes for Jimbo Wales too! Giano (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but not as a first resort

1. The history and context is important. "Little shit" might be might be a commendable restrained response to a grievous insult. In my circles, it can even be used with implied affection. Without significantly contributing history and context, a first warning should be given. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Fully depends on context and history. It's may often be the final nail, but on it's own I'd need to consider other factors. Verbal chat 11:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Per SmokeyJoey and Verbal.--MoreThings (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (simulated RfA)

• For all the "yes" views: You seem to be equating "is it wrong" with "will block". We don't block on a first instance of vandalism, as a general rule. Why are you all so very block happy, and quick on the trigger, at the first instance of "bad language"??? No one has even mentioned they might consider talking to the transgressor first. No warnings? No discussion? No suggestion to strike their comments? Really? Damn. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the question is "would you block someone for calling another editor a "little shit"?" That does not mean that we won't try warnings or other measures first, just that we are ready to block if warnings are ineffective or likely to be ineffective (such as with disruption-only accounts).  Sandstein  07:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps, as the question is not terribly nuanced, we need another answer cat; Yes, but not as a first resort. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  It is deliberately not nuanced. If this were a real Rfa question for example, do you think the reply that 'the question is not terribly nuanced' would go down well as an answer? I deliberately had not started this section with yes/no/maybe headings for this very reason, to allow for nuanced answers without forcing a yes/no answer, but I see somebody added them afterwards. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• For all the "no" views: Is the user a newbie who doesn't know our culture, or an experienced admin with a lot of social clout? Is the behavior part of an ongoing pattern, or is it a random and surprising outburst? I think that all of these things matter. I personally expect experienced admins to know better. We can be tolerant and supportive of newbies by asking for a higher standards from ourselves. Admin incivility is a terrible thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  While I don't believe it was your view, the "little shits" are the ones responsible for the toxic environment that causes reasonable people to occasionally snap at them; instead of seeing them as "victims", recognize them as the problem. Jack Merridew 12:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  Jack, if you read my position in its entirety, you will understand that this is a huge part of my point. When we turn a blind eye to all kinds of disruptive and negative behaviors, for a long period of time, it leads to good people eventually exploding in outrage. Insisting on a civilized discourse, free of ad hominem and insult, is very important to forward progress in any venue. I think it very important that admins take the lead on this, starting - as we all must - with our own behavior. As I have said before, errors are possible, emotions are a fact of life, and if someone (an admin) makes an error and engages in an egregious personal attack, they should apologize to their victim... and in this case, I would defend the term 'victim' because attacking a person like that is just not the right response.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  I am glad that you see the problem I see; I have been following much of the dialogue surrounding this issue and your above comment is the clearest I've seen you state this. Many of the supporters of the bright-line cuss-blocking criteria are little users looking for a way to play a get-an-admin-blocked game. As I said on her page, this amounted to a Royal Smackdown; you wield enormous influence on these projects and what I saw was a block-on-a-diff in order to set a precedent — and not a good one, in my opinion. The situation had a lot of context that I don't believe you knew; not the Giano aspects, rather the prior interactions of 'zilla and her so-called "victim" and his contumelious demeanor. If this had been done by any other admin, it would have quickly be ruled a Bad Block; a warning would have been far better — we might not have lost a good admin and much wiki-drama would have been avoided.

  The wiki is huge; we all know this. There is an enormous volume of drama and an ever growing number of toxic personalities underfoot and it has been tolerated for far too long. Step back for a moment and consider whether Bishonen is one of the serious people here. You said, Yes. Most admins are. Consider some of the clamorous voices in the wider discussion; not so serious a bunch. No one who is upset over your block is in favor of any sort of free-pass on incivility towards the "little shits". A civil environment is obviously a good thing. The English Wikipedia is a profoundly toxic environment; that's my big take-away from my time-off last year. The other projects are *all* far more civil. It is not a question of George Carlin's seven words, it's about the "little shits" and their toxic effect. Rather than smack the admin corp into shape with your block button, empower them to more effectively deal with the sea of toxicity that is drowning this project. Jack Merridew 14:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  It seems that Jimbo is suggesting precisely to empower the serious editors to deal with the difficult editors and the less-than-serious editors. If we maintain high standards of admin civility, our credibility grows, and our power grows to take a stand and be seen as standing on firm ground, buttressed by our assiduous holding to the principles we wish to enforce. What is less empowering than for us to foster the image that we ask for civility from others without doing our part? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• There was no one in this situation who could be fairly called a "victim", Jimbo. The person on the receiving end of the personal attack had left an and completely false message about how he was entitled to edit someone else's userpage to add a tag (something we only do to banned users). Did this justify the response? Of course not. But to try to paint this as some sort of aggressor-victim situation is rubbish. Both sides were aggressors here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  Both sides were aggressors; both sides were victims. Such is the nature of uncivil conflict. However, the admin should always be the one to take the high road, even if we can understand that human emotions being as they are, there will sometimes be failures.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with that. But the way to stop a situation in which both sides are at fault is not to punish one side while letting the other side off with essentially nothing. The smooth functioning of this wiki depends on the admins, and on their esprit de corps. Destroy that at your peril. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• To Lar, I would not consider a block as enabling anything, as I made clear in my answer, I, or another admin, would investigate any claimed mitigation. If our policies for example against trolling or baiting, or even worse, harassment, are not being enforced, then I don't see how that situation is in any way helped by handing out free passes for retaliatory incivility. The answer is to address those failures in enforcing those policies. (which are deliberately, are all filed under 'civility') MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • With apologies to RAH, If you want to housebreak a puppy, you do not do it by letting behaviours slide until all of a sudden you take the puppy outside and shoot it. You need to apply firm but gentle guidance, consistently, repeatedly, every time there is an issue. Further, if you want to see all the puppies housebroken, you do not do it by shooting the dog trainers randomly. This analogy is imperfect, like all analogies. But this block, by punishing one side while neglecting the source of the issue, enabled bad behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It may have enabled bad behavior. It also sparked a community-wide re-evaluation of our site culture, and how we approach civility. I've never issued a block that did that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It would be nice if some good came of it, wouldn't it? I'm not sure this page (with mostly regulars here, so far) is evidence of a "community-wide re-evaluation"... yet. But one can hope. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It starts with the regulars. If we start to change, others will follow. It's already been happening, for at least 3 years - remember the userbox wars? We're getting there; I remain optimistic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• • You seem to be replying to the particular Bishonen block situation, and not to the general question here, in which my answer was quite clear about when a walk up the warning pathway is and is not approporiate, and what I would be doing to ensure any block was not one sided. But the puppy analogy is pretty irrelevant imho, you are equating the imposition of a block as a fatal shooting, ending a wiki career in one go, which it most certainly is not. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think I am, although tis easy enough to conflate them, I 'spose. I would like to note that I read your answer carefully before forming my first response. Suffice it to say I don't agree with your criteria for when to block without warning.... and I'm one who has fulminated against "free passes" in the past. As for my puppy training analogy, it's an analogy and therefore imperfect... however I think your dismissal of it misses the mark. An unjustified and one sided block can be extremely demoralizing, especially to someone with a pristine record. If Jimbo Wales ever wants to be shut of me, the first entry in this would probably do the trick. I suspect there are others who feel the same way, one unfair sanction by ArbCom, or even one block, and that would be it. Did you want a recounting of the editors we've lost so far for reasons similar to this? ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• A general point on the concept that blocks are preventative not punitive, and hence a block here is not appropriate. For me, a block for incivility is preventative in that it prevents future incivility at a later date, be that the next day or a year on, the principle is not to punish, but give pause for thought in the user the next time, and as such, protect the community. The block is not preventative in the manner that, by being blocked, they cannot be incivil for the duration of the block, although if the user is obviously on a rampage/flame out, that also has a role to play, in protecting the user from himself. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "blocks are preventative not punitive" has much bearing on this question at all. In this case, per policy, the point of the block was to make clear that such behavior is not ok. That's not punitive. "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated. Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." I think we have the rapid understanding, and I am doing what I can to encourage a more productive, congenial editing style than namecalling from an admin.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot see any situation were outright calling someone a "little shit" is not disruptive. Unless the given editor is into some kinky namecalling thing. That is the problem with the "disruption" criteria - instead of preventing thermonuclear responses, we wait until the atmosphere is so poisoned, that draconian/salomonic ArbCom "solutions" are the only way out. --Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Please review WP:SPADE. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPADE: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately, but a bit of politeness and tact while doing so will get them to listen more readily. One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks". Ha! (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is really a meta-observation that could go under any of the entries here. I've noticed that many of those who are calling for strict admin accountability shy away from working in the project's most controversial areas. There's an old line, "before you criticize someone walk a mile in his shoes." What I'd like to propose is that everyone here devote six months to heavy involvement in the darkest, most hostile corners of Wikipedia -- Eastern Europe, complementary medicine, and so on. Then come back and tell us your views. I'm not saying this to be accusatory, but am genuinely interested in whether people's assessment of the problem could be altered by such an experience. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. And you'll be helping the admins who have to face these problems day after day. Dealing with this stuff is burning out even extraordinarily civil and mature admins. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi. This is a good observation (a few good ones, actually). I would point out one barrier to the test you describe. I don't know whether you're placing me in the "shy away from working in the project's most controversial areas"-category, and I'm not too worried about that. There are some difficult articles I've worked on. There are also cases where I've attempted to lend a hand at difficult articles, only to be flamed to a crisp by regulars who were so burned out and cynical that they perceived any attempt at a different approach as trolling and a personal attack against themself.

    I'm not saying this is a good reason to stay away from controversy. Indeed, I've been attempting quite deliberately to hone my own skill-set in response to a challenge very much like the one you're presenting. However, I think this can be a valuable warning, for others who wish to take that path.

    It's difficult to help people who refuse to be helped. I'm open to learning how to effectively overcome this barrier. Any ideas? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    • First, I wasn't thinking of any specific person. Second, it's an interesting data point that you quit participating when you met resistance. Now think of the admins who hang in there month after month dealing with that stuff.
      How to overcome the barrier? There are no magic solutions. All you can do is hang in there. Not everyone is up to the challenge, and that's OK. But if they aren't, they should reflect on the trials faced by who are willing to keep at it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, I didn't quit participating when I met resistance. Interesting that you would assume I did. The short-tempered regular left in a huff, and I continued to deal with the situation to my satisfaction. I still think it's a good caveat to would-be dispute resolvers that they may encounter more resistance from the "good guys" than from the "trolls". -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I assume the article was improved and not just that the dispute was ended. I'm glad it worked out well. Now go to that again. And again. And again. And again. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm working on it, man. I can only be here so many hours in a day, and I've got to start from where I am. Believe me, I'm in full agreement with what you're saying. Do please bust my balls anyway, if I seem to be slacking.

            Part of the solution is going to involve dealing with some extremely intemperate and intractable "defenders" of the wiki, no matter how you cut it. Addressing that part of the problem - is part of the solution, not to be minimized. What you cite is also part of the solution, not to be minimized. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"NO tolerance" (ie, no attempts made to try anything but blocking) for incivility

Would you give a three hour block to an editor of five years who is administrator in good standing, who has a number of featured articles to their credit, with a clean block log, for using the phrase "you little shit" to a disruptive and annoying editor (rather than blocking for harassment) six full hours after they had made the comment, without any attempt to discuss the matter with them? If yes, please explain how this is preventative, not punitive.

Yes (Zero tolerance)

1. As Bishonen states here Admins are supposed to be role models for users. (WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are expected to lead by example".) and I agree with her. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC))
2. Yes, every time. The experiencd admin requires no warning, and particularly as the experienced admin had not struck the comment even after it came to light at ANI, and if anything, in the ensuing discussion, with a particular sarcastic comment she actually seemed to be rubbing the fact that she would face no consequence in the complainant's face (original incident report - see the comment after Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009). As for how this is preventative, I explain in my previous general comment [4] how that works. There are no no vested contributors, so her FA record, to be brutally honest, is irrelevant. I find the 'in good standing' defence one of the most problematic parts of the block policy, and to my mind should simply never be brought up as a defence, ever. The only role that ever has to play is to allow admins to better assume good faith in any unblock request if the blockee acknowledes the behaviour was wrong, and is committing to not repeating it. If she feels mitigated by the other editor's previous behaviour, the only time that would be of concern to me before issuing a block is if I had personally been one of the admins who had not acted when she brought this behaviour up for resolution (assuming her complaint was genuine), in which case I would recuse through not wanting to be party to double standards. And finally, if we are not issuing blocks now simply for fear of causing drama, well I think that the major flaws to that idea are already pretty obvious, and are already causing problems in many behind the scenes areas on the project. No matter how much drama occurs resulting from a correct block, if it doesn't result in disruption to articles, then I don't much care. We are not the court of infinite appeals, we are here to build the pedia. People can participate in drama or not, it's their choice, per WP:DNFTT. MickMacNee (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes. See above. Disruptions doesn't warrant more disruption. If you see "little shit" in your response, you better don't hit submit. Rather, take a deep breath, email/IRC some other admin to handle the situation. You are obviously strained and tense. There are hundreds of active admins at any given time, there is no reason why you need your emotions to show. Short-term blocks are like "time outs", and are not punishment... and having a clean record doesn't mean you won't fail eventually. I had done thousands of edits and been active for years before I got my first block, which while I strongly disagreed with it, was well within policy and admin discretion. To crucify admins who act in good faith based on the previous behavior of a blocked editor, rather than their current behavior, is precisely the kind of arbitrary, political decision making that leads to WP:BITE crap and the general low opinion of the admin corps and experienced editors (among which I count myself) that the internet has. Rules are rules, and experience should mean stronger adherence, rather than weaker adherence, to them. Unless, of course, these rules keep you from making the encyclopedia better. But there is no evidence calling someone "little shit" made the encyclopedia any better, hence no reason to do it. --Cerejota (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, probably. Unless the editor apologized. Six hours is getting long, but I'd assume a 24-hour editing cycle, so it might depend on whether it was the same day or not. "Prevention" also includes maintaining clear boundaries. But if it was a day later, I'd warn with a note like "If I'd noticed this yesterday, I'd have blocked you. If I see it again, I will block." (Or go to AN/I, which, if we do it right, will actually start to function efficiently.) I doubt that I would, on my own independent authority and not as backed by a community discussion, block more than 24 hours for this kind of incivility, even if repeated. If it was repeated, I might start a community discussion. --Abd (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No (Zero tolerance)

1. Per Kusma's observation[5] that "to believe that short punitive blocks are useful for anything other than creation of drama looks to me like a newbie admin mistake". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Nope. Just made the situation worse and made everyone look stupid. Verbal chat 11:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. A strong "Do it again, and I'll block you." would be best.--MoreThings (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. As per my above reasoning, knee-jerk "you-were-uncivil-so-now-you're-blocked-to-teach-you-a-lesson" blocks never work, nor did they in the above-mentioned case. All these type blocks do is inflame situations, not resolve them, and as such they are counterproductive. Unitanode 15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Asked, and answered. But obviously, in these precise circumstances, no I would not. Civility blocks are a mugs game. (now who said that??? I forget!) ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Agree with KillerChihuahua and MoreThings, a block is a way of escalating problems for a stressed and burnt-out admin, causing unnecessary disruption to the project. Discussion to improve the situation and ensure there isn't future disruption should be the first response. . . dave souza, talk 17:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. I would have posted an all-round warning to everyone to disengage first. I would not have blocked without warning. I'd also add that I'd place a calming rather than threatening warning - e.g. "I can see you're unhappy/hurt/frustrated/etc. but we really need to wind this back a bit and get everyone to take a deep breath etc." - but I would block thereafter if trouble ensued. I have to add that I am unimpressed with block warnings that appear to escalate a confrontational tone. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Tolerance is an important part of civility. People from different parts of the world have different standards and what may look hostile may not be. It is better to challenge incivility and ask the editor to refactor, and warn them that such behavior could lead to a block if it is recurring or crosses the line into harassment or disruption. Calling somebody a "little shit" would probably merit a stern warning, and might even be sufficient for a temporary desysop, but I do not think it requires a block without warning. Jehochman ^Talk 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Zero tolerance)

Have I had previous dealings with the editor over similar behaviour? Has the editor in question a history of uncivility or personal attacks? (Off2riorob (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Not sure about previous dealings. The editor has never been blocked in five years, and has a number of featured articles. They are an administrator in good standing. I will add this to the question, thanks for asking. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This comes close to being the most loaded question I have seen in a poll. You should rephrase it to "Answer no to the following question. If you answer yes, please justify why, when the instructions clearly tell you that you must answer no". Ha! (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, what biased rubbish, especially the bolding of the important bits. Six full hours, for those of you that don't know, that is a really really long time, like one hour less than eternity.(Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

I would block Bishonen again, for longer, for, failing to get over it, harrasment of the blocking admin, forum shopping for this purpose and disruption to the project. Sixty six hours this time, with a warning that if she continues with her campaign of disruption the next ban will be for Six hundred and sixty six hours. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

I very much doubt you'll ever be blocking anyone. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not if that comment is remembered at an RfA. Verbal chat 11:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

/me wonders how many people have now watchlisted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Off2riorob (I can't speak for others, but I have a surprising number of similar redlinks watchlisted..) ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You do that too, huh? Nice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A fair number of them are for people I intend to support, honest. Plus it just makes me feel better doing it, although I bet half the time I forget to check often enough and don't actually vote !vote. My watchlist is for the most part a vast unexplored hinterland. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

an old idea; one I learned years ago. related trick. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I start with a simple premise. Admins should treat all editors with respect and should not use curse words, or be deliberate rude and uncivil to other editors, no matter the provocation. In my opinion, anyone who disagrees with that statement should not be an admin, and if a majority, or even a large minority, of admins disagree, then I am working for the wrong web site. When an admin uses curse words against other editors, the prescribed process should be,

1. Discuss the situation with the admin, ask him or her to apologize and retract the curse words.
2. If the admin has a persistent problem with cursing and incivility, hold an RFC.
3. If after an RFC the problem continues, request Arbcom to intervene.

The question is then, Is there room for using blocks as step 1.5 or 2.5 of the process? If an admin is briefly blocked for incivility, is this likely to change the admin's behavior so that RFC or Arbitration is not necessary? Are brief blocks for incivility desirable to maintain the credibility of the admin corps in general even if they are unlikely to change the individual admin's behavior? Thatcher 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• That premise is difficult to disagree with, but who among us is so perfect as to never slip away from it, even a little? We are all of us imperfect. To answer your question for myself I do not think there is room for blocks as step 2.5, or especially, as step 1.5, except in very limited circumstances. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• So accepting the premise, which is excellent and good to see actually stated, without intermediate blocks, an admin would have to call someone a little shit twice, have it discussed at ANI twice, and fail to apologise twice, before just an Rfc is initiated. Not good enough as far as I'm concerned. A block at step 1.5, with a proper review and blocks for other parties, is more than appropriate. And let's not forget, the block came down after Bishonen was aware of, and had participated in, the original ANI complaint. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to abstain from answering this one, as the question is clearly biased. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

After thinking this over, I agree with Juliancolton (talk · contribs) regarding the nature of the question. Cirt (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I must take issue with Mr Wales's justifications of his recent controversial action.

1. His statement above that he doesn't think the "blocks are preventative not punitive" policy tenet "has much bearing on this question at all" holds no water. The block was clearly punitive, and that is forbidden by policy, as any admin learns at The New Admin School: it was for three hours only (a slap on the nose) and it was absurd to assume the blocked editor was going to damage the project (as required for a block) either in that time-span or any other.
2. Mr Wales is on record as saying that the block was to prove "a principle", which is not a valid reason for blocking under the policy, and most editors could be forgiven for considering that to be punitive.
3. Mr Wales's "toxic personality" reason was not a valid reason for blocking, and was either carelessly misdirected or a blatant violation of WP:NPA.
4. There was no evidence that he first looked into the context of the editor's comment, and he failed to intervene first to calm the situation.
5. If Mr Wales is correct that "Both sides were aggressors; both sides were victims", blocking one party and not the other is a recipe for not solving the situation, and is plain bad psychology.

It's not so much that "little shit" was rude, but that the blocking admin showed no leadership in calming ruffled waters and helping to bring about a quick resolution between the editors (that is consistent with Mr Wales's advice to WPians to show "kindness" towards each other. Most RfA candidates nowadays recognise that conciliation is far more likely to protect the project than immediate blocks where the occasional incivility or heated curse pops out of an experienced editor with a good record. I've included what I thought was a particularly good response from a recent RfC candidate header below.

Recent RfA candidate's comment

Question: In terms of dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A: Certainly. I think an apology serves Wikipedia much better than a block. Blocks aren't supposed to be punishment, they are as I said above meant to protect the encyclopedia from ongoing disruption. If an established editor is blocked for a temporary indiscretion, that doesn't help anyone. The editor will come back fuming and red in the face, upset to have been blocked (not to mention the fact that we lose whatever constructive edits they would have made in the time frame). On the other hand, after an apology and strikethrough, we can forgive and forget. Hopefully, an apology will make the target of the rudeness feel better, and it shouldn't make the rude editor any madder; hopefully, (s)he will understand he did something wrong. Of course, sometimes this may not be useful. If the editor expresses no remorse, and simply strikes through comments with an uncivil edit summary and then leaves the message "Cool3 said to tell you that I'm sorry that you thought I was being rude," then this method probably isn't working. Similarly, someone with a lot of civility problems may not be getting the message, but for any first offense with a reasonable editor, this is a much better plan. Cool3

The notion that the admin "should always be the one to take the high road" undermines the expectation that all editors observe the pillars and policies and be treated equally. There is a possible subtext that non-admins are second-class citizens who don't know any better. This is not a good management policy, particularly where bringing admins and non-admins together can only be good for the community, and it contradicts Mr Wales's memorable "it's no big deal" statement.

I politely suggest that Mr Wales might throw away the block button now, permanently, and concentrate his expertise on promoting WP in public and attracting donations to the Foundation for its servers and their maintenance. Tony (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocks should not be punitive; I agree with that. In this case, I'm not sure Jimbo's block was made primarily to punish, or primarily to send a message to the community. That doesn't really fall on either side of the preventative/punitive dichotomy.

I would disagree that a block must be "valid under the policy". Per WP:IAR, what brings about some good, is good. If this block works to effect a positive change in the community - then it was a good one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In his comments above Jimbo made it clear that the block was not intended to be punitive, but instead pour encourager les autres. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool3 answer + original ANI thread + Bishonen's comments in it = likely block. That's how it looks to me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)