Wikipedia talk:Civility

The initial Wikipedia:Civility policy was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history) before being copied here. -St|eve 19:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• /Archive 1 - old discussion to December 2005.
• /Archive 2 - 2006, including discussions on whether WP:CIV should be policy.
• /Archive 3 - 2007
• /Archive 4 - January - March 2008
• /Archive 5 - Exercises in civility (rather than policy discussion)

Adding Paradigm

As I mentioned several days ago I am interested in what the article would look like with some information on an over-arching paradigm. I thought I'd try this out to see what it looks like, reads like ... I am not attached to it, but thought we could look at something like this as a start to looking at the civility issue in a more holistic way.(olive (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

It will probably backfire. Although well intended, the touchy-feely nature of the new section is liable to alienate many content-oriented editors from WP:CIV even more than we already are. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. It might be more accurate to describe the nature of the section as whole- brained in terms of content and in style rather than left brained or specific and point value ladened. I may be able to edit the section more towards a left brain reader....At the same time the rest of the article is very point-driven, and there may be a place for both in the article . Although scientists may be more left brain in functioning, those in the arts and humanities may not be and so this might appeal to them.(olive (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Olive, the statement looks reasonable, but I do have a couple of questions. First, do you see the community of Wikipedia editors a reflection of the larger community of, say, the English speaking world, or should it be a role model for the larger community?

Second, You end with, "If behavior doesn't contribute this environment don’t do it, whatever it is." I can name a number of editors who apparently see no problem with fighting to the bitter end to win a point, honestly believing (I assume good faith) they are doing the best thing for Wikipedia and humankind. Should more conservative/considerate editors give them control of the article to avoid conflict? Tom Butler (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia as a reflection of the English speaking world. I see Wikipedia as one of the first four collaborative communities in the world and rather than a reflection, I see it as a very real part of the world, and one that gives a sense of where the world is headed. We have been accustomed to dealing with people when we can see them, but the world is moving to a situation where people may be known and understood even at the other end of a machine. Interesting development. The world is smaller because of the web and of other communication advancements. Wikipedia marks the way, but must also advance in the environment that is now exploding into existence all around us.

I don' think it hurts to fight to the bitter end. What hurts is how the fighting is done. The back and forth between intelligent, well-meaning editors is exhilarating, in my mind . When editors enter the situation and cannot or will not treat other editors as part of a community of which they are also part, as equals, and do not see that in harming someone else whatever that means, they harm the project and so themselves, well thats the problem. What hurts me, may not hurt you. The job of a good editor is not only to create good articles/edits but also to be able to collaborate effectively with all kinds of people . Collabration is not just a skill in writing editing but is a skill in dealing with people so the optimum result is achieved.(olive (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I like the idea you're shooting for here, but as currently written it's too gauzy. The last two sentences show some promise -- "Civility is that which contributes to the most positive working environment possible. If behavior doesn't contribute this environment don't do it, whatever it is." -- though they still overstate the case. Sometimes you have to do things that make people upset, like disagree with them. What you don't have to do is insult them in the process.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another version, less "touchy-freely", and "gauzy" I hope, :0).... with Sunray's copy edits. Fr. Goose, my take on the last lines would be that, although someone may become upset, still that may be the most positive situation in those circumstances. At any rate please edit if you can find better wording. I'm trying this on for size to see if and how it works, and or fits.(olive (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

It's a good section. I made it less gauzy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Holistic paradigm"? This new section fails at effective communication in the first two words. The policy was clearer before it had an unclearly-written essay stuck on the top of it. I would support changing it back. I don't understand what your goal is with the new section, but I'd encourage making it a separate page and clearly marking it as an essay. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

rspeer, what we're trying to do, basically, is change the focus a little. Wikipedia is a community. Editors too often focus on whether he said and she said this or that naughty word. But civility is about the working environment, and not matter what words you say, if it doesn't poison the environment, it isn't really uncivil. But if and editor, under current application, refers to "those idiots who think X," (when the offending editor knows very well that there are a lot of X thinkers looking on) it is uncivil, even though under current understanding it is fine because you didn't say the magic word that made it uncivil. In this case, the magic word would have been the user's name, "NAME is one of those idiots who think X." It's about environment, holism, atmosphere, not just specific wording. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is already occurring on this section. So rather than delete unilaterally, please discuss and get some agreement from other editors.

I am also including a earlier version of the section here in case there is some desire to use that version.(olive (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Civility refers to the quality of the collaborative environment created and inhabited by Wikipedia editors, and assumes the importance of the encyclopedia as paramount. Rather than being external and separate from the encyclopedia and its functioning, editors as a group, constitute the internal, central, core of the encyclopedia and as such are responsible not only for the creation of contributions to the encyclopedia, for the problems that arise and their solution, but also for environment in which collaboration takes place. Damage one part of the functioning core of the encyclopedia, one editor, and you damage the whole of Wikipedia, and thus yourself. Civility must be seen as that which contributes to the most positive, holistic working environment possible. If behavior doesn’t contribute to this environment don’t do it, whatever it is.

I know what I did was a deep edit, and changed the focus to community and away from holism sort of. I'm not going to be insulted if you revert it back. I think I did keep the general essense of what you were getting at though. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a a problem. I think you did keep the essence of what I was saying. The same thing is being said in two different ways and I think thats fine. The editors as a group can choose one or the other or neither. Editing had been pretty friendly here, and we can keep it that way... c'est vrai? ;0)

It's written a little better now, but I still don't consider this section to be an improvement to the policy. It's policy creep, and it contains statements that range from meaningless to inappropriate.

Let's start with the first sentence and analyze it in detail: "Civility refers to the quality of the collaborative environment created and inhabited by Wikipedia editors, and asserts the paramount importance of the encyclopedia." Here are my objections:

• Civility doesn't refer to "the quality of the collaborative environment": it refers to the way you treat other people. Improving the quality of the collaborative environment is one reason to be civil. But then, a software upgrade of MediaWiki also improves the quality of the collaborative environment, and upgrading software isn't the same thing as civility.
• It doesn't make sense to say that civility itself asserts something.
• "The paramount importance of the encyclopedia" sounds like something that belongs on WP:ENC, not here. If we suddenly decided we were writing an almanac instead of an encyclopedia, we would still need to be civil while doing so.

Now, some objections from later on:

• It's odd to describe the Wikipedia environment as more or less "livable". People do not live on Wikipedia. Hopefully.
• "Incivility occurs because of personal disrespect." I don't think you can pin down one reason that incivility occurs. Incivility can also occur, for example, due to people editing while tired or drunk.
• "...damage to this environment is the essence of incivility." Oh man, I sure hope our vandals don't know where to buy some Essence of Incivility. To be more serious, this introduces another unnecessary abstraction - by now, you're referring to the essence of a negation of a quality of a collaborative environment. Really, I think it's better to stick with what we know civility and incivility are, which are the way you treat people.
• "Incivility is that which poisons the community environment." Another definition that equates two different abstractions. Astroturfing, for example, also poisons the community environment. The statement would be more correct if you simply said "Incivility poisons the community environment", but the rest of the page says that adequately enough.
• "Wikipedia editors should bear in mind that the encyclopedia is meant to neutrally express all notable ideas..." Should they? That's a pretty strong statement about the content of the encyclopedia. That's taking an opinion about notability -- a Wikipedia concept that isn't even a policy -- and for some reason codifying it in the civility policy where it doesn't even belong.

There are many more problems. Again, I would encourage you to work on this as an essay, not to alter the civility policy just because two editors want to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to side with Rspeer here. There might be something in it, but what you've written so far is not especially comprehensible nor particularly correct. I wouldn't mind an overview of what civility is (as opposed to what incivility is, the actual topic of the guideline at this time), but a "holistic paradigm" is not it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't wish to edit-war over it, I'd like to ask that you remove the "paradigm" section until it is rewritten to the point where what it says it is clear and correct. So far, it's neither.--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fr Goose I am not sure who you are addressing. If you don't like the version in place either see the one I wrote, and if you don't like that remove the version in place and leave the section as is. There was discussion on the ideas in this paradigm which I was attempting to deal with in writing this section. Please note that the section was written by me copy edited by Sunray and later on by Martin. However as I said I am not attached. I would however like to ask for "assume good faith" from the editors here. Sheesh(olive (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I was addressing you, or others who support the "Holistic paradigm" (now "Context") section. I left it in place to see if the ideas in it could be refined (an act of good faith). But, well, I'll have to be unkind: so far it's gone from a one-paragraph ramble to a two-paragraph ramble. In its current form, I think it just doesn't belong in the policy. It needs to be completely rewritten for conciseness and clarity before it belongs. And then there will still be the issue of whether people agree with what it says. Right now, I don't even understand what most of it says. So I'd like to request that you remove it for the time being and workshop it here.

First workshop issue: What are you trying to say with it? What advice are you trying to convey to editors?--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this definitely isn't ready to be added to a policy and that working on it here in the Talk page is an excellent idea. I applaud the boldness but let's get the kinks worked out and consensus established before editing an important policy. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing uncivil comments

Someone went overboard on this section, making it appear to be acceptable to edit other people's comments in the event that you believe that they have been uncivil. I've edited the section to make it conform more to the actual norms of Wikipedia.Kww (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your version is better. It's better to see what people actually said. If that makes them lose face, they can strike it themselves. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A reminder to get consensus before editing

To those of you who have been editing this page recently, please remember, "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." I'd strongly second that, and would add that most revisions should be considered in doubt unless they are typographical in nature. Antelan^talk 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I'd like to remove the essay-ish section entitled "Context", which was added based on only an agreement between two editors. It's putting inappropriate things in the policy, including opinions about notability, and it doesn't really say anything informative about civility that the rest of the page doesn't say. See my list of objections above. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only question remaining is "do we need to get consensus to go back to the consensus version"? Antelan^talk 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I refer you both, please, to the discussion that has been ongoing on these pages in a relatively peaceful manner, for context to this addition. There has been as well editing that has gone on in this article, and which did not require consensus and to say now that consensus is required may not be appropriate or true. Please also note the discussion on "paradigm shift in an understanding of civility", and to the comments of other editors on this topic some of whom agreed with the change in the article, and some of who were openly discussing the pros and cons of the change. Please note also that there was only one person who added this change , Olive, that would be moi, and that edits were than carried on that version by Sunray who seems to have agreed with Olive's addition,(check history for verification) and Martinphi. This section was added as a more contextual underpinning for the civility section as had been discussed on these discussion pages. That context by necessity is less concrete and literal, and more abstract than the rest of the article because it refers to an shift in understanding of how we fundamentally view Wikipedia. Please refer to discussion for more details on that . I would like the editors involved in that discussion to weigh in on this before the section is removed. I am personally not attached to the section I added, please see a copy on talk above, but am interested in having all editors interested in this topic discuss if they want to or need to.(olive (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Commenters in that section noted how it veered off topic into the paranormal. This makes me suspect that you and Martinphi have a vested interest in "shifting" the "paradigm" of civility. I was content to discuss the new section in isolation, but if you insist that I should look at it in context, I'll tell you what I think of it in context.

The new section has language buried within it about being disrespectful to a "group" of editors. I have noted that a certain group of editors feel disrespected when they are asked to back up their fantastic claims with reliable sources. This group apparently includes you and Martinphi, and is united by the goal of making Wikipedia articles say that the paranormal is real.

I find the civility policy very important. And one of the most important things about the policy is that it does not take sides. To put this in context some more: While I disapprove of the kind of things you want to add to Wikipedia, I disapprove even more strongly when JzG tells you to fuck off. The issues have nothing to do with it. We don't need a paradigm shift to know that JzG shouldn't be telling anyone to fuck off.

I now oppose this change even more strongly, because I suspect that the new language conceals phrases that would be used as a lever in a content dispute. The one about notability is the most glaring example.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there! I have never edited a paranormal article, see no mention of paranormal in any discussion, have never interacted with JzG. There is no paradigm for incivility which is why I was interested in discussing it, and writing one. The version in place was edited after mine so perhaps comments about what I am doing could reference what I actually wrote. Please assume good faith. Completely confused by your accusations.(olive (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I'd have to say I disagree with the opening suggestion in this thread. One is entitled to make changes to any page, including policy pages, at any time, if one acts in good faith. If you disagree with the edits, you are entitled to revert them, and then discuss your differences with the other editor(s) (i.e., to practice WP:BRD).

What you can't do is say "no changing the page until you obtain consensus". User:Ottava Rima recently got a block for trying to insist on such a stipulation regarding changes to WP:NLT.

If you oppose specific changes, oppose them for specific reasons (discuss them, with or without reverting them), but do not express a reflexive opposition to change.--Father Goose (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I am simply quoting from the template that is plastered across the front page of this policy. I stand by the request that changes to official policy be aired before being enacted. Do people need to honor it? No. Does it make for good policy-making? I certainly think so. Antelan^talk 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of this issue took place on my talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the context of important and widely-referenced policies, there is merit in having an inherent aversion to rapid and undiscussed change absent significant compelling reason to make an immediate change. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's a good principle. I'd really like to hear what GTBacchus would like to do. Is an addition or change needed? I consider him a leader in this issue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility and community

I don't know what in the world rspeer could have seen that related to the paranormal, unless he's having a paranormal experience (-:. This section reflects the general consensus of the way that WP is changing, and that discussion has been going on in multiple pages, such as JzG's RfC, the Raymond Arritt Expert withdrawal page, the essays WP:SPADE, WP:NOSPADE, Wiquitte (sp?) and others. Civility is moving away from focus on specific words to focus on the general environment, and that is what this section is attempting to address, without curtailing the ability of editors to communicate frankly, and without making it easier to use CIV as a weapon. So, this is not just out of the blue.

The mention of notability is just a mention- and it is absolutely nothing new. WP:NOTABILITY just says we can include whatever meets that guideline. WP as community is an old concept. [1][2]

Here is a quote:

The Wikipedia community is:personal. This may seem strange: after all, the goal is to create entries which are as objective and without personal bias as possible. But the openness of Wikipedia allows total self-expression within those bounds (and even without it in the personal pages); Wikipedians define themselves within the context of the project through their interests and goals. This brings both benefits and complications--Wikipedia takes advantage of personal qualities like trust, insight, imagination, idiosyncracy and empathy which bureaucratic institutions cannot; but it cannot do so without also having some of the downsides, including confusion, bias, mistakes, and hurt feelings. A healthy community doesn't eliminate the problems, but it understands how to deal with them.

In other words, don't be so shocked.

More highly relevant links:

[3][4]

What we're trying to do is to state these basic principles of the Wikipedia community in the context of civility. It think it is obvious that civility is an aspect of the WP community. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the above section mean we shouldn't discuss changes?

Is that meant to be an argument against discussing policy changes on the relevant talkpage first? Antelan^talk 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no problem with the editing on this article until just recently, and there were several editors involved in the discussions. If agreement needs to be reached by editors at this point to make progress than thats fine. Its not a issue, just a change.(olive (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

[Discussion unrelated to policy moved to Archive 5]

Changes to this policy

Template:RFCpolicy This policy has often been used a club by clever trolls who drive off productive contributors with incessantly polite trolling. I would like to make an essential change. We need to distinguish between two broad classes of incivility:

1. Crudeness, bluntness, loutishness, and unintentionally inappropriate remarks. These can be due to cultural differences, personal style, or a lack of social skills. The incivility needs to be identified, and the user should be counseled, "You may not mean it, but your remarks are bothersome. Could you please be more thoughtful."

2. Remarks, even those seeming to be polite, which are intended to drive off productive contributors through overt or subtle harassment. When editors use words as weapons, they must be dealt with firmly, including the use of blocks for repeated incidents.

Comments? Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We already expect people to not troll, right? Dunno how much this belongs in Wikipedia:Civility. Maybe it should go over at Wikipedia:Make yourself useful or something. Friday (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolls frequently use this policy as a weapon against good editors. In other cases, editors from expressive cultures can be put at a disadvantage by those from cultures that are more reserved. The purpose of the remarks matters more than the format. If the policy explained the difference between hostility and loutishness, much trouble would be saved. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this can be addressed by shifting the way we describe civility. To me, as a useful practice, civility is more about keeping discussion on track than it is about never using certain words, or being overly flowery in language. It's ok to disagree and even use strong language, if you're focused on resolving the dispute rather than focused on fanning the flames. Civility is productive because if you make things personal for no good reason, this will waste time by distracting from discussion that might have otherwise been useful. Friday (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should all cater to the most sensitive "cultures", by being as polite and courteous as possible on this site. There is nothing to lose by being less "expressive", even when stressed, and a lot to gain. I see no reason to accept any more incivility than we already tolerate. I have never seen a troll win an argument with a good contributor because they used this policy as a club. Crum375 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I worry about this policy being used as a club as well. Frequently, it comes down to dealing with a bad editor, and the desire is both strong and reasonable to resort to plainer, blunter, and simpler language as a discussion progresses. What starts with excuse me, but your explanation of tides being the result of a dolphin conspiracy doesn't seem to be backed by reliable sources becomes your insistence on including dolphins is ridiculous and ultimately becomes will you stop talking about the fucking dolphins! I know why it happens, and it is truly difficult to believe that being civil or incivil is the real problem. Tom Butler complained above that the way he had been treated prevented like-minded people from editing. I think everyone needs to stop a moment and consider whether that is truly a bad thing.

I think that we truly need to focus on unprovoked incivility. This is a problem, and causes an unpleasant editing environment. Provoked incivility is a different matter, and a different problem, and needs policies set in place to deal with both the easily provoked and those that provoke.Kww (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no such thing as "provoked incivility", but there is perhaps "revealed" incivility. IOW, a truly civil person will never be provoked into incivility, but one who only has a civil façade will be forced to shed it under stressful circumstances. It is our goal here to always be civil, regardless of the "provocation". There is never a reason to be uncivil, ever. If the person you are dealing with is being crude or obnoxious, there are many ways of properly dealing with that, but none of them is to also be obnoxious or crude. Bottom line: be nice and kind to everyone, and firm with rule violators, but never uncivil. Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should endorse incivility, but treating it as a blockable offense is going overboard in some cases. It's true that at my core, I don't suffer fools gladly, and it is very difficult for me to stay nice when presented with the instransigently stupid. I generally manage to do so. If you truly can hold your temper each and every time someone indulges in willful idiocy, I congratulate you. The problem that I and other users face is the feeling of futility. I chose the dolphin tidal conspiracy as an example, because everyone would quickly see that an editor clinging to that theory was a problem. But objectively, how is the dolphin tidal conspiracy different from Electronic voice phenomena or Homeopathy? Editors get frustrated and tempers flare because they know that there is absolutely nothing they can do to solve the problem. Is it regrettable? Certainly. Is is forgiveable? I think so.Kww (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see WP as a social network, and your goal is entertainment, then you are right, why worry about incivility, it's part of the "fun". But if your goal is to actually write an encyclopedia, then any incivility, under any circumstances, is simply counterproductive. In your dolphin example, if you get frustrated and become uncivil yourself, you'll be less likely to influence the article's content or another editor's behavior. The right way to handle both is by maintaining a cool, calm demeanor, being very clear about the content and behavior rules, and requesting help from the proper channels when needed. This is the way forward, not eroding our behavior rules in the vain hope that it will help influence someone or something. Crum375 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is to focus on ways to eliminate the provocations as well as the easily provoked. If we eliminate the editors that start getting snippy at the drop of a hat as well as getting rid of the editors that try the patience of a saint, life will be much better. Focusing solely on the reaction without working to eliminate the cause isn't the answer.

I don't see WP as a social network, I see it as an encyclopedia. Most of the people that I see as being the frequent targets of incivility are the targets of incivility precisely because they are attempting to damage the encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are being attacked by incivility or otherwise, your recourse is to protest and prevent that via the normal channels. If the attacker/harasser/uncivil editor persists, he will be blocked. Becoming uncivil yourself to defend yourself or prevent attacks will only backfire. Be nice and firm and you'll persevere. Be nasty and rude, even when "provoked", and you'll lose. Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Kww, but every other editor I've seen claim "I don't suffer fools gladly" really means "I can't stop myself from flying off the handle and leaving really nasty remarks". Such editors often define anyone who disagrees with them as a "fool". People who can't "suffer [people they disagree with] gladly" are exactly the reason why we need a civility policy with teeth. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a chat with Olive and MartinPhi, I think that they will tell you that I generally deal well with people that I intensely disagree with, and stay civil even when I am angry.Kww (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, are you advocating getting rid of people you don't agree with? Are you advocating making it so that one group of editors can more effectively dominate? If so, that is a pretty fast way to see a competing wiki assume intellectual leadership. By the way, I know that I am one of the editors you would purge. I also know that is exactly what SA would do--eliminate the bother of all of us morons and idiots. Tom Butler (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, I am not advocating getting rid of people that I personally disagree with. That would be far too low of a threshold, and would defeat the effort to build an encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I express surprise that this policy can be used successfully against contributors who are not being uncivil. And there's never an excuse to be uncivil -- it's just self-defeating, as Crum375 points out. The JzG RfC (among others) made it plain that to do good work, you don't have to act like a "bad cop". If you're not a patient person, you shouldn't be a troll-fighter. If a troll does get you worked up enough to make you lose your cool, what's your defense, "He made me do it"?

It all reminds me of the phrase, "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and win on experience."--Father Goose (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you got closer to highly disruptive situations, such as Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, you would gain perspective on what's wrong with this policy. Feel free to help out in that battlezone, and you will see many forms of incivility, overt and covert. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "covert" incivility. There may be cases where you don't like someone's demeanor or personality, and that's part of life. The question is: are you able to collaborate on content, or not? If the answer is the latter, then pursue DR. To try to win an argument with an uncivil person, or one you perceive as uncivil, by escalating the incivility is wrong. To loosen this policy to allow even more incivility than we already have is wrong. You move forward by being nice and firm, not by descending to the lowest common denominator. Crum375 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty of editors who are politely dickish. Jehochman ^Talk 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly you can be civil and obnoxious, or harassing, stalking, trolling, and lots of other nasty things. But this specific policy deals with civility, and it needs to be restricted to that only. If someone is civil while trolling, or whatever, that would be handled elsewhere. The point is that there is no justification ever to become uncivil, regardless of the behavior of the other side. Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no stranger to the issue. I was once caused incredible wikistress by a user who is among the most "polite" I've met, but who became a tendentious, disruptive, wikilawyering, edit-warring nightmare over a particular issue -- while still remaining studiously polite. He wasn't guilty of incivility; he was guilty of all those other things I listed. Had he just jawed on endlessly but not actually edited disruptively, I could have ignored him. I came within a hair's breadth of taking him to arbitration, before the situation was magically resolved by a help of an editor from outside the conflict.

Now, all of those behaviors are dickish, definitely, and we have various rules against them because they are disruptive. I don't see the need to add nebulous extensions to WP:CIV to cover those behaviors. Arguing to the point where someone loses their cool should not in itself be a crime. In such situations, editors should learn to just drop it. If, however, the person is editing in a concretely tendentious or disruptive way, that is what they should be sanctioned for.

Let's bring up a name that hasn't surfaced in this discussion yet: ScienceApologist. I don't get the sense that he loses his cool when battling pseudoscience-pushers. I get the sense that he doesn't want to deign to show respect to the people he is opposing. (I saw a video of a lecture he gave at a recent NY meetup, where he said that he had an "detached amusement" toward the civility blocks he had received.) He is right to oppose pseudoscience and other POV pushing, but only works against himself when he speaks in a patronizing manner.

Just because he's on the right side of things (for the most part), or takes on some very tough fights, doesn't mean he should get a free pass from his own incivility. Nor should you ban others for "goading" him. You should either block those offenders for taking concretely disruptive actions, or if they're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk pages only, ignore them.--Father Goose (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a situation where CIV is being used to get rid of disruptive editors because you can't get them blocked for disruption. But there is also a certain level of disruption which is necessary to create NPOV articles. Yes. To make a good article, you're always going to be stepping on someone's toes. The problem with "Remarks, even those seeming to be polite, which are intended to drive off productive contributors through overt or subtle harassment" is that you have to be very specific to define it before you use the banhammer. I don't see that this issue of specificity is being addressed.

We have a basic situation in which there is no ultimate authority on content. We have no solution to this problem, and our other troubles grow out of that.

And yeah- an editor who isn't uncivil doesn't get whacked for incivility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The policy already explicitly forbids 'taunting'. What exactly is meant by 'polite provocation'? Is this actually a code-phrase for "continuing to disagree"? Goading, baiting and taunting are disruptive, but it seems to me they are already prohibited - although I don't see this prohibition being enforced (along with most of our other important policies). I'd like to see an example or two that illustrates both the problem, and how this policy change could help alleviate it. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in putting any user on the spot by making them into an example. The situation we often see is that a user is subtly baited over a long time, and finally they explode. Most people are trollable to a greater or lesser degree. This policy needs to recognize and warn about how trolls sometimes use the policy as a weapon. When an editor becomes incivil, before muzzling them, we need to ask, is this editor the aggressor, or are they a victim of abuse. When that dynamic appears, we need to ask the incivil editor to back away from the conflict, and then we need to apply disruptive editing restrictions to the main aggressor. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you would identify this behavior as disruptive and worthy of sanctions, but simultaneously not want to "[put] any user on the spot by making them into an example". Why not? If they are disrupting Wikipedia, why not make them into an example?

I agree that editors who engage in taunting or other disruptive behavior should be banned, blocked, etc. (Although I don't see it happening.) But my point is that this behavior is already prohibited under the existing policy. Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a nasty line to draw, which is probably why no attempt has ever been made to draw it. The difference really is the difference between failing to see your opponent's point and willfully refusing to see it. The case that recently brought me right to the edge was WNDL42's insistence that it was reasonable to describe William Arntz as a "research physicist", even though the man possesses a degree in Engineering Science and apparently worked as a project manager, not a physicist. No matter how many times it was explained to him that it was unreasonable to describe him that way, he would continue to edit the description in, and accuse everyone that disagreed of being uncivil. Ironically, he titled a section of the talk page where he discussed it as Caution ... Children at Play. Given that WNDL42 is able to read and write, I have to believe that he knew full well what he was doing. Some of the reactions to him were clearly uncivil, and I walked right up to the line with this immediately retracted comment. I tried the RFC route, which was useless, as everyone apparently felt that we should have wasted more of lives talking to him.

• Extra credit question: is is uncivil to falsely accuse your opponent of incivility?Kww (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know whether Wndl42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "willfully refusing" to see a point. But since he also at one earlier point argued that David Albert was not properly described as a physicist, I didn't take his comments seriously, and certainly didn't feel provoked by them. Sometimes people are just wrong, for whatever reasons, and sometimes you won't be able to convince them that they are wrong, and they will continue to strenuously argue their case, even it it is without merit. That doesn't mean that they are deliberately trying to be provocative. Dlabtot (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WNDL is a very simple example. Another example which many people would, and have, used is me and ScienceApologist, with SA as the victim. Yet, I maintain that he is the disruptive editor, and I also maintain that, since he is not himself subtle, I have seldom been very subtle with him. Thus, anything subtle which could be said to be polite aggression was unintentional. So I'm highly suspicious about how this would be applied in practice. The situations on wiki are often extremely complex. They are so complex that to get a grip on them, an admin would have to go over hundreds of diffs, and understand them all. This would also require understanding the technical problems. In practice,this isn't even close to possible. So, I think we either need to drop this, or find a clear line where an admin could say "you crossed it." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I started with It's a nasty line to draw, which is probably why no attempt has ever been made to draw it. I think what should be done is to make it clear that incivility is not a bright-line offense like block evasion or 3RR. Judging behaviour as being incivility is pretty easy, but judging it as being unprovoked incivility worthy of a block is much tougher. Editors that respond to the slightest of criticisms with insults and expletives should be blocked pretty quickly. Editors that get bitchy at the end of a long, drawn-out exchange with an intransigent editor can be judged a bit more leniently, even if they can't quite be forgiven.Kww (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Making it less of a bright-line offense was part of what the "essay" was trying to do. It seems to me that what you say is already the way it is applied- unless you mean the way it might be applied to people who have already been blocked a lot for incivility. If you get blocked for a thing once then it builds up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Workshop civility: possible addition

The purpose of adding a section to the civility page was to provide a larger context for what civility was, or is. Right now, the section is for the most part, a collection of points. My thought was to place these points within a larger, more current understanding of collaborative communities and how they do, and will have to function to sustain themselves in the present environment of communication explosion. Wikipedia is considered to be one of the first of these communities along with Linux, MySpace, and YouTube, but in order for Wikipedia to continue to succeed, it will, like all of these communities have to change, and quickly, since that is the rate at which the world is expanding /shrinking. Part of that change may have to do with how the community of editors sees itself. I include part of an earlier comment to explain what is meant by this statement. I guess I've done what I could with this. If other editors have ideas about how to write something that includes these ideas, great. If no one else thinks its important, thats fine too.(olive (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I think most of us think of ourselves as standing outside of Wikipedia right now trying to fix the problems, trying to make it work well. Now turn that inside out or "inside in", all of the editors, inside Wikipedia. We are now Wikiepdia, its "heart", and as the heart we create the articles. Wikipedia flows outwards from us. We also are the problems. Outside of Wikipedia, we can separate ourselves from the problems, and from each other, isolate ourselves, our thinking. Inside of Wikipedia, we are the functioning unit, and are responsible for having created whatever happens in the encyclopedia including its problems. This isn't a physical shift, obviously. Its a shift in our own habits, in the way we view the encyclopedia.

At the heart of the encyclopedia, are also the hearts of the editors. At the risk of sounding trite or schmultzy; damage one heart and you damage the whole. If we think of Wikipedia as this whole, that gives rise to the parts of the encyclopedia; that's the picture. Dreadstar's point about lying, is so much larger than telling a lie given this paradigm, not that I am putting words into his mouth, but rather how I extrapolate from what he is saying. The heart of the encyclopedia, and the hearts of the editors are influenced by every single aspect that protects or damages it. Damage one heart in any way, and lies of any kind are a lack of openness in the heart, and you damage the whole. Editors lying, for whatever reason, whether the lie is found out or not , damages the editor's heart who tells the lie at the very least, and possibly the editors who deal with the lie, and that damages the whole larger heart of Wikipedia. This isn't just about lies obviously, but is about anything that damages or supports.

You can't tell people this, necessarily. Many would scoff, but you can begin to shift the paradigm, by saying, lets look at ourselves as the functioning "heart" inside of, and of, this encyclopedia.

This paradigm is becoming known in other collaborative environments, and is an obvious movement toward the better functioning of a global, sustainable world where we are connected to each other and to the world we are destroying/creating.

Parameters then have to be as holistic as we can make them, I suspect, and based on the sense that every editor is an important, functioning aspect of the encyclopedia just because they are inside there with us. They are part of the heart. We have to begin to design parameters based on this paradigm, it seems to me.

I want to make to make it clear that I believe the statements below and agreement with them constitutes a breach of good faith as I mentioned. Normally, I would bypass such statements but given the discussion on this page, the input of many editors not necessarily supportive but always civil and respectful of each other, and the extent of the discussion on this topic, that such statements indicates the discussions weren't read, which is fine, but be careful what you say if you don't know what is going on , and also calls into question my integrity as an editor which I do not like, and cannot bypass with out comment. I won't discuss this. Just a point for clarification so that I can continue to work on this page with out further such attacks.(olive (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

"This makes me suspect that you and Martinphi have a vested interest in "shifting" the "paradigm" of civility..."

"The new section has language buried within it about being disrespectful to a "group" of editors. I have noted that a certain group of editors feel disrespected when they are asked to back up their fantastic claims with reliable sources. This group apparently includes you and Martinphi, and is united by the goal of making Wikipedia articles say that the paranormal is real."

I apologize deeply for the suggestion -- which it seems was incorrect -- that you were writing the "holistic paradigm" on behalf of paranormalist editors. I made an assumption because I looked at the larger context of this issue, but the context is larger and more confusing than I suspected.

The comments I read about civility and paranormalism actually all came from Martinphi when he was agreeing with you, so I unintentionally transferred Martinphi's goals to you. The sentences I objected to were also not written by you, but added later by Martinphi.

However, I think it is quite clear that this vague section is being written and rewritten to benefit particular users' interests, including paranormalists (why else would we be talking about the Electronic Voice Phenomenon on a page about civility?). We should not change the civility policy vaguely; if we change it, each change should have a clear meaning and be supported by consensus. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My intent was not to place onus on another editor(Martin) in any way, but to clarify what I know something about, and thats my own involvement, but I thank you very much for the apology.(olive (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I frankly don't care about civility as defined currently in WP very much- you can cuss at me if you want. Nor do I think anything we do here will benifit my area of editing much, if any. But I do edit in a very nasty area of the wiki, which has given me extensive experience with how civility is used and abused. I may not be a real expert on it, but I've seen and experienced incivility in all its permutations. That's why I'm saying that it is a matter of atmosphere, and that groups should not be indirectly insulted- I've seen CIV in action a lot. So I agree with olive's emphasis on holism. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up on holistic

My previous reference to paranormal is because it is illogical to consider changes in the civility article without considering the whole body of work within Wikipedia. One of the problems I had/have as a new editor is that there are it seems hundreds of articles representing fragments of the policy of how one editor should interact with another. These cannot be taken each one in isolation if there is to be a cohesive policy, yet that is what is occurring.

Flash points in Wikipedia must also be considered. Kww, your dolphin example is a good one, although it lost its luster for me when you extended it to EVP. You indicate one editor that will not let go of a notion, and then extend it to a subject that has had many editors and many months of conflict. Are you really saying that you do not believe in EVP and could not resist comparing it to your dolphin example to discount both with a straw man ploy? How have we arrived at a culture in which it is okay to only have articles about what certain editors believe in?

The paranormal subjects are an example of a "poisoned well" environment within Wikipedia. If you try to fix civility, you cannot do so without addressing why incivility occurs. In a "poisoned well" environment, incivility is clearly often used as a tool to take control of an article. Incivility is not one of those namby-pamby words that just gets in the way of "real editors" writing good articles that reflect their worldview. It is symptomatic of ideological differences and editing rules that are not able to facilitate such useful tools as compromise, consensus and balance. That is why a holistic approach should at least be attempted. It isn't getting done with the existing approach. Tom Butler (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem becomes how to deal with editors who insist that "dolphins cause tides" or other nonsense and just won't let go. In an ideal world we'd never lose our cool even on the 173rd invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But the real world (much less Wikipedia) isn't ideal. And people with an agenda to push have learned how to turn such a natural human reaction to their advantage. It's a travesty that we block people for saying naughty words others are free to drive their fellow editors nuts by pushing the Dolphin Theory over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again at zero risk to themselves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, it seems to me that you're doing an awful lot of work towards creating a reality that you vociferously oppose. You maintain that "we block people for saying naughty words [while] others are free to drive their fellow editors nuts..." However, our reactions to spurious claims of incivility are precisely what we make of them. The next time it happens, we have the opportunity to read the situation superficially, or with fuller judgment. You seem to presuppose that we'll do the former rather than the latter, and you state our propensity to do so as if it's a fait accompli, a done deal. Why are you so willing to say that we've already lost, when winning is standing in front of us? Am I reading your position somehow incorrectly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has their breaking point. Geogre explains it best. We have seen ArbCom take into account the nature of provocations when measuring sanctions. This policy needs to be clear that incessant, polite provocation is not civil and may be stopped technically through blocks. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I beliebve that at this point two separate discussions are occurring . One has to so with the context or holistic paradigm that underpins Wikipedia in terms of its collaborative functioning - a big topic and yet simple:

Outside of the encyclopedia figuratively speaking -

• The editors see themselves as outside of the encyclopeida and looking in to create its content and solve its problems, which allows them to feel separate from the other editors and the content or

Inside the encyclopedia as the seeds, or the core, from which the encyclopedia flows

• The editors see themselves as the creators of the content, the problems, the solutions and the heart or centre of the encyclopedia, only able to fix the encyclopedia if they can fix themselves.... "We have met the enemy and he is us"....

We are second, dealing with questions of civility what it is, or is not, from a more point value - an exploration of what causes incivility, and questions as to how to fix it. Solutions tend to be point value as well, and expressed as desire for changes in individual policy or guidelines. I would think that both the holistic and point value discussions are necessary.

The holistic view contains the point value, the guidelines and policies . The points must take in consideration, must contain, the holistic view.

Until we decide on the holistic context for the policies on Wikipedia, the individual policies will always be and feel segmented, floating individually in a way, because they are not anchored in an overarching understanding of what is going on here.

My suggestion is to first deal with both an introduction that provides context for Wikipedia's most basic, collaborative policy, and then to fill in the points as needed to elaborate on that policy. Of course these discussions can both go on at the same time. We just have to keep them very separate.

I would suggest for all of us that on this page especially, we all assume good faith, and practice the civility principles we are trying to understand, write, collaborate on. Not meaning to be patronizing in any way, just want to make some progress.(olive (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Disambiguation page

Is there a disambiguation for interacting with editors? Part of my interest in a holistic treatment of the civility article is due to how many other articles there are that touch on the same theme. Perhaps it would be useful to have a disambiguation page with a likely search title such as "Editing etiquette " and direct civility to that page while changing 'Civility" to "Civil editing" ... or something. All of the other articles, such as straw man and assume good faith could be pointed to with a synopsis for each. If that were done, then I believe the disambiguation page would eventually show the need for changes in all of the related pages so as to present a unified view. Tom Butler (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Something like a related links section, but towards the top of this page? Antelan^talk 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Etiquette. Although the "holistic" section was not ready for prime time, I still think it's worth giving a brief overview of what it means to be civil (instead of focusing exclusively on what actions are "uncivil"), and it would be sensible to link to WP:ETIQ from that.--Father Goose (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Something like a related links section, but towards the top of this page?" is a good idea if it can have something of a one line description. For instance:

Wikipedia:Etiquette:summary of good manners for editors and reminder of Wikipedia objectives.

I think that, if all of the related articles were spread out on a table, patterns would emerge that show duplication in part and a general consensus overall. For instance, the Straw man article addresses discrediting by inference or association that is often accomplished in very polite and indirect ways. For instance being sure to use words with religious references when trying to discredit the science aspect of a subject. We are talking about a similar issue with polite provocation.

There is also the problem of article stability. What I learned as social norms of civility are a little different than here. For instance, we try to have a zero tolerance for incivility in the AA-EVP discussion board. So I learn the nuances of this civility article, but if it is changed in the future to be more lenient about how assertive an editor can be, how will I know? Should I have watches on all of the related articles?

By the way, I am impressed that you see the possibility to change such a central policy article. I had not thought it possible. Tom Butler (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[Discussion unrelated to policy moved to Archive 5]

Mediation, See also

[5] There were a lot of words here. (Merged these two sections; the mediation advice is over-long--) There are 14 items in the See also section. Are all of them necessary? --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another version: context paragraph for civility article

Well, here's another try at a paragraph that gives the civility article context. I am being somewhat tenacious on this, because I feel that it is critical for editors who come to the civility page to understand the shift from viewing Wikipedia from outside itself, and themselves as separate from other the editors, to the point where editors actually see themselves as the truly responsible creators of the encyclopedia, and its environment. Right now the article is for the most part, lists. For most people, if they can understand something in a larger context they are more likely to want to go along with the dos and don'ts aspects . Anyway take a look and see what you all think.(olive (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia can be described as a collaborative community of editors

whose paramount purpose is to write an encyclopedia. Editors should

see themselves as intrinsic rather than extrinsic to the encyclopedia and it’s functioning. As such they collaborate on, and are responsible for not only the creation of contributions to the encyclopedia, for the problems that arise, for the solution to these problems, but also for environment which they as a group create. Civility is that which defines the optimum, working environment in which the encyclopedia is created, and in which each editor works. Damage to the collaborative environment of the encyclopedia even with incivility to a single editor, by extension creates a less than optimal, functioning, collaborative community. If behavior does not contribute to this unified, collaborative, working environment don't do it, whatever it is.

No. It's unclear and unnecessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. I think you may be trying to say something worthy here, but the language is so tortuous and muddled that I can't figure out what it is. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the simpler language version would be Wikipedia is a project where people work together. While working on the encyclopedia, we are also working to build a collaborative working environment. Being uncivil towards another editor damages that collaborative working environment. If the action you want to take damages the work environment, don't do it. Kww (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact, that is not completely what I'm saying. I'm talking about a paradigm shift, but its a complex idea , and attempting to place it here as a shortened version, in the present structure of the article may not work very well for lots of reasons.(olive (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

It's good and understandable (read it again if necessary). It does need to be put in simpler words. Kww's verion says most of it, but does not quite fully get at the definition of the civility as promoting, and incivility as detracting from, the community environment. But he's going in the right direction. The post above basically explains why we need to emphasize community, holism, a bit more. The concepts here have been there from the start, but apparently not applied fully to civility. As it is, people focus on specific words. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That steamroller that just rolled through

Anyone but me think that Sunray went a little overboard with deleting active discussions?Kww (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. The banner at the very top of this page says: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Civility page." The page was up to more than 160 kb in size. I simply archived some of the outdated discussions and carefully preserved the extensive digressions from policy discussion in a separate archive. Sunray (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So the question of whether WP:CIVIL applies to discussion of people outside of Wikipedia isn't a policy-based question in your mind? The interaction between how we treat outsiders, insiders, and those that can be readily identified as both isn't worthy of any further discussion? The conversation I rescued from the archive once and you reverted without so much as a comment?Kww (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you made the restoration while I was moving material and I didn't know you had done that. My move automatically nullified yours. Sorry about that. I've looked at that section again (you mean the discussion under the heading "Enough," right?). While I agree that a small part of it is a discussion about the application of the policy, I don't see anything that has to do with improvements or changes to the policy. Two of the discussants noted that the discussion was "off topic" (though I did note that you said you thought it was relevant). I don't think so, but I'm not the last word on this. Others? Sunray (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most of what was removed and archived was very tangential to the focus of this page, though of course there were some on-topic posts in there, such as by user:Crum375. Those threads are surely exhausted? so archiving seems reasonable anyway, for completed threads. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't like calling threads that start and stop on a weekend "completed". There are a significant volume of weekday-only editors.Kww (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a participant in one of the extended off-topic threads, I don't have a problem with it going into a separate archive. With regards to the rest, so long as only completed discussions were archived, I think archiving is fine. Antelan^talk 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing and harassment

Harassment occurs when a particular editor is "targeted" by another user, and may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that editor, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that editor. Repeated instances of incivility, if unchecked, can also constitute harassment.

Because of privacy concerns, which apply to the Internet in general, editors (Users) are encouraged not to supply superfluous identifying information about themselves, such as home address or telephone number. This minimizes the likelihood of spamming or harassment by outside parties. If personal information becomes available in such a way as to constitute a risk to a User (editor), the information can be deleted or Oversighted if necessary. An editor (User) who makes use of such personal information available concerning another user to harass that user, or who enables the harassment of a user, may be blocked for doing so.

Where information about an editor is available, perhaps because the editor refers to such information or provides it on their own blog, or on another site, such information should only be referred to if it is reasonable to do so to assist in working on the encyclopedia, and if it is reasonable not to doubt the accuracy of the information. This may occur in the case where a particular editor is an acknowledged expert on a subject, perhaps the author of reliable published information about the subject, or the editor may in fact be the subject of an article. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

If an editor for the purposes of working on an article or otherwise collaborating does volunteer some personal details, such as where they work, what their job is, their school or academic institution, such details may be referred to if it is of assistance in working on the encyclopedia. (Remember, such information may not always be completely inaccurate, or may become out-of-date, and should be used with discretion.)

Harassing and "outing" editors is a subject often under discussion at AN/I, and at WT:COI and WT:BLP. Since these are issues of Civility, there should be some guidance about these matters on this project page, not comprehensively, but in a way which does not conflict with other policies and guidelines. In a nutshell? Use discretion. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What this doesn't include is the issue that I worry about: the idea that civility provides an immunity from harsh criticism. The gist of the case that we dance around is that one editor said that we couldn't use a source because the source had no credentials and essentially made stuff up. Had the source not been an editor, no one would have blinked an eye. Because the source actually was an editor, it wound up being judged as being incivil. Somewhere, we need to state that criticism that can be reasonably aimed at a source can be aimed without consideration as to whether that source is an editor or not. That behaviour has to be judged in terms of the appropriateness of the criticism and relevance to the topic at hand, not whether the source also has a Wikipedia account.Kww (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to promote the idea that civility provides an immunity from harsh criticism. WP:OUTING has this more precise wording:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

Perhaps that is clearer? --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It addresses a different aspect. Finding me is trivial ... my full name and occupation is on my userpage, and I live on an island with a population of 14,000. Finding Tom is trivial ... he uses his full name on Wikipedia, and is quite open about who he is. The problem is simple: if, in a dispute with an editor, I said "it's obvious that you are just making things up", that is probably uncivil. If, in evaluating a source, I say "it's obvious that this source just makes things up", that may be uncivil, and may be justified. If it's relevant to the topic, and a view that a reasonable critic could hold, it isn't uncivil, even though it is highly insulting to another Wikipedia editor.Kww (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OUTING is from a guideline; putting that in here would elevate it to policy status. Not saying this to support or oppose; just noting it. Antelan^talk 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is correct procedure to link from a policy to a guideline. Just one link to Wikipedia:HARASS should be sufficient. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else chuckle at "such information may not always be completely inaccurate"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a point there, Raymond, and that is especially if we get imposters claiming to be real (world) people, and making up spurious sources, and then everyone gets confused; things like that are very worrying. (You may well laugh) --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for instance, [6]

[...] But even then, some care is needed, because it might be someone just using that name. [...] Then the real person got in touch with Jimbo to say he was not, in fact, the person behind the pseudonym, and he complained about the insults that had been posted about him, and it all got horribly complicated. (Had the pseudonym just pretended to be the real person, or was the real person now pretending he had not been the pseudonym?) [...] -per-SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya just have to laugh. --NewbyG (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Small section on Removing uncivil comments

Something seems not quite right here. Maybe it's that refactoring other editors 'uncivil" comments is not covered by policy! WP:ATTACK#Removal of text has

Removal of text

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern.

Suggestions? --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some personal attacks are so clearly egregious that they are refactored or removed already. The problem with codifying a procedure for removing "uncivil" statements is this: (1) civility is not objective, but (2) everyone feels like they know it when they see it. Thus, we'd end up with people removing edits based on differing interpretations of "civil". In other words, I believe that to do this would lower the bar for removing others' comments. I could envision this as exacerbating, rather than ameliorating, heated exchanges. Antelan^talk 05:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put it back where it was before I edited it. That version made it sound like editing other people's comments was the first thing to do whenever you thought they were being uncivil.Kww (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Yes that previous version sure had problems. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

I added "accusations of vandalism" as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and added a link to WP:VANDAL. I was actually surprised to see that it wasn't listed here, or at WP:NPA. --Elonka 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that behavior a lot, it definitely should be mentioned here.--Father Goose (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that new bit which refers to WP:VANDAL is a good addition. Good place for it, and concise words. Just a thought; if there is nothing at Wikipedia:No personal attacks already covering it, further addition might be possible here or there (I am thinking) concerning the "posting (and removing) of warning templates", for instance, in cases where poor judgement might lead to templates being posted without due investigation and in error (which can leave a User unfairly branded and unhappy). Also if it could be worded decently, what further action is appropriate in the case of legitimate "warnings" being removed from a discussion or user talk page. Maybe these are matters for a guideline page, or are already covered in a guideline somewhere. --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [7] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, here. Can't say that I believe these should be used en masse for RfAs. It took me over three hours to answer them, and I didn't take anywhere near the time to proof my responses that I would have if they were so essential. :) That said, some of them are seriously good questions and would make a good launching point for further conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How should we deal with it?

I have seen too many great editors leave Wikipedia because of harassment. There does not seem to be a working policy against personal attacks and stalking, and that is IMO unacceptable. WP needs all the hard-working editors it can get. What can be done about it?--Berig (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would agree with you that the behavior guidelines need some better method for ensuring even-handed application. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that WP:NPA and WP:HARASS are deficient. Are you sure the problem is with the policies themselves, and not with a lack of enforcement? Dlabtot (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably the lack of enforcement that is the problem.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with it (documents)

There's been some tidying lately, of CIVIL, some headers were re-named, this was added to CIVIL :

Outing and harassment

See also: Wikipedia:Harrassment

...may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that editor, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that editor...

...An editor (User) who makes use of such personal information available concerning another user to harass that user, or who enables the harassment of a user, may be blocked for doing so...

(Remember, such information may not always be completely accurate, or may become out-of-date, and should be used with discretion.)

--> I think it is accurate, and that it helps, in starting to deal with it, here, if there are any particular wordings in the relevant guidelines, I have looked, but not extensively, so what do we know? --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is this guideline with this particular wording --

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

External links

...Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence...

<-- * --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnote, Footnotes

[8] No, I don't think we need worry about two lists. There won't be many additions, I am betting, and we can weed out the ones that aren't any help. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the edit I reverted there were already two lists, one with the behavior and one with the examples of the behavior. No reason not to combine them instead of making footnotes out of the examples. It only follows that if that's the style, then not only should the examples of "insults" be footnoted, then so should the rest of the behaviors' examples. It would have ended up in two lists, making the reader go to the bottom for each one to see examples of each behavior. A consolidated list is better, including the examples with the behavior. Dreadstar † 02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This was the most recent addition to the "list", which was quite a good one.[9] I would like to see more additions like that, then any excess ones camn be culled. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to splitting the current list into two parts, keeping the "behaviors" in the body text, and putting the "examples" of those behaviors in the footnotes; as was started here with "insults". I think it's better to keep the examples with the behaviors.Dreadstar † 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a good point; however, I think there could be also good reasons to separate some stuff out; (e.g.) "technical", stuff, and "jargon" might be best in the Footnotes [10], the text ought to have as little jargon as possible, for the sake of the general reader, and new Wikipedians. But what goes where could be in a state of "flux" as new ideas are submitted by editors, which is OK, I think, as long as CIVIL maintains stability. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It got reverted

User:Dreadstar made this revert in the grand old tradition of claiming consensus where none has taken place. I maintain that special dispensation for special examples is not only unwarranted: it is a serving the aims of Dreadstar who believes that the only interpretation of what should be included here is Dreadstar's. This kind of behavior is, frankly, disgusting and smacks of WP:OWN... all too typical of Dreadstar's behavior at such places as Talk:WTBDWK, for example. I only point out these things because I fear this policy page is being held hostage by an agenda-driven, disruptive and tendentious editor. Look at the sections he claims establish consensus. Neither of them do so: both just parrot his fantasies about the way Wikipedia should be.

Disgusting.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[11] Gee, that is a bit much, we don't need such comments on the discussion page for CIVIL, I am sorry to say. The point being made about the inclusion of specific "examples" may have merit though (in my opinion) - this ought to be sorted out through civil discussion, forgetting past enmities, and being a little more sensitive about using the Revert Option. Please carry on, and let's co-operate here at least, even if other pages are a minefield. Take no offence, none is meant. --NewbyG (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have spent months working on WTBDWK, and there was no instance of Dreadstar claiming false consensus. On the contrary he was instrumental in making great progress at different times in the article. I do not want to get involved in this, but I won't stand by and see this kind of false accusation made against another editor. This is wrong!(olive (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)).

You've spent months working on WTBDWK? And here you claimed that you didn't work on paranormal topics, getting me to back off from identifying your conflict of interest in editing this policy. I feel duped. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentleman: WTBDWK is a movie, and I delivered many arguments in attempts to have the article treated as an article about a movie and nothing else. Do not even begin to imply dishonesty. That would indicate a serious lack of discretion on your parts and a desire, to, as we say where I come from "drag a bush". I support Dreadstar's positive involvemnt in Bleep. I was there. Attempting to accuse him, or any editor of something that did not happen is anathema to me. Attemtping to then imply that I have somehow been dishonest in my statements is unfair, inappropriate and the very worst kind of incivility for it infairly attacks another editor's honesty, integrity and shows a lack of inclination to truly understand collaboration. You might note that I did not name SA in my comment on Bleep and Dreadstar but you however, did not pay me the least of that courtesy in your attacks. (olive (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

If I have a COI here, because I worked on the Bleep article, you are saying by extension that all editors working on Bleep have a conflict of interest on this Civility article. Please note who all of those editors are. That makes no sense to me at all.(olive (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Whoever those editors are, none of them told me to my face "Whoa there! I have never edited a paranormal article, see no mention of paranormal in any discussion..." and got me to believe it. Yes, you were dishonest. Call this the "worst kind of incivility" if you want, but that doesn't make it true. Personally, I've seen much worse. I think it's far from forbidden -- in fact, it's quite important -- to point out where an untruthful statement has changed the course of the discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I started to point out the dissimulation, but we've decided that calling a spade a spade is uncivil, so I didn't. Now you know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, speaking as one of the leading opponents of "calling a spade a spade", I have never suggested, nor do I begin to believe, that pointing out a false statement is uncivil. I don't know anybody who thinks that, or who has ever said or implied it, so I'm not sure what you mean here. What we've decided is uncivil is going off-topic to engage in name-calling when there's an encyclopedia we should be talking about instead. If you'd like to represent the pro-civility, pro-professionalism position as somehow discouraging you from pointing out a falsehood... then I would point out that you've got your own falsehood going. Careful there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You and I seem to have a remarkable ability to misunderstand one another. To me, "calling a spade a spade" is telling the truth, even if that truth is uncomfortable for someone. I'll come right out and admit that I have no idea what you mean by "calling a spade a spade" in this discussion. My latest hypothesis is that it equates to name-calling, though to me that's a separate issue from uncomfortable truths. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that first sentence, and I hope I understand it :). I'm not against telling uncomfortable truths. I'm against applying labels to people, and that's what the phrase "calling a spade a spade" is often used to justify. I'm not aware of anyone who's decided that telling uncomfortable truths is uncivil, and I'm frustrated to see people say that the community is somehow against telling the truth. If that's not what you meant above when you said, "we've decided that calling a spade a spade is uncivil", then I don't know what you meant. I don't think anyone's decided that any variety of spade-calling other than off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil, so I guess I'd ask if you could clarify what you meant by that assertion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

( I agree with this bit, u:GTB )- I'm against applying labels to people. I'm against applying labels to people, and that's what the phrase "calling a spade a spade" is [often] used to justify. A ND the [often]'s are dealt with, every time, by applying common courtesy. Call spade a spade. Dont use name-calling, any kind of name-calling, for people. --NewbyG (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which means that off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil.

Off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil.

Also, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil, neccesarily.

That is, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are necessarily uncivil.

That is, instances of name-calling of any kind directed towards any user or editors are likely to be uncivil.

Other than all the indents, does that make sense? --NewbyG (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

GTB, your statement seems to imply that there was a dishonesty here. I don't know if that was your intention or not. However there was no dishoesty, and I am dismayed by the way in which Speere's misguided comments and I suppose R. Arritt's, have come to seem like truth, while tainting my reputation as an honest editor. This is truly remarkable especially given this page. I would like to reiterate that the Bleep article is not about the paranormal as many other editors pointed out at the time, nor did I ever consider it to be about the paranormal. It is, quite simply, about a movie. If it is possible for this kind of accusation to be made and seen as truth, then Wikipedia is indeed broken, and much work will be needed to mend it. Just a clarification.(olive (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Huh. I'm not in any position to say that someone is being dishonest. I can't distinguish, in another person's typed words, a mistake from a lie. Therefore, I don't try to. Your reputation, Littleolive, as far as I'm concerned, is impeccable - I've only ever seen you say intelligent and helpful things. I don't believe that "falsehood" = "lie". I was really just replying to Raymond's suggestion that anybody has ever suggested that pointing out falsehoods in uncivil - as far as I know, that's false. I doubt he's lying. I'll bet he believes what he's saying, and I'd like to disabuse him of that error. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Olive, my usual response to accusations of COI is to say, get the diffs. COI is all about POV edits, nothing more. It's really just a weapon to throw. And -let me get this straight, because it doesn't seem to make any sense- people think that working on certain articles means you have a COI here? Perhaps I got it wrong, since it doesn't seem to make any sense? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to thank ScienceApologist, for giving us, in his comment about Dreadstar's edit, a perfect series of examples of the type of behavior this policy exists to calm: "Insults, and name calling"; "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety"; "Rudeness"; "Taunting, goading or baiting"; and an example that "Comment on the actions and not the editor" may not be a complete solution, showing us how insults can be woven within comments on actions as well. It's a perfect storm of irony to find that kind of disrespect for a fellow editor and disregard of policy, on the talk page of this particular policy.

• With that example provided here on the talk page, it seems advisable to list specific examples in the policy itself as well. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

There has been some reversions of inclusion of this issue and related behaviors recently. I can understand the merits of describing it somewhere, and of the dangers of undue weight of particular behaviors. However, a more fundamental question seems to be is this really an issue about civility or rather would it better be described under the broader term of disruptive editing (which incivility is too, of course). After some reflection, I would propose the latter, asserting that this behavior is related to civility more in that its consequences (intended or not) can be provoking incivility.

That said, without question this issue is a big problem and should be clarified somewhere. I note some stirrings on the project which suggest things may finally take a turn for the better in the near future, in this regard... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it all depends on definitions and perceptions. In terms of our basic definition of incivility, feigned incomprehension causes me much greater "conflict and stress" than someone using foul language. I'm a little worried that we go overboard on the obvious and superficial types of incivility while ignoring the tactics of the smart troll. But if others don't think WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT belongs here that's OK. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep with simple examples on this basic policy. If someone is an obvious troll you don't need that example on this policy to point that out, and when it's not obvious how do you define when someone is doing "feigned incomprehension"? If it means that someone is pretending to not understand something what they actually understand, I guess that's uncivil, but I doubt that writing it to this policy would help. I hope the concept of civility would not be made unnecessary complicated. Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you tell feigned incomprehension from the real kind? How can you avoid false positives, which it would seem are worse than false negatives? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The real kind will become comprehension after a not so disruptively long conversation on the relevant page. The feigned kind won't. How long is "not so disruptively" may depend on the context, but in nearly all cases where otherwise intelligent editors cannot seem to comprehend something that is obvious to pretty much all other editors (with some minor technical jargon caveats), one recalls the Garden Tool That Must Not Be Named.

Good faith false positives can be made very rare by really assuming good faith, and not assuming that just because someone disagrees with you, that they are not listening. But it is when the word "just" no longer applies that we should sometimes critically ask why.

You actually have seen this: an example that has very high probability of being such a case is pretty apparent in the (now archived) discussion leading up to this exasperated edit by yourself. That's ironic, as you are arguably the most patient and civil editor on this page over the last couple of months or so (seriously), and it could have come off that your were defending or at least rationalizing even more extensive snarkiness by another editor there ("His reaction really isn't surprising, is it?"). But the basic implication you made is pretty obvious; "Well, duh" says volumes, although you were patient/civil enough to not explicitly accuse.

But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's a good example to look at, it seems. I am curious what "basic implication" it was "obvious" I was making. What exactly does, "well, duh" say? Do you think I was accusing Martinphi of acting in bad faith? I have personally made enough good-faith errors of judgment that I can't really do that. An error of judgment is very different from bad faith. Bad faith means you're not here to help but rather to disrupt. I have never doubted that Martinphi is here to help. Every POV warrior is here to help, because they think their POV is correct, and that it will help people, by enlightening them or whatever. Am I perhaps misunderstanding what you were reading from my frustrated remark?

Very high probabilities of bad faith should be dealt with as good faith anyway. Heck, even outright bad faith should be dealt with as good faith. That doesn't prevent us from responding effectively, and it keeps us clean, whether we're right or wrong.

Check out this example: a user asked a question at AN, and a senior Wikipedian removed the question with the edit summary: 99% chance of trolling. Rather than revert, I just answered the user's question on their userpage, and they seemed pretty content with the answer. The next few edits there, as well as some chat at another talk page, make for an interesting case. There was a very high probability of trolling, and yet treating it as good faith was the most effective way to deal with it. Even if it had been trolling, a clear concise answer would be the quickest way to neutralize it.

I'd like to see one example of a case where "calling a spade" was useful. My argument is not that it's rude, or even necessarily incorrect, but that it's invariably unproductive. I've seen the argument that it's "honest", and it's clearly satisfying on some level. Some argue that you have to be able to identify a bad editor to warn others, but I don't think I've ever seen an example of that leading somewhere good. Have you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My feeling is that if you "call a spade a spade", you'll just end up with an angry spade. This is good if it's your goal to antagonize people, but that should never be your goal... unless you're a spade.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

I believe this is the most important policy to refer to here. Not as something else to add the project page, just something to point out here on the talk page. The bold, revert, discuss cycle has been subverted here by a group of editors with a common interest in subtly changing the way this policy applies to paranormal topics, making this page a battleground for paranormal claims vs. science. (After examining Olive's contribution to Talk:WTBDWK, I stand by my assertion that Olive shares that interest.) There will clearly never be a consensus to make such a change -- in either direction -- so leave this page alone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Leave this page alone". What are you saying? You go to Bleep draw your own conclusions, and do not assunme any kind of good faith. My contributions to the talk pages, which by the way you have no right to say, stay away from, have been to add something on a paradigm shift on civilty, comments on lying which led to thought on a new paradigm, and to respond to a unjust attack on another editor. The paragraph I wrote was not accepted, so I have removed myself from that discussion. I stand by the unjust attack on another editor.

Speer, I work very hard at being a neutral editor. You might have noted on the Bleep article the multitudes of times I agreed to changes I did not agree with to allow progress to be made. I am flabbergasted at your assumptions. You know nothing of my Point of View, and I do not air it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Please do not presume to know anything about it.

If this is a battle ground it is created by assuming to divide editors into two camps according to some presumed POV. Can editors, or people for that matter, be divided so neatly into paranormal believers whatever that is, and scientists.

If one deals with what is actually going on here, and on the edits, rather than attempting to label other editors at any time for any reason, things would move more smoothly. Such labelling might be construed as true incivility, and highly destructive to any collaborative environment, and that, if anything is my Point of View (olive (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

I am dealing with the edits, which is to note that they are being made against consensus. Fine, you're doing your part with "bold", but then you release these long diatribes when other people do their part and apply "revert, discuss".

It is a very important fact that you can't just divide people into "scientists and paranormalists". In the normal state of this page, you could not do so and there would be no need to. However, the way this discussion is currently going, you basically can, and it would be detrimental to Wikipedia not to notice the pattern. I am pointing out the pattern so that, hopefully, we can move on past the issue, and this talk page can once again be used to discuss actual shortcomings of the policy instead of electronic ghost voices and misleading movies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no patterns, unless you are creating them. I have not commented on this page for quite a while, but now this is part of a pattern . My means of exprssing myself may be longer than yours although not longer than some, but why would you disire to stick that in an editor's face as a problem. From my side this discussion is complete. I have no need to defend myself any further against unjust claims. You are welcome of course to your opinions. It has been a revealing morning. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again

( Repeated from section above for being a most pertinent observation ) --

But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it? (--per--Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, that is a good point to initiate discussion, surely. --NewbyG (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Role of examples

See also: Role of examples

Guidelines usually contain more examples than Policies and Role of examples during the creation process of policies and guidelines.

Those sections in the Civility policy which consist of lists are likely to attract additional examples. --NewbyG (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology: edit summary

I am working with an older computer with an old processing system that gives me some strange problems .... delays on text appearance and so on, so I sometimes don't see what is happening immediately. There must have been a delete in there I didn't see .... Anyway my edit summary was removed, for rv of SA's deletion but should have read: Please discuss since several editors agree on this inclusion .... sorry about that.(olive (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Recent deletion

Yes I was at Bleep so were you. I was editing an article about a movie. What were you editing? SA this information had agreement from several editors so please discuss with them before making such a large change.(olive (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm taking out your recent addition about terms such as "crank" and "woo-woo". That last term is one that only appears in paranormal-related discussions. This is undue weight. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my additions, Speer, but a revert to a version that had the acceptance of several editors. I was not involved. I reverted as per implied aggreement of those ediotrs . If someone wants to remove the terms, discussion first would be appropriate. I personally do not care one way or the other.(olive (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Uhh, the terms are uncivil regardless of who you use them on. I don't see this undue weight. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Who else would you apply the term "woo-woo" to? Shall we use the policy to list every name that has been called in every argument on Wikipedia? You'd probably have to start with a bunch of nationalistic racist terms. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not apply the term "woo-woo" to anyone, it would be uncivil. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean you in particular. There are many things that I hope none of us would call anyone, but we're not listing them exhaustively in the policy. Because of the disagreements that users who have recently shown up on the page have been in, the policy is being drawn toward attempting to define what is "civil" when those who believe in the paranormal conflict with those who use the scientific method as a standard of evidence. And that will turn this page into a permanent battleground. I'd prefer that discussion happened somewhere more appropriate, such as Wikiproject Paranormal or Wikiproject Rational Skepticism or both. (And I would stay out of it.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In broad policies like this one it helps to keep things general. Giving specific examples X, Y, and Z only invite people to respond "but I didn't call him X, Y, or Z like the policy says." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Raymond makes an important point. The rest of the article does, however, use examples to describe what is meant, and consistency should probably be maintained. If "woo-woo" does refer to an editor who edits a particular kind of article, "moron" seems more general as does POV pusher. As a compromise perhaps "woo-woo" could be taken out, but the other words left in place.(olive (talk) 20:33, 23 April

2008 (UTC))

I was about to remove "woo-woo" but for an edit conflict ... please check the editing history. I am reverting as per several reverts by other editors, but hey, not going to edit war based on these discussions. I am alone in some ways, yes, because I am not the one arguing for either side here, I'm arguing for a compromise, but I also am not alone in reverting this material to its original state. I can sit here and discuss and do nothing else and we both know nothing will change in the directions I suggest, or I can and did rv and try to delete "woo-woo" as per the discusion I had, and see if you all thought it was any better. If there is going to be a discussion on this material, the material should probably be returned to its most original state and discussion for changes carried on from there, rather than deleted first despite the revert history of the section. This would be a neutral way of dealing with this contentious material.(olive (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

I added "woo-woo" because I've seen it used more than a few times. I've seen editors referred to as "woo-woo's" in the third person, and I've seen topics referred to as "walled gardens of woo", when in actuality they were valid minority-religion topics that survived AfD with snowball keeps, showing how far off the characterization was. And even if they didn't survive, that's not a civil or respectful way to refer to the work of volunteers on the project, or to the volunteers themselves.

It's not a big deal though, it's just one example, it can be removed. The examples in general though are useful because without them the idea of insults is too general; we need wording to indicate the particular kind of insults that occur in disputes. If we can do that with prose, OK, but as it's currently written, it's not clear without the examples.

Also, I agree with Olive, if there is an overall move to deprecate examples in the policy page, then we should apply that consistently across all the sections and bullet points, not only the one about insults. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I think examples are good. We should mostly be discussing exactly what words to use as examples, rather than whether or not they should be used. It gives a sense of the level of insults which are actionable. If we used "asshole," people would say "woo-woo" is ok. Using examples of this level helps to give perspective. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to include examples. If the only argument against examples is that, "people will respond 'but I didn't call him X, Y, or Z like the policy says'," that's not a compelling argument. Anybody responding in that way could simply be told that we weren't all born yesterday. It's not as if we'd have to say, "oh, gosh you're right, you called him a 'bastard', but the policy says only to refrain from calling him a 'moron'... carry on." It's true that calling people those names cited in the examples people are putting up is uncivil. Since none of us is going to do it, what are the grounds for objecting to it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm deeply concerned with Martinphi's use of the term "actionable" as the motivation for including examples. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I recall that my push to get incivility defined as a poisoning of the environment didn't get anywhere. In fact, even my desire to expand the definition of civility to nastiness ostensibly leveled against groups, but obviously applicable to people who edit the article didn't get anywhere. If not either of those things, we're pretty much back to "actionable." Unless there are other suggestions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)