Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Why was this removed?

"(f) Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb")." There's a byzantine section above discussing various changes, so I get that this was changed very, very recently, but why was this part specifically removed? I see barely any discussion, still less consensus to remove part of a major guideline.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I did the rewording of what was a poorly organised codification. I made subsequent changes on the basis of advice here from other participants. A number of people wondered whether this point (f) was worth retaining, particularly as it's very hard to nail on someone (easy to wriggle out of). User:Vesal's post (see the grey banner) partly concerns the larger issue of deceptive engagement in debates: "I've never seen anyone feigning stupidity. A more common way of not getting the point is by ignoring stronger points of an argument and only responding and refuting less important parts of a posting." I myself feel that it's probably covered by WP:AGF. In the end, there's little one can do when users game the system; especially by going right up to the limit of civility / reasonable behaviour without distinctly crossing it. Some users are masters at it. User:Stifle wondered whether it amounts to incivility in the first place, and might not be better handled in another category.
I wonder whether you might point to examples of this behaviour, where (f) would make it easier to pin a claim of incivility on the user. Would it make a substantive difference? (I don't mind if it goes back in, but there's advantage in brevity, so I guess we'd need to see that it is worth the extra text.) Tony (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Feigning incomprehension can be uncivil not because the feigner is playing dumb, but because the feigner pretends that the material is too poorly written to be understandable. The difficult, of course, is to distinguish between feigned incomprehension and real incomprehension. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of it that way, but that rationale for status as incivility makes sense. The problem is, then, that it's subtle and complex, hard to distinguish from other types of deception (which abound, let's face it), and hard to nail. Unsure. Tony (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
In theory, almost every behavioral violation that occurs during interaction with another editor could be considered uncivil because it would be a deliberate act that the editor knows or should know will potentially upset the other editor's equanimity. Edit warring, for example, is uncivil because it undoes another editor's efforts. I think we're better off concentrating on behaviors where incivility is the main element of the edit. Playing dumb and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are for the most part varieties disruptive / tendentious editing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

can i use phrases from this..

to quote about incivility, towards the general editing community?Stakingsin (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistent

Why is this policy not used consisently? I was told that someone calling me a troll and someone saying that I was attracted to feces wasn't uncivil. I was told that calling someone lazy was uncivil when the user was obviously lazy to not look at the sources. I was told that calling someone a liar was uncivil even though their edits showed that they were lying. I was told that people being uncivil is allowed in long debates. Many editors including admins said all of this to me and the user that said that I was attracted to feces is an admin. Joe Chill (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" gave many editors a chance to assume bad faith on me whenever they felt like it. Joe Chill (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It's an inherently difficult policy to apply utterly consistently and objectively; but it is absolutely necessary. We rely on the experience and skill of admins (and indeed of all editors) to use the policy to minimise incivility and maximise harmony and cooperation. Tony (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Update/1

Nice to see all the work being done on this page. I've done the diffs for September up through today; hope that helps. It seems to me that you guys are mid-way through the process of getting everyone on board, so it's not up to me to say whether you've got consensus or not, and I'll probably just use the last version of the month for the finished Update. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Add civil reversion of text as an issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed addition: Use of a one-line Edit Summary to justify reversion of documented material may be construed as an act of incivility. A Talk-page justification of such reversion is mandatory, and must directly address the specific reasons behind any guidelines invoked as justification of reversion, such as WP:Fringe, WP:Soap, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH or WP:POV. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Outcome of RfC: This proposal hasn't succeeded, although it has resulted in some useful changes to WP:Civil by Rd232. Brews ohare (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for Proposal
A one-line Edit summary justifying reversion of documented material as "Irrelevant and off-topic section, does not belong on this article" or "POV, non-mainstream section" is obviously inflammatory for the reverted editor whose lengthy attempt at composition and tracking down of sources and (possibly) drafting of figures is summarily dismissed by an apparently off-hand few-word description. It is pretty clear that the contributing editor doesn't think the contribution was "off-topic" or "POV", and will conclude that the reverting editor has got it wrong. Simple civility and assumptions of good faith editing require more explanation than flag-waving: in the absence of more specific guidelines, such unjustified reversion is a violation of WP:Civil. If discussion of a reversion really evolves with further exchange on the Talk page into WP:DEADHORSE, that kind of thing can be dealt with using Talk page guidelines, and has no bearing upon the initial reversion justification itself.
IMO, abuse of the one-line Edit Summary is rampant, and is employed often as a knee-jerk reaction without real appraisal of the reverted material. The above addition will have the beneficial effect of forcing reverting editors to actually think about what they are doing. Brews ohare (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Comment That's incredibly gameable, and slows down what may be non-controversial editing, such as removal of blatant POV-pushing. Definitely not an appropriate addition. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Shoemaker's Holiday: Please notice that the proposal is for sourced material; that is, documented contributions. I'd argue that one-line reversion of sourced contributions is always controversial. I'd argue further that inappropriate use of the one-line Edit Summary is a major cause of escalating Talk page incivility. You are not going to avoid a Talk page discussion this way, but you are going to start the discussion in a polarized atmosphere. Needless to say, once a contributing editor has been poked in the eye, he is less likely to engage in reasonable discussion.
Blatant POV pushing is readily explained on the Talk page using a few words to point out why the sources do not support the contribution, or are not authoritative. (The reverting editor should have engaged in this exercise anyway, before making the reversion.) The major objection is not that this requirement is "gameable", but that some editors are addicted to hit-and-run usage of the one-line Edit Summary, despite its limitations. They simply do not wish to engage the contributing author, but prefer to attempt decisions from Olympus. That approach does not work. Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure I agree with this inclusion or not. My initial reaction is that this can refer to a more complex situation than this one line edit of the policy indicates . For starters, if this were to be included. I think "sources" would have to say "reliably sourced", and an "act of incivility" would need to say "may be construed as an act of incivility".
If an article is contentious, though, everything would/could be seen in a different light.
That said I have seen this kind of reverting used in a way that "games " the system in the opposite way from what Shoemaker is describing. If this kind of editing is an act of incivility it might be a subtle, subversive one since it can antagonize an editor but worse it can help to erode a civil editing environment.
Re Shoemaker's point: POV is a debatable and subjective issue, so an edit summary and revert for assumed POV may not be the best approach in maintaining or creating a civil environment. Discussion is usually better for the feelings of all involved.
An important issue perhaps that deserves more discussion.(olive (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC))
Reply to olive: Modified accordingly. Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd say the change is problematic in its present form... I've seen the problem such reversions can cause, but this language is far too restrictive, especially the second sentence (and the "mandatory" language). If the text is added at all, I'd be more comfortable with something along the lines of "Use of a one-line edit summary to justify reversion of documented material may be construed as an act of incivility. Explaining such reversions on the talk page can help to avoid disputes." (That is to say, guidance rather than a "law".) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ckatz: A mandatory requirement may seem extreme, but inasmuch as we are dealing here with reversion of a contribution that took possibly hours to assemble and document, it seems to me not excessive to ask that a reversion should be accompanied by the reverting editor's thought process (if only to show there was one). My expectation is that "reasonable" editors already will see the need for a Talk-page discussion, and only the "cavalier" editor will try to get away with the one-liner, and thereby become embroiled in a heated Talk-page debate. Only a mandatory requirement will affect this editor's behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I share the concerns expressed above, that the proposal is too strict and too gameable. However, I would see a lot of good for saying something similar, as applied to marking the reversion as a minor edit, without an edit summary. I've definitely seen some editors abuse that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tryptofish: I'm not clear what you are suggesting. Is this a good paraphrase?
Marking a reverting edit as minor m in the editing check-off box with no further comment may be construed as an act of incivility. At a minimum, a one-line Edit Summary justification is mandatory.
Brews ohare (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm suggesting this instead of, rather than in addition to, what you proposed. And, like you, I'm only talking about a "reverting edit" that reverts reliably-sourced material, not reversion of vandalism and such. In the case of reverting reliably-sourced material, the m should not be checked, and there should be a meaningful edit summary. Cf: Help:Minor edit#When not to mark an edit as minor. My point is that misuse of the minor edit check-off can be uncivil. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment WP:BURDEN begins: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This proposal seems to want to shift the burden in the other direction. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dank: The presumption of this proposal is that the reverted material has been documented. Thus, in the view of the contributing editor WP:BURDEN has been met. The reverting editor, however, possibly disagrees, or has some other objection. This disagreement should be aired on the Talk page, rather than using a one-line edit like "Failed to meet WP:BURDEN", which clearly the contributing editor will object to, and which will end up in an unnecessarily heated debate on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This proposal is uncommonly silly, and seems designed to gain the upper hand in an ongoing content dispute. I echo Dank's concerns about shifting the burden. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Skinwalker: I'd appreciate some reasons why this proposal is "uncommonly silly", as a pejorative description does little to advance understanding. I also point out, as I did before in replying to Dank, that there is no shifting of the burden for documentation implied by this proposal; to the contrary, it assumes a documented contribution has been reverted that apparently already has met WP:BURDEN, at least in the eyes of the contributing editor. The proposal simply requests that the reverting editor explain any objections to the sources already in evidence, which explanation must already exist in the reverting editor's mind if the reversion has valid grounds. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment This proposal seems eerily similar to another at the VP. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Cybercobra: There is no similarity with WP:V wording, as that proposal suggests abandoning WP:BURDEN, and this proposal does not. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me this may be more appropriate for WP:Etiquette but I can see where situations might arise where deleting material without sufficient explanation goes beyond simple rudeness or carelessness to disruptive behavior. But if the situation did arise, I would would think it would end up in dispute resolution whether suggested addition to the policy was there or not and it would still be a matter for the people trying to resolve it whether the additions or the deletions were unreasonable. I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways people can engage in disruptive editing if we just say do not engage in disruptive editing (see WP:BEANS).--RDBury (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RDBury: The reason dispute replaces discussion and ends up in dispute resolution is because civility is lost and hostility takes its place. The idea of this proposal is to keep the temperature down by getting off on the right foot, which is to say, to avoid poking the contributing editor in the eye before discussion even begins in the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is a slippery slope at this point until editors are required to give detailed explanations before making any edit at all, as anything less would be perceived as uncivil. On the other hand, reversions to obviously good faith edits should in some cases be explained politely, this hardly seems to warrant a change to existing behavioral guidelines. 141.158.68.228 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition: Sorry if the above comment seems to be ambivalent. I don't really understand what the proposed addition would be. Something like the following might be acceptable: "Repeated reversion of material with only perfunctory reasons given may sometimes be viewed as uncivil." However, it is clearly not going to be actionable ("sometimes viewed"), and in extraordinary cases where it does factor into an evaluation, it is already going to be superceded by brightline policies like 3rr. In short, I would only add such language to the guideline that could be adequately hedged in terms of existing policies. 141.158.68.228 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to 141.158.68.228: The only edits that are subject to explanation in this proposal are reversions of documented contributions. There are many reversions that require little explanation, or a one-line summary explanation, but reversion of documented contributions are singled out in this proposal as evidencing some thought and some care in tracking down sources, and therefore worthy of greater attention. As you say, reversions of good faith edits should be dealt with politely, and IMO "politely" means their reversion requires a real explanation on the Talk page. At present that often doesn't happen, leading to unnecessary strife, so a change to existing guidelines is in order.
There is no vague boundary like "sometimes may be viewed" in this proposal: it is black and white - if you revert sourced material, explain your evaluation process on the Talk page. That is the civil thing to do. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. In that case, I unequivocally oppose such a proposal. What, exactly, does "document" mean? Who assesses whether a proposed edit has, in fact, been documented? (etc.) This proposal is poisonous to the project, and should be killed. 141.158.68.228 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to 141.158.68.228: I don't think that there is anything unusual in the term "documented" - it means that published sources have been cited that support the material. To establish reversion of sourced material, one must have a reason, and if you don't have a clue whether the sources support the material or not, then the place to find out is on the Talk page: ask about it. It is irresponsible to revert material without justification because you don't know whether it should be reverted or not, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - no, this is phrased in far too harsh a way. It will be widely ignored (or not known), but then permit sanction: i.e., enable drama. The general point that not explaining edits can be construed as rude is fair enough, but see WP:EP#Be helpful: explain's first paragraph for the sort of way that can be expressed as guidance. It could be easily adapted here to note the point that not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Rd232 talk 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rd232: I was not aware of WP:EP. I believe the present proposal falls under discuss major changes. From what I see so far, I'd say most editors do not want to describe their evaluation process for reversion, even though responsible behavior requires that they have formulated one. So your view seems likely that only a "recommendation" to be sensible will fly.
I'm uncertain how well that will work, as it appears that a goodly number of editors actually do not understand the material they revert. It would be so nice if they were required to engage the contributor in a civil discussion instead of starting out with swords drawn. Brews ohare (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the other editors that this is way too harsh. Besides the "mandatory" wording (which is just completely unlike WP, see WP:IAR), the subjective term "documented" could cause lots of issues. There is a such thing as properly documented info; however, many editors fail to understand this. Some people add info, and link a source that barely mentions the topic (WP:OR), or use an unreliable source, but claim "It is documented!" (WP:RS).

  1. Example, someone could claim from a primary source of baseball statitistics, and claim, "Barry Bonds has the most home runs in major league baseball," or using that same source, say, "Barry Bonds was the greatest baseball player of all time." Do we really need to explain WP:OR and WP:SYN every time someone is offended that their "documented" info like this has been deleted?

If someone takes offense to their edit being removed, then they can simply start the discussion on the talk page regarding the removed information. Forcing editors to explain every deletion of so-called "documented" information would stall improvement of the project. Angryapathy (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Angryapathy: Hey, thanks for your contribution here, which comes closest to an actual appraisal of the proposal that I've seen so far. The term "documented" apparently needs elaboration, although you seem uncertain that, however it is described, it will be understood. I like your example, which seems very to the point. Here is my scenario as to what happens in your example: the statement "Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player ever [1], [2]" is reverted with the one-line summary "Violates WP:SYN and WP:OR" My guess is that the Barry Bonds enthusiast will find this to be a rather abstract justification, and being an enthusiast will go to the Talk page and ask "Why the #%$%^& was my sourced contribution reverted? Everybody knows Barry Bonds is the greatest ever." Which will force a heated exchange on the Talk page. Wouldn't it be better if the reversion said "Supplied sources inadequate; please see Talk page", and on Talk a subsection titled "Barry Bonds" said "Refs [1] & [2] indicate specific achievements of Barry Bonds, but it is conjectural that these accomplishments make him the greatest baseball player ever." One might even make a positive suggestion: "Why not source his accomplishments, and let the reader draw their own conclusions?" In this second case the contributor sees immediately what the issue is and will either rephrase the contribution or abandon the insertion. Probably the WP article would benefit from a more accurate statement and the identification of the sources. One might even hope that this editor will develop a more sophisticated notion of contributing from this exchange, instead of leaving a drawn-out argument about how great Barry Bonds is with a bad taste in the mouth, regardless of how it all turned out.
I have in mind reversions of rather more complex contributions than this, however, and maybe a more detailed description of the text to which the proposal applies is in order. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Your last statement that you have in mind more complex revisions than the one I mentioned is precisely the reason I mentioned it; while I do agree that removal of properly documented should be explained, your proposal would have more far-reaching effects than complex edit conflicts with truly proper sourcing. Your proposal is too Draconian and is not in the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. While it would be nice to have a longer explanation of certain reverts, I don't think the talk page should be a place to explain the pillars of WP to every inexperienced editor. Real discussions could be lost in the sea of, "None of the sources make that statement, see WP:OR" (which would fit in the edit summary for the Barry Bonds example). Most editors will go to a user's talk page to remind the user to read the five pillars.
I think some editors (including me) will get lazy in the edit summary. No offense to your proposal, but seems to be getting little support. Maybe you should focus on clarifying what should be added to an edit summary. WP:ATA has a nice list of arguments to avoid in deletion debates, like, "Topic fails WP:N," which should be, "No reliable secondary sources mention topic." I don't know if edit summaries have a similar type of page.
I see your intentions are good; trying to head off arguments/edit wars ahead of time. But you can't have something be mandatory when you can Ignore All Rules. Angryapathy (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Angryapathy: Thanks for your remarks. You clearly have a greater familiarity with guidelines than do I, and I'll look into your suggestions. In the meanwhile, could you propose an alternative wording that might be acceptable and might impact the "lazy" one-line reversion? Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the suggestion of something like Wikipedia:Edit summaries to avoid. That might have a broader scope than Wikipedia:Red flags in edit summaries. Rd232 talk 14:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Rd232: That seems like a good idea to me too. Can you tell me (perhaps on my Talk page) what steps to follow to introduce such an article for consideration? Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you seem to have a much clearer idea of what would be involved, contentwise. Just take Wikipedia:Red flags in edit summaries as an example; it is just an essay, so there's no particular procedure to follow apart from sticking that tag on it. Probably you should start by drafting it in your userspace though, and move to WP: space once it starts looking useful. Rd232 talk 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I think RD232 has the best solution. WP:CIVIL doesn't seem to be the place for comments about edit summaries. If you two can get it started, let me know, I'd like to put my two cents into it. Angryapathy (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess that comment ("doesn't seem to be the place") provoked me into trying to prove the opposite... :) I've added a subsection Avoiding Incivility, with some points arising from the discussion. Rd232 talk 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Rd232: I find your additions good. I hope others can smooth them out a bit: I'm told its easier to edit than to originate. :-) Brews ohare (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The proposer of this RfC is currently a party at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, where his view of what constitutes "documented material" (and indeed "civility") are under examination by ArbCom. I think that this proposal ould simply pander to the agressive spinners of pseudoscience which we occasionally encounter on Wikipedia. Note that there is no requirement that the source actually says (in the eyes of a normal reader) what the inserting editor pretends it to say. Physchim62 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, it's a clear case of WP:KUDZU. And it's not even a good rule, in that it empowers fringe POV pushers even more than they currently are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could deal with the proposal in language that is appropriate especially on a civility talk page...Leave out the editor and just deal with the proposal, workable or not, and whatever the outcome. The fact that the editor here has asked for and wants comments and has asked for them publicly is a sign of efforts to work with community input. Lets assume good faith. I find the tone here surprising and unexpected. (olive (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, I wondered if it was supposed to be ironic.... Rd232 talk 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not uncivil to mention the editor if their motivation and approach are germane to the discussion at hand (here defending Physchim62's comments rather than Jehochman's). Protonk (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We can state the editor has been involved in such and such a situation but assuming motivation of anyone may be another story. I think AGF covers that. If we stay with AGF things will likely be more civil. A final thought (olive (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

I'm talking about civility pure and simple... and assigning motivation is not any of our calls to make .... If a pattern emerges that can be noted dispassionately ...My two cents for what its worth, and how I understand civility.(olive (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC))
Reply to Rd232: I thought this formatting simply made it easier for a new reader to decipher the structure of this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't. On the contrary, it makes the page much harder to skim and get a sense of structurally. There is a convention that people may bold a one-word summary of their response to surveys (oppose/support/etc); there is no convention to add a bold "reply" to replies, with good reason. Rd232 talk 07:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SH and Jehochman. Encourages gaming, impractical and a waste of time. Verbal chat 19:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The problem is real, but the proposed solution is heavy-handed. Counterexample: "Author bio posted at Amazon is not an independent source for 'bestselling' claim." – I believe this one-liner is perfectly civil in a situation where it is not already under discussion nor previously reverted, that it is clear and to the point without being pointed. I would not wish to be called on the carpet for failing to write a dissertation when a simple edit summary is sufficient. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The civility policy already covers edit summaries that are truly uncivil. This proposal is about something else, and it should not be adopted. First, using the edit summary to explain the reason for an edit, including a revert, is the norm rather than the exception. In science articles, many edits are reverted with the just an edit summary saying "WP:FRINGE" because that is what they are. Using a policy or guideline in an edit summary, as in the proposal's examples, is appropriate, and by definition is not a personal attack. Not every revert of this kind, or of any kind, requires talk page discussion. Anyone who thinks that a revert or other edit warrants discussion can bring it to the talk page. Second, this proposal confuses two distinct types of Wikipedia policies and guidelines which need to remain distinct: those that are about behavior, and those that are about content. WP:CIVIL is core policy on behavior. Conversely, the subject of this proposed policy change—whether an edit that adds text to an article is, in fact, supported by sources that the editor cites—is solely about content. The last thing we want to do is turn genuine content disputes into sanctionable misbehavior. Third, as Admin Jehochman mentioned above, the proposer neglected to mention that this proposal springs from a dispute over the Speed of light article since at least March 2009. The proposer contends that material that he wants to add to the article is supported by sources he cites. The overwhelming consensus of the editors is that the proposed content is not supported by the sources he cites and is an incorrect statement of the relevant science. However, the proposer and one other editor have been arguing against the consensus for months. The edit summaries that the proposer quoted come after months of discussing these issues on the talk page. The proposer was blocked once for WP:disruptive editing and a second time for threatening an edit war, and now is party to an arbitration involving this dispute. This page exemplifies the proposer's idea of discussion: So far, no one supports this proposal, the proposer has stated his "case" for the proposal, and now he argues with every comment that disagrees with him. His zeal and endurance are remarkable, but he does not recognize a SNOWBALL when he throws one, or consensus when it opposes his views. Finell (Talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • While it is true that a clear, concise edit summary briefly describing the reasons for a revert may be construed as an act of incivility by some editors, it is by no means clear that this is always (or even often) the case, nor am I persuaded that it ought to be. (Ningauble's sample above is the perfect counterexample.) Editors on both sides of a content dispute have a certain measure of responsibility to engage with one another openly and civilly — but per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility to defend and explain controversial material lies primarily with the editor calling for its inclusion. In many cases, the material will have been added to the article with little or no edit summary, let alone talk page discussion. It does not make sense to call for significantly more commentary when removing the material than adding it. (See also WP:BRD.) The proposed modification, as written, would grant an extra tool to a POV-pusher and mis-frame any subsequent discussion of content. The complaint would be you can't remove my edits without extensive comment, that's a violation of the civility policy, instead of the more relevant this content is/is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and goals. While there may be problems related to communication both by editors who add text and by editors who remove text, this proposal does not resolve the issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Not even trying to discuss before removing sourced material. By the standards of my country, such behaviour is clearly qualified as uncivil, not to say downright arrogant. -Sensemaker
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed insertion on one-line Edit Summaries

I have added a section to WP:Fringe, WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:NOR that parallels the insert made here on WP:CIVIL by Rd232. TenOfAllTrades has reverted all these additions.

Here is an example of the proposed insertion:

Use of WP:POV in one-line Edit Summaries
  • Edit summaries are relatively short comments (so potentially subject to misinterpretation, or to oversimplification), cannot be changed after pressing Save, and often are written in haste, particularly if there is an edit war brewing or in progress. Especially when things are getting heated, remember to explain your edit.
  • Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed.
  • In short: Use of WP:POV as a shorthand in one-line Edit Summaries justifying reversion may prove offensive to the reverted editor. If a clear statement of the reason for labeling a reversion WP:POV cannot be fit into the one-line Edit Summary, a Talk page justification that explains matters is preferable.

You may wish to modify it or comment upon it. Brews ohare (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Each reverted within minutes by different editors, on the basis it doesn't belong there. Sorry, got to agree with them. Rd232 talk 15:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, 10 didn't revert them all -- I got at least one of them. If you couldn't get conensus to put it in here, why did you think it was a good idea to put it in all the other places instead? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan: The added material by Rd232 was accepted here on WP:Civil, so I don't understand your remark about "You couldn't get consensus here". Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"Added" != "accepted".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the editors that have removed this from all the other pages. Rd has added here that editors should use as much description as possible when deleting/reverting. And that is about as much as we can do. Adding it to every policy/guideline is not going to make it mandatory, or force everyone to follow it. It is in WP:CIVIL, and we can only hope people will follow it in the future. (Changes to policies/guidelines do not immediately affect everything on WP) Angryapathy (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"POV" is indeed one of the more problematic short-hands, because it can easily shade into (or appear to shade into) questioning the good faith of people disagreeing with you. The point may bear making in WP:POV or WP:NPOV, but it needs doing right. WP:NPOV for instance doesn't seem to have any guidance on use of the term "POV", which might be helpful (and WP:POV doesn't really address that either). Rd232 talk 16:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Angryapathy: As the material is copied from Rd232's addition to WP:Civil, it in no way suggests that it be mandatory. All that repeating it does is make it readily visible to those who are not going to search all of WP for guidance. Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually have a problem with the concept behind this... sometimes a blunt edit summary is both apporiate and acceptable. If someone adds what is clearly OR to an article, I see nothing wrong removing it with an edit summary that says "please see WP:NOR". It may not be all warm and fuzzy, but I don't see such a summary as being uncivil. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the context - if it's well established that there is a dispute about whether something is OR or not, then that edit summary could easily, and not unreasonably, be considered uncivil. Anyway the relevant part of my addition to WP:CIVIL is carefully worded to not equate brevity with incivility: "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." Rd232 talk 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Blueboar: I think you mean that you did not intend the summary to be uncivil. However, if you spent a few hours preparing the material and digging up sources, I think you can imagine a reversion like "Please see WP:OR" is going to be infuriating. It is even more so because any history with WP has exposed you to editors who do not read the material and project their own malformed ideas upon the contribution that lead them to "Please see WP:OR". If they had to explain just what was WP:OR they might actually read the contribution. Even further, if they read it and discovered the source of their initial false interpretation, they might actually be able to assist the contributor to phrase things more clearly. Brews ohare (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What you're describing sounds like it needs talk page discussion anyway, so it makes relatively little difference whether the person who thinks it's OR initiates it or the person who thinks it isn't. And probably the latter is more motivated and better positioned to kick off the debate. Rd232 talk 16:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does require discussion. You're right. However, the reverting editor should begin the discussion, and the idea here is to encourage that that happens. It is preferable to start discussion in a good mood. If the editor reverted by "Please see WP:OR" is thinking: "This @#$%& editor might stop and read the material before giving me the finger." there is a good chance that, if they start the discussion, things will escalate, because the reverting editor will pick up the tone instead of the content. Brews ohare (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason for the reverted editor to think that the reverting editor hasn't read it. WP:AGF. And even if they think it hasn't been read carefully enough, or misunderstood, there's no reason to be uncivil about it. Rd232 talk 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
From my experience, when someone adds material that is clearly in violation of a policy or guideline to an article, more often than not the problem is that the adding editor hasn't read the policy involved. An edit summary of "please see WP:XXX" not only politely explains why the material is being reverted, it politely points the offending editor to the policy or guideline that explains why it was reverted. If they need further clarification, they can ask. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I only reverted one of the additions (to the essay WP:POV). The other three additions were reverted by three other distinct editors: Masem at WP:NOT, SarekOfVulcan at WP:FRINGE, Blueboar at WP:NOR. I believed – and still believe – that there's no need to append an essentially-identical boilerplate note to every other policy and guideline on Wikipedia that boils down to, "Be considerate in edit summaries. If you can't explain yourself clearly in the edit summary, use the talk page". That's a matter that's covered quite adequately in WP:CIV, WP:EQ, and WP:ES. Attempting to suppress citation of WP:NOR, WP:POV, WP:SOAP, and WP:FRINGE in edit summaries could be misinterpreted as an effort to overturn the long established editing principles in WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:Civil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is objection to repeating the WP:Civil text on other guideline pages. Therefore, in WP:Civil, I'd like to tack the following point onto the addition by Rd232:

Proposed addition to WP:Civil:
  • Use of guideline abbreviations such as WP:POV as a shorthand in one-line Edit Summaries justifying reversion may prove offensive to the reverted editor, particularly in the case of sourced contributions. If a clear statement of the reason for labeling a reversion WP:POV, WP:Fringe, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NOR and so forth cannot be fit into the one-line Edit Summary, a Talk page explanation of the evaluation is encouraged because it is less likely to generate heated debate on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This addition could be linked on other guideline pages. What do you think about this addition? Maybe you could suggest some rewording? Brews ohare (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason for proposal

Reversion of contributions that required some care to assemble is likely to result in Talk page discussion. It is preferable to start discussion in a good mood. For this reason, the reverting editor should begin this discussion, and the idea here is to encourage that that happens. If the editor reverted by "Please see WP:OR" is thinking: "This @#$%& editor might stop and read the material before giving me the finger." there is a good chance that, if they start the discussion, things will escalate, because the reverting editor will pick up the tone instead of the content. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
  • Oppose I think Rd232's current version is sufficient. Again, just because we add it here doesn't mean everyone on WP will suddenly begin to, or even have to, start using detailed edit summaries or explanations. We just hope they will. Angryapathy (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Angryapathy: The proposal by Rd232 doesn't explicitly address this matter, although it may be implied. Of course, you are right that this suggestion can be ignored, and stating clearly what the recommendation is does not insure the recommendation will be followed. However, a clear statement is more likely to be followed than one that leaves it to the imagination. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Tryptofish: The proposal leaves it up to the reverting editor just how they will handle the matter. The proposal simply suggests a process that is more likely to be amicable. Brews ohare (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the point is worth making perhaps (though we're getting into WP:CREEPy territory) but not in this way. How about adding something (addition to current page in italics) "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Relying merely on references to policy without saying how or why it applies may appear insufficient explanation. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." Rd232 talk 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
How about: "Relying merely on references to policy such as WP:POV, WP:NOR, etc. without saying how or why they apply may appear insufficient explanation." I'd go for that. Brews ohare (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: PLEASE look at the history behind this proposal described in the archived RfA above, including the comments of disinterested Admin Jehochman. In fact, the content that the proposer kept trying to insert into the Speed of light article has been under discussion since at least March 2009, and the near-unanimous consensus is that the proposer's cited sources do not support his position. Further, he is trying to change policy after-the-fact to influence a pending arbitration to which he is a party. Now he has opened 2 new discussion topics here about the subject of his failed RfA, including a second RfA, and he has attempted do modify other policies and guidelines that are at issue in the arbitration. He has also complained about Jehochman's and another editor's comments in the closed RfA on the talk pages of 2 Arbitrators and the Clerk, without disclosing that he posted the same complaint on 2 other talk pages. This is gaming the system. Enough is enough! Finell (Talk) 17:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Finell can you kindly remain germane to this simple RfC? You are stating your opinions regarding matters that are still under review as though they are facts. They also have no bearing here. Brews ohare (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose deja vu... See my edit summary for full discussion. Verbal chat 17:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Instruction creep. A short polite edit summary pointing to a policy page is enough. If the editor who has "had all his hard work removed" does not understand how the policy or guideline being cited applies, he can ask for clarification. Pointing out a policy violation when one occurs is not incivility. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Blueboar: Of course, you are right that it needn't be uncivil. But if "all his hard work" is reverted, the reverting editor knows they are going to be called on it. So what does the reverting editor gain by avoiding explaining the evaluation? My tendentious suggestion is that what gained is only postponement of the labor of the actual articulation of the evaluation, that is, some mental effort to straighten out thoughts that, in fairness, should be done anyway, and will have to be done eventually anyhow. What may be lost is the opportunity for amicable discussion. That possibility is enhanced when the squirrels come out of the woodwork and pile into the debate. What also may be lost is a constructive relationship with the contributor. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is that a brief edit summary such as "please see WP:XXX" is a perfectly acceptable explanation/articulation etc. of why the material was removed. We hope the adding editor will read the policy page being pointed to and say to himself, "Oh... now I see what the problem was... gee, I wish I had read this policy page before I wasted all that time and effort." On the other hand, if (after reading the policy or guideline that is pointed to) he still does not understand what the problem is, he has many options available to get further clarification... he can ask at the policy talk page, he can ask on the article talk page... he can even ask the removing editor directly. The point is, by pointing to WP:XXX in the edit summary, the removing editor has done his part. The removing editor has clearly and politely explained what the problem is. What happens next is up to those who wish the material to be returned. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"Please see WP:XXX" may encompass what you have in mind, but it is not specific. Your view is that is not a problem: the contributor simply can ask you what you meant, and the contributor will have no problem with that. Your scenario does happen of course, but less pleasant scenarios also arise, and the proposal tries to avoid them, because fires are harder to put out than to prevent. Brews ohare (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
My view is that a polite summary pointing to the policy is specific enough. I made the first step... I explained my removal. What happens next is up to the other editor. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See WP:CREEP, and the discussion above. Even Help:Edit summary acknowledges that experienced users will often use abbreviations in edit summaries and offers WP:OR as a specific example. (That same page also encourages editors to use the talk page if they cannot explain their edits clearly in the edit summary field. Really, that's all we need to say, and it's already in.) The presence of editors who get unnecessarily incensed because they don't understand the WP:BRD cycle or Wikipedia in general can't be fixed by modifying this policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to TenOfAllTrades: Hey thanks for bringing WP:BRD to my attention: I didn't know about that. You'll notice it says "some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient". That is what this proposal is about too: what exactly is gained by avoiding Talk page discussion with the one-line Edit Summary when a Talk page discussion is going to happen anyway? Is it some idea that a debate is in the offing and it is better to deliver the first punch with the one-line Edit Summary to get the opposition off balance? Maybe an irritated contributor is easier to beat down with irrelevant barbs and putdowns? I'd guess a more cooperative attitude works better, and that is more likely with a Talk page explanation at the outset. Brews ohare (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I love how this is a request for comment, and this is a comment section but yet everyone loves to start their COMMENT by VOTING, like anyone asked for a raise of hands, and Wikipedia is specifically not a democracy, I can be the only one supporting this and I can still win because (if) my points are more logically consistent with Wikipedia's function. So, here is my comment- Quoting policy is NEVER an acceptable alternative to discussing and coming to a consensus, to arbitrarily tell someone "see WP:OR" or "read WP:V" or "this violates the POV policy" is simply arrogant (so is simply telling someone their proposal is wrong because it is "wp:creep", I find it creepy to dismiss someone by simply saying that and not explaining WHY you think something is not needed, WP:Creep is a cop-out for those who cant debate and write more than a sentance). Our policies and guidelines arent laws written in stone that cover every possible problem and event that may happen in Wikipedia and must be adhered to the letter. In that one editor's opinion the edit may be a violation of OR, but that may not be everyone's opinion (that is why we have noticeboards for OR, RS, etc; and the various Village Pumps and articles each have a talk page, because everyone sees things differently). If you disagree with someone about something, and its not clear vandalism, perhaps explaining your opinion more thoroughly would be beneficial without the arrogance of telling them "I know the rules better than you, go read them and try to become as smart as me before editing again" which is all that gets across when people resort to quoting the "rules" without explaining their own personal interpretations. Quoting rules= bad; discussing things civilly= good. That is my opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... voting is evil... but once someone starts to !Vote, there is a tendancy for everyone else to do so. To discuss... Binky, I think you are wrong here. If someone adds something that is a violation of "the rules", I think the best thing to do is point them to the "rules" in question, so they understand why you are removing their work... otherwise they might take it personally and think your removal was for no good reason. IE... Pointing to rules with civilly = BEST. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC

The closing of the above request for comment is an unjustifiable abuse, interferes with a normal WP procedure for no reason, and should be subject to severe censure. Brews ohare (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think closing was probably a little premature... but on the other hand I think it is quite clear that the proposed addition will not gain consensus. So let me ask... what purpose does keeping the RfC open serve? Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar: Thank you for raising this point. Already Rd232 has suggested an addition to WP:CIVIL that I find satisfactory. There is no need that the proposal be accepted as it stands: it is a request for comment, a brainstorming session. The idea that somehow this is a threatening situation that must be closed down as soon as possible is weird. I'd like to hear what others have to say: a few minutes is hardly enough time. Brews ohare (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A few hours for what is a repeat of the previous RfC is more than enough considering you shouldn't have raised it in the first place. You should have tried further discussion before starting another RfC, and starting another, nearly identical one, so soon (mere "minutes") after the previous one was closed, is WP:DISRUPTIVE. It is not about it being threatening, it is about it being pointless. Verbal chat 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose from me too. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
i don't think it is enough. if some editors here have encountered the question numerous times before, that does not mean some other editors have. also, if it is deja vu, hmmm, why does the question keep re-appearing if the answer is so obvious, or if the current solution is so good? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

The current version of the page has some duplication between the section WP:CIVIL#Avoiding incivility and the section immediately above. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

can you be more precise? And what do you think about Verbal's removal of this material? DTTR may not be policy, but it's still a valid point here and a useful reference, and I don't the existence of welcome messages invalidates the injunction to be careful with template messages. And I don't really see why the injunction to explain one's edits sufficiently (as context dictates) should be removed either. Rd232 talk 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverted then, in absence of justification for removal. Rd232 talk 08:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
One problem was that the last bullet point of WP:CIVIL#Avoiding incivility was duplicated word-for-word in the introduction; I just removed it, but feel free to revert, or to delete it from the introduction instead. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Much of it was duplicated, but not all of it, so Dank's edit has removed some content. Perhaps either the bullet point or the introduction should be rewritten, rather than simply deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Page too long

Surely we don't need this many words to tell people to be nice to each other? I'd be for doing some major weeding of this text, to reveal the main points clearly. Any objections in principle? There could also be a bit of merging with other pages - do we really need WP:NPA as a separate page from this one?--Kotniski (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not paid attention to this page so I won't get involved much at the moment, but my initial thoughts are I can't see the benefit from removing text. I think that CIVIL does need to be a different page from NPA because they are different, and editors sometimes need to be directed towards one of the two pages: if they were combined, an editor who commits a minor civility breach may end up reading about NPA and that may leave the editor thinking that the referral was inappropriate (i.e. the incivil editor might think "the person who directed me to this page is nuts because it's mostly about vicious stuff that is nothing to do with me").
Where is the text that mentions that edit summaries and talk page comments should focus on edits, and not on editors? I do think that the purpose of CIVIL should be clarified in the lead. We don't have this policy because it gives us a warm glow; we have it to foster collaboration that builds the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Once upon a time, we had a short version of both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Unfortunately, the sensitive ears of some Wikipedians couldn't tolerate us having a page called Don't be a dick, so this core policy had to be moved to meta. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was an ill-chosen name, certainly (since it apparently sanctions calling people dicks, which is extremely uncivil in itself), but I agree that a brief and to the point policy like that is what we need. I think there's a sliding scale rather than any clear boundary between incivility and personal attacks - having them both on one page, and without vast quantities of superfluous verbiage, will simply make it quicker and clearer for people to find out what our standards are in this area, and for editors to identify things that are missing (like the text that Johnuniq wonders about).--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's code of conduct

Do we agree that WP:Etiquette is Wikipedia's code of conduct (as the link currently in the first line of this page seems to imply)? If so, surely it should at least be marked as a policy? (Or perhaps that's another page that could be merged with this one?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC on dealing with controversy

I've drafted an essay here intended as a paradigm to mitigate disputes on Talk pages. I would appreciate some input. Brews ohare (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What if...

It says that before removing an uncivil comment in a discussion page you should talk to the editor who made it first, but what if the comment was made by a non-member editor with no talk page? It wasn't obscene or completely irrelevant, but was rude in tone, and implies that all such pages are not notable when many such others exist. ("Duh, it's a webcomic. Kill the article. If you don't, you're stupid.") I wanted to delete it because it was unconstructive, but the civility article wasn't really clear on whether I was allowed or not. -guest - Nov. 21 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.1 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 November 2009

It would be easier to give a constructive answer if you told us what discussion page this refers to, so that we could see exactly what the context was. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Next week's "Policy report" in the Signpost

... will include discussions from this talk page. The "Policy report" will cover a different policy page each week from the conduct, content, deletion and enforcement policies, and this is one of the pages where the talk page already has enough interesting material from the past few months to put together a report, but anything anyone wants to add this week about the recent changes would be welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I opened an RfC at WT:NPA#RfC on partial merging and status of the No personal attacks and Civility policies with the idea of moving some material from NPA to Harassment, moving some over here, and changing that page to a guideline. Risker believes it should be the other way around, moving the more policy-like material from this page over to NPA and making this page a guideline. Feel free to discuss either here or there, and I'll follow both places and write up a summary for the Signpost on Monday. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No responses, so cancelling the RFC. But I think I can make a case for moving this page to Category:Wikipedia procedural policies; please see WT:POLICY#Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report for Signpost

The reaction to this report on recent changes to WP:SOCK was good. I propose we do the same kind of report on changes to WP:CIVILITY since maybe September 1, since there have been a lot of recent changes. The monthly changes are available at Wikipedia:Update/1/Deletion Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Say anything you like in your report, and I'll do my best to work in a sentence or two into the Signpost summary from everyone who participates, and I hope many Signpost readers will follow the link and read everything you said. My summary will be available at least a day before the deadline so that anyone can edit it. Feel free to add your report below. The SOCK reports were quite good; if you're stumped for ideas, check them out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Bumped down 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought from past discussions: how much should our Civility policy be shaped by the exceptional cases that wind up at ArbCom vs. the typical editors? Should the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for conduct, or something in between? Does this page address the same questions as other policy and guideline pages such as WP:Etiquette, WP:No personal attacks and/or WP:Harassment, and is that a problem? - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Btw, also feel free to give feedback on the way I asked around for comments. I first asked for comments a few weeks ago, then I put a note in last Monday's Policy Report that WP:Civility would be the topic of the next Signpost, then I left messages on this talk page and the talk pages of related policies and guidelines, then I engaged the people who responded on their talk pages, and when all that didn't produce enough material for the Policy Report, I extended invitations to everyone who weighed in recently on this talk page (with a few reasonable exceptions). I think I got back as far as Protonk before the replies started coming in ... it looks like we've got enough now, but I welcome more feedback. We're working with a deadline of roughly noon-ish Eastern US time on Monday; the Signpost editors would like to have some time to review and copyedit before it's published. I'll start working on the summary from what we've got so far; feel free to edit the summary until I archive it on Monday. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Responses by NuclearWarfare

Might as well get the ball rolling. I haven't followed changes to the policy pages, but I'll give my own two cents worth of what I feel is wrong with the policy's enforcement: "The issue with the civility policy is not that everyone is too civil, but that a small minority of editors completely ignore it while continuing to make valid points, and there is no easy way of dealing with that." Wikipedia:Civility/Poll noted that "the majority of people feel the current civility policy is too lenient, and that it is inconsistently applied and unenforceable". The inconsistently applied part is probably the worst. Because civility is the most subjective of all the policies, it may seem to editors on the receiving end of a civility block that they are being unfairly targeted. I'm not really sure how to fix that, but that certainly is something that could be brought up in the Signpost article. NW (Talk) 21:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Tryptofish

I got a note from Dank inviting me to look here, and, while I don't claim to have any special insights into possible policy improvements, I can, for what it's worth, contribute this observation that I recently made on my talk page: Bullies show up from time to time on this website, and most good, thoughtful, editors are not very good at dealing with them, often just giving in. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dank asked me at my talk whether I have any ideas about improving CIVIL to help editors deal with bullies. Frankly, I have to admit that I don't have any. Partly, it's like real life: if you don't have the self-confidence to punch a bully back, when it's justified, no amount of policy is really going to change you. Instead, I think community expectations for administrators and arbitrators will have to evolve over time to have a lower and lower tolerance for incivility. That, in turn, leads me to note that Wikipedia itself is evolving and maturing. As it (we?) mature(s), society will increasingly expect us to be the encyclopedia where anyone can find useful information, as opposed to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. With that maturation, I think we will need to come to expect a greater degree of professionalism from our editors. Not professionalism as in pay, but as in demeanor, and anyone can edit may have to evolve into anyone who is constructive can edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Proofreader77

(In keeping with my paralogic comment at the WP:Civility/Poll ...) There is nothing insightful/useful that I could say about civility policy that someone would not find reason to save the dif for use as proof that Proofreader77 should be blocked indefinitely or sitebanned. (Although perhaps that covers it concisely, while smoothly skirting the danger. Perhaps. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Johnuniq

The three problem behaviors (WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL) are different, and I see no reason to confuse issues by simplifying or merging the three policies. It's quite normal for Internet forums to breach CIVIL, and we need a low-drama page to explain that such behavior is not permitted here. It's quite likely that someone breaching NPA or HARASS knows what they are doing, and strongly-worded pages are needed to make it clear that repeat offenders will be blocked. The purpose of CIVIL should be clarified in the lead. We don't have this policy because it gives us a warm glow; we have it to foster collaboration that builds the encyclopedia. CIVIL should also mention (like NPA) that edit summaries and talk page comments must focus on edits, and not on editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Camelbinky

While every society has laws that do limit the most dangerous aspects of speech (yelling fire in a movie theater) most democratic modern nation-states do not limit speech or personal interactions beyond "dangerous" speach. Some Wikipedians (the politeness police) do though, and they should mind their own business. Yes, an editor that is rude is annoying and sometimes disruptive and his/her posts are unseamly to read, but is it worth the time/effort to "warn" them and have long diatribes and discussions about the behaviour? No, this is an encyclopedia, not a court. Ignore the bad speech if there isnt any bad conduct (eg- vandalizing of articles). We dont arrest the person who flips the bird while driving, we ignore it or curse back, we only care about the person who is physically a threat; same should apply to Wikipedia. Let people be rude and just ignore them. Freedom of speech above all, even if we dont approve of the speech.Camelbinky (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by Useight

I would declare WP:CIVIL to be the most important conduct-related policy we have. I find it to be the umbrella that encompasses WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:HARASS, and so forth. Unfortunately I see so many ad hominem attacks on talk pages that I would be delusional if I thought everyone gave WP:CIVIL the weight it should have. Useight (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses by User7
Responses by User8
Summary for Signpost

Summary is now available at the Signpost.

Experiment

Okay, there's been no objection over at WT:POLICY, so I'm going to try an experiment that I expect won't do any harm and might be helpful ... without fiddling with the policy status, I'm moving this page from the conduct policy subcat to the Category:Wikipedia basic information subcat, the one that WP:5P is in. Feel free to revert, and please see the discussion at WT:Policies_and_guidelines#Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointer to RfC

Please see WP:VPP#RfC on WP:Consensus and WP:Civility. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal, piece by Jimmy Wales

The following article may be of some interest:

  • Wales, Jimmy (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Identifying incivility - ageism

Under "Identifying incivility" section "Direct rudeness", I suggest "ageism" be added to (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; ...

Much ill will is engendered by unnecessary references to age. While there may be specific situations where a certain age limitation is desirable, in general comments about editors should be directed at their behavior and derogatory comments referring to their age should be avoided, just as other stereotyping of an editor's personal characteristics should be avoided. I have seen many unpleasant interactions and unnecessarily hurt feeling stem from unwarranted and unnecessary references to an editor's purported age. The Wikipedian community would be much more welcoming to new generations if we were aware of this. Certainly we would not condone similar unwarranted comments about senility or old age. Behavior alone should be the focus. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support Haveing been insulted based off of my age. (Being a minor) I feel that Wikipedia is only driveing away it's future by attacking many newbies that are in their teens and early 20's.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Completely unnecessary. It is made perfectly clear that derogatory personal remarks are unacceptable: why is it necessary to specify that derogatory personal remarks about someone's age are included in this? And how would anything be changed? We don't need more and more instruction creep. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


I think that we should not, however, forget that with age comes experience; IE; the 15 year old knows to redirect or jump off a crashing bicycle, while the 5 year old would likely stay on. While no one should be offensive, I don't think a thirteen year old should be adding or removing information from a page about sex or the Large Hadron Collider, while the same thirteen year old should not be brushed off a page about Coca-Cola or a commercial product. In other words, there's a reason why you need to be older.24.32.205.164 (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

People never seem to be civil...

Wikipedians are mean... 65.78.144.196 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the way you approach them? .[1] . dave souza, talk 09:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility blocks

In response to a recent iteration of a familiar issue, I've proposed a policy change at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Civility_blocks. Rd232 talk 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger of wp:npa and this policy

I have encountered that it is not possible to be civil while making a personal attack. Thus I think these 2 policies should be merged. Could someone put the merger tag up?174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But it is possible to be uncivil without making a personal attack, so the two things should stay separate. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's all much the same thing - no need for all these separate pages. There are many other guidelines on editor behaviour that could be merged in as well. If we have one page with the key points, stated simply and without excess verbiage, the more likely it is that all the points will be seen by and get through to people. I definitely support a merge (and with it, a severe excision of words).--Kotniski (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose a merge. It is important to let people know that CIVIL is a strong requirement. If it were merged into NPA, someone with a CIVIL problem would fail to see that the merged page applied to them because they do not intend to attack somone. I know that the reasoning is faulty, but it is nevertheless human nature to conclude that if a page asserts NPA and CIVIL that it would be reasonable to say "at least I'm not doing an attack". Many Internet users find NPA totally unsurprising, and we could almost delete WP:NPA as obvious and not required; however, those same users are so used to uncivil interactions on the Internet that WP:CIVIL astonishes them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So if NPA is obvious enough to be deleted, could it not simply become a subsection or paragraph of this page? No-one's saying this policy is to be "merged into" that one - if anything, it should be the other way around.--Kotniski (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, 174.3.123.220 (talk · contribs) is and it's a bad idea for the reasons above. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose a merge! Often, when refering to one of these two articles (WP:CIV or WP:NPA), I will be primarily interested in pointing out just one of the two messages: "Be civil!" or: "Do not make personal attacs!". If the articles were merged, then my basic message would be somewhat clogged down and more time consuming for the recipient. That would be a bad thing! So please keep the articles separate!.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We could merge both of those into WP:DICK. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No! The title of that meta-wiki-essay is itself a potentially offensive expression that is to be avoided. (See number two, under: Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Sorts_of_terms_to_avoid).
--Seren-dipper (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this suggestion. Making personal attacks is a subset of incivility, and much of the content of the two pages in redundant. One combined policy would help avoid the nasty habit Wikipedians have of perpetually increasing the size and number of policies and guidelines. I may see if I can produce a combined version in a sandbox. Fences&Windows 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Fences&Windows, Please reconsider!
To get a message through to someone, such as: "No personal attacs please!", then in many cases it is necessary to:
1.Be concisse. 2.Say only one thing.
Otherwise the message will be lost on them! Too much text or more than one "thing" on a webpage will completely drown out the intended message.
Hence the two articles (WP:CIV and WP:NPA) should stay separate! (Please do not just say: "Well, That's their problem!" because it is not!)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
But the two articles are not concise and they do not say only one thing. That's perhaps a separate matter from merging them, but if anyone came to tidy them up and actually make them clear and concise, they would almost certainly find their work having to be duplicated, since the two pages say pretty much the same thing, and there is no clear boundary between the two concepts (if there even are two concepts).--Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy that we have no personal attacks is quite specific, and goes beyond the idea that we should be civil, so I think there is a good case for giving it more prominence than would be the case if it were just one part of a page on civility. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DTTR (Don't template the regulars)

It's problematic to link to WP:DTTR. While WP:CIVILITY is a policy, Don't the regulars is not -- it's an essay that the WP community has not adopted as a policy. It becomes problematic because too often WP:DTTR becomes a WP:STICK that editors attempt to bash someone with. Gerardw (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. Policies should not link to personal opinions with no official status on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this policy mean anything?

"The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment."

Despite that, I just read a long discussion where many users (including admins) said that cussing at other users is OK to do as long as you don't call the person a cuss word. I don't see that anywhere in the policy. Am I missing something? Joe Chill (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think part of that was reacting to a perceived attempt to shift the goalposts on civility policy significantly. It was a somewhat sarcastic response, and somewhat POINTy. However, there was a point to it.
Abusive insulting behavior is not encouraged anywhere. Mere presence in a conversation of cuss words is not necessarily insulting or abusive to people participating there; however, it is generally not great.
The point of the civility policy and standards are that abusive behavior and personal attacks degrade the quality of participation for all around; specifically, for the immediate victim, and generally for everyone else engaged in the discussion. It drives people apart, it makes it harder to find consensus, it alienates people who then leave the project.
If we try to set rules in stone, we get people arguing and trying to wiki-lawyer their way around the edges - "But you didn't explicitly outlaw 'that'!", that sort of thing. We ask that people try to be generally reasonable, and we'll intervene when they're seriously unreasonable.
We have to balance "Wikipedia is not your nanny" and "Wikipedia wants to be a constructive and pleasant place to work on building an encyclopedia". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course profanity is incivil (quack). It's unnecessary, adds nothing to the conversation and often a sign of a contributor that is insufficiently educated or motivated to make their point using grown up words. Unfortunately, there is not a Wikipedia wide consensus on this, and as Georgewilliamherbert notes above, any attempt to rigidly define acceptable/unacceptable behavior leads to wiki-lawyering drama -- the cure is worse than the symptom. Attempts to come to specific consensus on what is ok / not ok have failed. So an editor has to choose whether the overall good of Wikipedia makes it worth putting up with a somewhat juvenile environment, language-wise. Personally, I do, so I ignore profanity while not using it myself, but that is a decision each individual has to make. Gerardw (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Meta-discussion

A cursory review of the above discussion seems to have landed 1) that as a core policy WP:CIV is not going to be removed. And 2) it is a "core policy" that will not be applied to everyone in anything remotely approaching a consistant fashion. How would one go about amending this policy to reflect the reality that it only really applies to certain editors? Active Banana (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Often a lot of latitude is given to account for circumstances. However, yes, some bad behavior does escape attention. If user X has become heated and been uncivil, and if X usually makes good contributions, it is almost certainly best to avoid X for at least two weeks. Poking X and watching the rising incivility is not helpful and many admins would not want to get involved other than asking everyone to cool it. Again, assuming X does valuable work, it's only when X has an ongoing and unjustified incivility problem that an admin should get involved IMHO. There have been a number of cases where if X were simply left alone they would get on with building the encyclopedia, and their incivility only arises after stuff like drive-by tagging occurs. While not entirely satisfactory, there will never be a precise rule about how many expletives are allowed before a block occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Varying cultural norms have prevented past attempts to establish clear boundaries from coming to consensus. Gerardw (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
And I am hearing the same answer here - some editors are more equal than others (but we are not actually going to reflect that in policy - just use that other set of drinking fountains.) Active Banana (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Civil pov pushers

Reference to Civil POV pushers and references to ArbCom seem a little too specialized for a general article that newbies might be reading. Additionally, in general shorter is better than longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

Actually I'd tend to disagree which is the reason why I added it. It is a problem that even experienced editors find difficult to deal with and from experience arbcom focusing on civility rather than content is more likely to sanction the experienced editor rather than the disruptive editor. Justin talk 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened to this when I posted below.... but reposting and apologies if I inadvertently deleted it.(olive (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
I've moved the text in question here for discussion:

"Beware civil POV pushers. Wikipedia and its dispute resolution process has a particular problem dealing with civil POV pushers. Whilst their conduct is superficially civil, the cumulative effect of their editing can be infuriating to the point where otherwise productive editors lash out in frustration. Stay cool, in lashing out it just makes the job of arbcom that much harder in establishing the background to a dispute and identifying the disruptive editor."

No thoughts on it at this point, other than (given that this is for a policy page) it should be hashed out here first before going live. --Ckatzchatspy 17:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that "civil pov pushers" is a cliché driven term that is often used indiscriminately, and as name calling, and can become an incivility itself. Civility is never a fault. POV editing, of course, is. POV editing is though, handled under other policies. What you actually seem to be refrring to is the frustration that may come out of dealing with editors who are not neutral. There are dispute resolutions for that, and the frustration itself might be dealt with as any frustrating situation is best handled on Wikipedia, with patience and ... well... civility. The civility policy deals with how to react to difficult situations. So, your concern may be covered already. Just a thought or two.(olive (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
Problem being that POV editing is frequently dismissed as a "content dispute" by admins and arbcom long abdicated any responsibility for content. So other policies don't in fact get picked whilst an editor's behaviour is at least superficially civil and this is where the policy breaks down. I don't have any concerns if you want to change the wording to avoid a cliche driven term but this is a problem that I believe editors, even new editors, need to be aware of. Apologies for being direct by dismissing it as a cliche is sticking your head in the sand and not acknowledging there is a problem. Justin talk 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't dismiss it. I analyzed the wording. Even when dealing with students, I have never allowed them to use a cliché driven term or explanation, but rather ask them to re explain or explain what is meant in a cliché. That's what I did. I took apart the phrase and attempted to explain its pieces. Nor did I say there was no problem. Your concern seems to me to be with the cracks that open up between content and behaviour disputes rather than something that can be explained under the civility policy. I think you may be in the wrong place, that's all.(olive (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

I think the behavior described is already discussed under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Gerardw (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't, you're missing the point. The point was to alert editors to certain behaviour, that is unfuriating to deal with and can lead to intemperate comments. Thats my concern and I feel it isn't covered by the current policy. The problem is acknowledged so what is the issue with alerting editors to it? Justin talk 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a place for everything (well most things) and you're in the wrong place....WP:CIVILITY deals with being civil yourself, and how to deal with those who aren't civil. For POV issues go to WP:NPOV, and discuss there. If you can't iron out your issue there, the next step is the first wrung of dispute resolution and on up the ladder until things are solved. And of course take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing as mentioned above. There are multiple kinds of behaviour that one has to deal with on Wikipedia that all require civil responses...and one must be temperate on Wikipedia or suffer the consequences whatever is thrown at you. I'm not making light of your concern, just pointing you to the right place to deal with it and get the most and best responses and the greatest possibility of actually correcting the situation, whether its to alert other editors or to deal with the underlying issue. This just isn't the right spot.(olive (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
And the text I'm proposing is about staying civil faced with certain behaviour. So again what is the issue with alerting to this kind of behaviour and a reminder to stay cool? You're going down a rabbit hole and not addressing the point. Justin talk 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I've adressed the point in multiple ways, but here's the bottom line (a cliché :o). The policy describes inclusively how to deal with all forms of uncivil behaviour. You are asking that one behaviour be single out, and not only be listed but described. If we did that for every behaviour that could possibly illicit a negative response, the policy would be many pages long. The policy says now in a clear and concise way that that all behaviour must be civil. Specifically selecting any one behaviour is redundant.
What you're suggesting is: Avoid instruction creep; and belongs in an essay, (where it is now, in both WP:CPUSH and WP:POVPUSH )
We could very well add most of this to WP:CIV: No angry mastodons, another essay
Additionally, there was a huge battle over adding specifics, so none were added:[2]
To make any changes to the policy requires, at the very least, consensus here with multiple editors, and if the change is significant enough, wider community consensus. I'm sorry, but I as one editor can't agree to the change you are suggesting.(olive (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC))
Actually no the policy doesn't describe how to deal with all forms of disruptive behaviour. Behaviour that is superificially civil but nontheless disruptive isn't addressed. Feel free to demonstrate how I'm incorrect but I don't see how it does. Claiming there is a blanket coverall with "all behaviour must be civil" isn't giving advice on how to deal with a particularly difficult problem and one that is becoming more common.
Further I'm not set on using the language I proposed and open to suggestions for suitable alternatives. Justin talk 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Civility is never a fault." Actually yes it is, when it is used as a weapon and it can be. Your comments actually home in on why CPUSH is a problem, as editors driven nuts are castigated for incivility and violators of NPOV are praised for being civil. Justin talk 22:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Civil POV pushing" is sometimes used as a euphemism for Wikipedia:Tag team. It might be better to add the suggested material there.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin, given that you are attempting to modify a policy page to include a comment on ArbCom, you should make a full declaration to everyone here that you've recently been involved in an ArbCom case specifically about this behaviour [3] and were included in the sanctions. Given that your proposed wording here mirrors your justifications of your behaviour at the ArbCom page (for which you got a block), and given that you appear to be saying ArbCom got the wrong man, I think it's fair to say that your edits here are a reaction to ArbCom's decision, and are therefore very ill-advised. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom's decisions are supposed to be informed by the policies that the community has adopted. So of course any substantial changes to policy have to be made by the community and not by individuals writing/reverting stuff on "policy pages" - but if there's a proposal going, I'd support the idea that provocation should be taken into account when taking action against editors for "incivility", and that sustained POV-pushing is one type of provocation. (Declaration: I've also been recently involved in ArbCom-related exchanges in a matter where this arose.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
RHoPF comments are misleading on a number of points. I was not blocked, I received a topic ban for 3 months. I did not justify my comments, I apologised for my uncivil comments and I did nothing (unlike certain parties) to avoid sanctions. My suggestions are actually nothing to do with that decision but a genuine suggestion for improvement; I notice the thinly hidden ad hominem attack in your comments.
Further, WP:AGF is part of WP:CIVILITY and another part of this policy is not to fling arbcom decisions in people's faces in the guise of a "full declaration", the same as a supposed WP:COI investigation is not justification for WP:OUT. In the full interest of declaration, RHoPF narrowly escaped sanction and anyone who has the misfortune to deal with would know exactly why. I would like to ask why you have mislead people about me trying to justify my behaviour when I did no such thing and instead of contributing to discussion to the discussion attempt to derail it by focusing on the editor not the comment. If you have nothing to add to the discussion please don't contribute further. Justin talk 11:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That kind of seals it, no? In practice I find that all too often "civil POV pushing" and other concepts like baiting, provocation, calling behavioral accustations uncivil, etc., serve as little more than justifications of poor behavior, often by editors who are themselves tendentious, opinionated, or holding minority or fringe positions on hot button issues. In theory, yes, someone could be doing any and all of these in a bad way. But none of these are an excuse, much less an entitlement, for abusing other editors. Civility is more than a fair weather friend. Simply because an editor persistently argues for and/or edits in favor of a content position one disapproves of, is no reason to drop the normal rules about getting along. Having a position, and arguing for it within the bounds of good behavior, is what our collaborative rules (consensus, BRD, dispute resolution, etc.) are all about. They weren't written for the cases where everyone has same viewpoint. When a position in fact wins the day, playing by all these rules, it's not because Wikipedia "has a particular problem dealing with" the position... it's because that position achieved consensus. Civility isn't an instruction not to lash out for no reason at all. It's an instruction to lash out even when you think you have a reason to be unhappy. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't seal it in the slightest. Example of Civil POV pushing. State a postion, someone makes a comment, restate the same position, more counter argument, restate the same position, even more counter argument, restate the same position; consensus never happens because someone is never prepared to move to a neutral position or agree to neutral text. Try it some time and see how you get on, see just how many productive editors it drives away, just for one second imagine how utterly frustrating it is.
Note I also said it didn't justify what I said in the heat of the moment in the slightest. People write essays like WP:CPUSH because there are problem behaviours. And as it is a behaviour that takes advantage of the WP:CIVIL policy I felt it was a useful addition to the policy. But tell me why all of sudden are we focused on one editor, after contrary to WP:CIVIL past issues are dredged up again, instead of what has been proposed? Seems too often we're prepared to focus on the editor and not what they're proposing, like they can never be redeemed. Guess I'm marked for life and might as well just give up. Justin talk 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It's problem behavior not to agree to move to a "neutral position" proposed by an editor making a new proposal? It's okay for that editor to vent out of "utter frustration"? And if they give up they were a productive editor driven away by civil POV-pushers? Or is the persistent editor the one who is non-neutral, wikigaming, and tendentious - and are their protests sour grapes? That sounds very much like a content disagreement, with the ante upped by saying whoever is wrong is misbehaving by not agreeing with the other. If their content is truly neutral and the status quo is maintained by a cabal that owns the article, they seem like heroes. But I've seen this argument used far too many times by those pushing fringe or politically charged content into the encyclopedia. I've seen this argument used far too many times by editors pushing fringe or politically charged content. Unless it gets extreme to the point of gaming, lawyering, fake accounts and so on, best to focus as you say on the proposal, not the editors - and there are already policies dealing with these specific misbehaviors. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Eeh... yes, but it's far easier to persuade an admin or ArbCom to take sanctions against someone for "incivility" (or for reverting more than a particularly number of times) than for wilful breaches of content policy ("content matter mate, sort it out yourselves, nothing to do with me"). And the more sophisticated POV-pushers have realized this and learnt how to take advantage of it... --Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a problem when a distinctly POV position is promoted and editors will not agree to move to neutral ground. Now excuse me but where did I say it was OK to vent in frustration? Why have you introduced that particular strawman, which bears no relation to the proposal? Pardon me for being direct but it seems like you're proceeding on the basis of an assumption and it doesn't appear to be on the basis that this is a good faith proposal.
The edit I proposed in fact urges editors faced with precisely this sort of frustration to stay cool and to remember this policy as it makes the job of dispute resolution or ultimately arbcom that much harder when they do vent in frustration. No, I don't see policies that effectively deal with these specific misbehaviours, frequently it is simply dismissed as a content dispute, much to the chagrin of editors involved - as Kotniski puts more directly above and sadly I do recognise that response myself. Focusing again on what I proposed, what exactly is wrong in urging editor to stay cool when faced with frustrating behaviour. Do feel free to suggest some suitable alternative wording if you feel there is a problem with what I've proposed. Justin talk 17:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If the proposal is that people should remain civil even when they feel that other editors are in the wrong -- even when they know other editors are in the wrong in terms of violating content or behavioral policy -- that's fine. However, no need to editorialize about POV-pushing or encourage them in feeling aggrieved to do so. The most crafty of editors, POV-pushers or otherwise, have all learned how to apply the rules around here. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have some suggestions for prose that you'd find acceptable? Justin talk 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
bump! (still thinking about this) - Wikidemon (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is acting civilly while being tendentious (e.g. intent on pushing a certain POV), it is not really a civility issue, it’s simply tendentious editing. Provocation is no excuse for incivility, no matter what the provocation is. There’s already a blurb in WP:CIV on provocation here, perhaps including a bit more about the issue of provocation would be appropriate, maybe something along the lines of “Provocation is no excuse for incivility; if you feel you are being provoked, then escalate the issue through the Dispute resolution process. There is no excuse for incivility."

Keep in mind that we want to avoid instruction creep and we don’t need to start listing examples of provocative behavior, that’s a long list…and already covered by other policies, guidelines or essays. Policies need to be short, concise and clear. And really, what would we say if they're cursing and being rude while pushing a pov and edit warring...lump it all under CIV? Nah. Dreadstar ☥ 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No need for additional verbiage: less is more. Gerardw (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes Gerardw, you chanted the mantra "less is more" right at the very start, thank for for continuing to not add anything constructive. Is anyone actually considering what I proposed, which was basically to stay civil even in the face of frustrating behaviour, change my words if you feel their appropriate but please consider the proposal not Red Herrings or go down rabbit holes. Justin talk 09:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Justin. Its clear from this thread that several editors have considered your proposals and either don't agree with you or have suggested that your proposal is in the wrong place. Rewording something doesn't change those fundamental concerns. There are multiple points and or suggestion in this thread. You might consider rereading them for suggestions as to possible solutions to your concern, but its very clear that adding something to this policy is not being agreed on by the editors commenting here. (olive (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC))
Actually if it were just a simple matter that people didn't agree with what I proposed that I can handle. However, whilst there has been plenty of destructive criticism of my proffered text, nothing positive has been offered. Most of what you call "suggestions" are simply mouthing platitudes or saying the policy already covers it; I believe I've demonstrated it doesn't. And to be honest what appears to be abundantly clear is that people are not listening because they keep taking the discussion of on tangents. Justin talk 18:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to report a concern with murder, you don't go to the post office. And there is no wording that makes a murder report at the post office more likely to solicit help. You've been offered clear, well meaning, and intelligent advice on why your suggestion doesn't work here, some from very experienced editors. You've also been offered advice on better places to take your concerns . You're ignoring both kinds of advice. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and relies on a group dynamic to function, rather than on the wishes of any single editor. You don't have agreement so there's not much else to be said except, try "the police station." (olive (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC))
A group dynamic that simply rejects outside opinion? In case you haven't noticed, the few editors who considered what I actually suggested recognised there was merit in it. Mmm, so much for the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", if you're not in with the in crowd you'll just be offered "clear, well meaning, and intelligent advice". BTW thanks for proving my point, since your analogy bears zero relation to what is actually proposed but then hysterical hyperbole is a common distraction device employed when people hear comments they don't like. Thanks its been illuminating. Justin talk 21:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"In with the crowd"? You are the crowd if you're a Wikipedia editor. You might want to check the meaning of hyperbole, hysterical or otherwise, and your comments have twisted what I said and meant, and verge on a personal attack. (olive (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC))
To paraphrase George Orwell I guess some editors are more equal than others. If you perceive a personal attack that was clearly not my intention, then I am sincerely sorry that you misunderstood my comments. Have a nice day now. Justin talk 21:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Really...does this policy mean anything??

Sorry, but the above topics were sort of giving me a migraine. Can't you people iron anything out logically?

We are having tons of trouble with an editor who thinks he owns an article...and he expects his rules to be OBEYED. He expects any edits to be presented to him first. That is not civil by any measure.

Yet he is so polite, greeting at the top of his post and concluding with a "Thanks" or some other inanity. So he uses this whole "civility" issue to wham people over the head when they disagree with him. You call that civil? I call it evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.154.247 (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, this policy means something. In practice enforcement is sporadic/uneven because of no exact agreement on what is and what isn't civil.
  • I'm not sure who you mean by "you people"? Wikipedia is just a bunch of volunteer editors.
  • Have you tried dispute resolution measures like WP:WQA? Gerardw (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
@75.21.154.247: Your story reminded me of a character from Homer's Odyssey. Eurymachus is ever oh-so-polite even when clearly deceitful. Eurymachus comes out as the only evil character in my reading of Odyssey! Unfortunately, Odysseus' solution wont help here (he kills them all). WP:WQA or WP:ANI may help. ["...felt compelled to soothe Penelope's fears, although he himself had murder in his heart", [4], [5]] N6n (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

a contrary voice

Oliver Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory Volume III (p. 1) Benn Brothers, Limited, London. 1922. (Thomas Carlyle's dictum referenced is: "A Parliament speaking through reporters to Buncombe and the twenty-seven millions, mostly fools.")

Politeness is important for WP, but "4. Always be polite. it will earn you respect in life." is going too far! N6n (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you

Can somebody explain to me the merit of allowing so-called "humor" pages like Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you to exist in the Wikipedia:Namespace, and how doing so is consistent with Civility? Some anonymous IP editor who didn't like a Talk Page message I made, which at the time I thought was perfectly inoccuous, and responded with this message, in which he admonished me to see WP:PBAGDSWCBY for advice about what he called "veiled personal attacks". I explained what I meant by my prior message, insisted I meant nothing impolite about, and apologized if it conveyed incivilty, but I also stressed to him that his response was certainly incivil in itself, but I'm wondering why pages like this are allowed to remain on Wikipedia. It may disclaim itself as a "humor" page, rather than a policy or guideline page, but aside from the disclaimer, it certainly has the resemblance to a casual surfer to policy pages, and I don't understand why Wikipedia would even allow "humor" pages in its own namespace. Can anyone explain this one? Or did this page, which was created in April 2007 as a redirect to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, and changed to an article in its own right the following month, just slip between some administrative cracks somewhere? Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to think this culture of referring to certain types of people as "dicks" is not conducive to creating a civil atmosphere. It no doubt seems amusing when done in general terms, but inevitably it leads to individuals being called dicks (or being made to feel they are), which is not something that ought to be happening.--Kotniski (talk) 06:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
So how is it that that page was not only permitted to be created, but to have remained for three and a half years? Can we find a way to have it deleted? Nightscream (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely hope the answer to that is no, because I find this page hilarious. Somebody inappropriately pitching a link to it at you is a problem with them, not the page itself. But if you insist, the proper forum would be WP:MFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding a page hilarious is not a valid rationale for its inclusion on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, and not a humor website. Thanks for pointing out MFD, but I don't know what category this page falls into, yet another example of how impenetrable and labyrinthine such procedures can be on WP, even to established users like myself. I already started a discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page, and most of the people there have indicated that it indeed does not belong. Nightscream (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the category. MFD is a catch all for deletion discussions that aren't related to articles, categories, templates, or images, which all have dedicated forums. Anything else can be listed at MFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Similar discussions seem to be taking place in different places (here, Jimbo's talk page, WT:Don't be a dick. Can we have one central discussion where we decide what to do about the "dick" meme?--Kotniski (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that would be my fault. I should've started in one place, and left links in other places to attract editors. I'll confine my responses to Jimbo's page, where I'm about to make my next post in response to yours, Kotniski. Nightscream (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a dick

I have been asked on my talk page why I reverted an edit (diff) which added Meta:Don't be a dick under "See also, Essays and other information". I think WP:CIVIL should focus on good behavior, and not confuse the issue with a possible suggestion that it's ok to tell the other editor don't be a dick. It is sometimes appropriate to pull out heavy weapons, and Meta:Don't be a dick might rarely be employed by an experienced editor, preferably an uninvolved editor during a public discussion somewhere like WP:ANI. But I don't think the link is appropriate on WP:CIVIL, which should encourage model behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've encountered more than plenty of editors who can be a perfect example of how to be a dick while retaining all the principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, frustrating other editors to the point of making them quit WP altogether. This is why I felt that including the lightly humorous but useful meta article would be appropriate here. I'd also like to suggest adding links to WP:GAMING, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POINT; others might spring to mind. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It is likely that as blatantly uncivil editors are blocked, we will be left with a core of WP:CPUSH POV warriors, and I have seen my share. I am concerned that the community is poorly equipped to deal with someone who appears civil, yet pushes their point beyond a reasonable limit, but I'm not sure anything good would result from tweaking this page. However, I'm happy to wait and see if someone else agrees with me that "don't be dick" would not be helpful here, if you wanted to try adding it again. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree on not adding Meta:Don't be a dick to this wp:policy page. The danger is its being used as a tool of intimidation in its being so placed and exacerbating the problem it seeks to correct. WP:CPUSH POV warriors are a different problem, possibly better addressed on other policy or guideline pages. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge with WP:LIE

Hi, everyone

I think this is the most straightforward merger to suggest: I propose to merge Wikipedia:Don't lie (an article whose contents is no more than "Just don't!") into this section. I propose we put an anchor here near "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information" and redirect that page to the aforementioned anchor.

Do you mind if I have your opinion everyone? Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I've just changed lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information; to lying; since, by definition, lying is asserting false information to mislead. Gerardw (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the page being short is part of the point. I'd rather we leave the essay page alone. Killiondude (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Killiondude. The entire point of WP:LIE is that it only takes 2 words to discuss the subject. Just add this page to the "See Also".--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, on the other hand, there is the fact that the essay is redundant... The prospects of lying is so deceiving/persuasive that the effect of a simple essay that reads "Just don't" is null in comparison. An essay about not lying should have some counter-persuasive (restrictive) power. WP:LIE fails in that regards; but IMHO, WP:Civility has a bit of such power. Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a merge is a good idea. How does lying relate to "civility"? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm? Haven't you read this article? Anyway, please read Wikipedia:Civility § Identifying incivility, under Other uncivil behaviors. Fleet Command (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand that lying is not necessarily uncivil behavior. Perhaps you should re-read that section. :-) Again, I think it's best left alone. Killiondude (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Then the matter is concluded. However, I will not for one second think that lying can be anything other than incivility. And I also don't think saying "what the hell?" is very civil. Most Wikipedians delete such comment on talk pages on sight. Fleet Command (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What the hell? --Closedmouth (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility edit

Restored prior phrasing [[6]], newer phrasing was longer and used a colloquialism which may not translate cross-culturally. Gerardw (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking for incivility

On the basis of the discussion here, it's clear something needs to be done. I suggest adding the following to the policy (as a new para at the end of the "Blocking for incivility" section:

Long-term patterns of incivility, where no individual instance of incivility is severe enough to merit blocking, and where repeated warnings have been issued, should be dealt with through community discussion rather than unilateral admin action. A request for comment on user conduct is a good approach, but a discussion at WP:AN may suffice if it involves good evidence of long-term and ongoing problem behaviour. In these circumstances, the community may agree to impose a limited period civility probation, of up to three months. If the user continues with incivility during this period, a block may be proposed at WP:ANI with reference to the probation, even if the incivility would not normally be blockable. If blocks are repeated, later ones may be for longer periods.

Rd232 talk 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Sometimes "unilateral admin action" is required to cause the community discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
An ANI proposal should be just as effective as a block review. To the degree that it's more effective, it's probably unfair. Rd232 talk 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, refraining from blocking allows the incivility to continue while the community is arguing over whether it's blockable or not -- and some loud members (nobody in mind here, honest) are sure to insist that no incivility is blockable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If the community can't agree the behaviour merits sanction, then it shouldn't be sanctioned. This is not complicated. If ANI fails to achieve consensus frequently, it's probably because RFC/U is a better venue for this sort of thing. Rd232 talk 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Correct me if I am wrong but would not this allow that incivility to continue on and on until some resolution is (or maybe is not) reached? Given the presence of repeated warnings this seems too lax. JodyB talk 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per Sarek. Some editors feel that if you are sufficiently clever about how you phrase it or have a certain number of FA's, you are exempt from civility requirements. This would just give them more process. I'd rather have an amendment to WP:BLOCK making an unblock wheel warring unless you consult with the blocking admin and either wait for a return comment or a given time period elapses, say one hour, and announce your prior intent at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That amendment I could get behind.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, why don't we draft something and put it up there? Say,

Administrators are urged to consult with each other, and with others as necessary. As Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, one's own opinions should not override ongoing community discussion. Accordingly, it is wheel warring to undo a block without consultation with the blocking administrator, or else posting to the blocking administrator's talk page and waiting one hour, unless the administrator has stated he has no problem with his block being undone. If there is an ongoing discussion of the block at AN/I, the block may be undone if consensus is achieved. Absent that consensus, it is wheel warring for an administrator to unblock the user unless one hour's notice is given both at the AN/I thread and the blocking administrator's talk page. While it is possible there could be emergency conditions which justify an immediate unblock, it is for the unblocking administrator to justify his conduct under those circumstances. An unblock for "unambiguous error" is limited to cases where the blocking administrator clearly meant to take another action than the one he did; it is not to be done to reverse a judgment call, such as whether a comment is sufficiently uncivil to justify a block.

Something like that, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  • We do need some mechanism for dealing with long-term uncivil editors. At the moment we see blocks issued by one admin and then removed if any one admin wishes to remove it and that unblock sticks (WP:WHEEL). I worry that Wehwalt's solution makes the NC result "block" rather than "not blocked" which seems like a bad idea. Perhaps making it so that an unblock occurs unless there is consensus that the block was valid? Hobit (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I really don't have a problem with "no consensus" defaulting to "block" in this case. If it was a bad block, there should be a clear consensus to overturn. If there isn't, that means that a significant portion of the community feels that there's a problem to be dealt with. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite so, which would eliminate the claims of favoritism regarding admins brought by the Incivility League.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is strong sentiment for this, I suggest we move it to WT:BLOCK and see how it fares.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if there's strong sentiment or not, but that's the right place to be discussing it anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Taking it over there. I will put it as a suggestion, rather than a proposal, and we will see if there is enough support to be worth putting it as a formal proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the objections above seem to ignore the latitude the first paragraph of the section gives. The entire point of the proposed additional paragraph is to provide a mechanism to be used in the more difficult cases of long-term civility issues which don't obviously cross a line. These cases are inherently subjective and it is why unilateral decisions end up being so problematic, and why there should be community discussion first. The proposal doesn't limit what an admin can do because they already in practice can't do it. Blocks for behaviour which many people exhibit now and then are inherently problematic and require more process to justify them. I find it amazing that there are a number of admins who seem to think the problem is not the failure to establish a good way to enforce civility policy in the long-term low-to-mid-level incivility range, the problem is failing to make bad enforcement stick - and go off to reform unblocking policy instead! (Ignoring the fact, incidentally, that ANI discussions of low-to-mid level incivility are even more problematic than many other kinds of ANI discussion, because of the subjectivity and the ease with which examples can be pulled from many people's records. It's why the calmer, better structured RFC/U is much better, as usual.) Rd232 talk 23:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. "I know it when I see it" has failed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
And from this you conclude what? Incidentally, I could accept adding "ideally" into the proposal to weaken the whole paragraph to a status of recommendation rather than injunction ("ideally should be dealt with"). Rd232 talk 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
In other words, something that can be freely ignored at will?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in the sense that admins would retain the latitude to do what they think they can get away with, as now. But it would document a different approach they could choose to adopt in any specific instance, which is likely to be more effective and less drama-filled. It also points to RFCU for non-admins, who obviously don't have the option of blocking people they suddenly decide haven't crossed a line but have pissed off enough people to make their incivility blockable in a way that sticks. Rd232 talk 10:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Acceptable behavior and steps to address it are already achieved by consensus. Adding more words to the policy will not ease the burden on the administrator community to determine the best course of action in an individual case. In any event, this policy's focus should be on the desired behavior of Wikipedians, not punitive measures. Gerardw (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. In particular "Adding more words to the policy will not ease the burden on the administrator community to determine the best course of action in an individual case." seems written by someone who hasn't read the proposal. The proposal suggests a course of action admins can take which brings the decision to the community, rather than using merely their own judgement. Obviously their own judgement remains in involved in deciding whether to bring it to the community, or whether the incivility is bad enough to justify jumping to a block. It is aimed at the problematic grey zone where subjectivity reigns. Rd232 talk 10:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of not reading the proposal before commenting? Gerardw (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Support proposal by original poster. It is good sense to have a discussion and establish consensus before the block (or warning), rather than after. --JN466 03:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So what is the rule on cursing now?

I was on a long break, I see its not allowed now? Even if its not directed at a particular user. So lets say that I stumbled upon the Atlantis Resorts article and remarked that it was shitty, to no one in particular. Maybe on the talk page or in an edit summary. Thats uncivil? I don't think anyone's working on it so I don't see how they could be offended. Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And tbh thats just an article I found by clicking the random article button, and yes it is shitty imho. Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I just read the opening bullet point and see now that it was not an accurate summary. Have edited it now. Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, our civility policy is somewhat silent about the use of swearwords, other than to say that "gross profanity" can "contribute to an uncivil environment" without defining the term. A lot of the time, when people use swearwords, they're part of an insult, or they intensify the aggression of a confrontational comment, but that's not always the case. I have also seen people cite the use of swearwords as prima facie evidence of incivility, with an apparent ignorance that their own incivility without swearing might be much worse. Personally, I manage to express myself without swearing, yet I don't swoon when I encounter it. I have no firm opinion on what our policy on swearwords should be, but I think it might be helpful to have something to point to when the issue is raised. Bovlb (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I think its okay now if you look at the page, in that as long as its not directed at someone its not uncivil. I would be opposed to a church type of environment, where people wouldn't curse because someone they're not even talking to or about, might get offended. If someone is offended by swearing but not what the statement including the swearing actually conveys then thats over-sensitivity imho. Directing it at someone's work is a little iffy, in my case an article I was the main contributor on was worn down by ip edits and inexperienced users while I was on along break and turned into a real piece of shit, and from looking at the edit history I could see no one editor in particular was really working on it at all. I used the word shit in an edit summary (which I felt summed up the article rather aptly), and someone got offended even though they admitted they never really contributed to the article. Quadzilla99 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think if I were drafting a policy/guidelines on swearwords, I would say something like: Talk page comments and edit summaries that contain profanity are not necessarily uncivil, if it is not used to insult or confront, but many editors will react badly to being sworn at. Think twice before using profanity in comments, as you may find that it reduces support for the point you're making. Avoid it in edit summaries, as they cannot be retracted, and it will be seen by anyone investigating your record of contributions. Using profanity towards someone who has specifically asked you not to, is almost certainly uncivil. Bovlb (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Essays and other information

I trimmed the essay list down to just Category:User_essays_on_civility and the template. There are a large number of essays on civility and it's unclear what criteria are used to link specifically to some and not others. Gerardw (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Template: Be civil

I've just notice this on a couple talk pages and know a couple where it's needed. The talk page did not have instructions on how to use it so I drafted some from what I assume is the current use. Please check Template_talk:Be_civil and make sure I am correct before I use, since the two talk pages in question have had debates on what sort of personal attacks they should just hide vs delete. Also the template should be at least linked in this article, if it is to continue in use. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking the template would best be deleted. "Uncivil messages will be deleted."?? By whose authority, because the template says I can? Who judges what is uncivil? Who gets blocked while edit-warring to include or not include the template, or decide what qualifies or doesn't qualify as deletable? This is a bad scene all around. Franamax (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This template was created a long while go when there was a serious issue with (most specifically IPs) editors coming to a talk page and leaving nasty messages for the regular editors who were trying to keep unsourced, rumors from a page about a film in development. This very page states, "Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." That was what it was created for and that was what it was used for. When the template went up on the talk page, because it's rather "loud" in appearance, the frequency of those comments began to reduce because it was clear that they would be removed immediately. The template was not designed for random, asshole comments that are part of a general discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed the explanation; I deleted it. Anyway it reads:
This template is only for talk pages that have received large amounts uncivil responses toward fellow editors. Incivility is always unrelated to the improvement of the article, and can hurt other Wikipedians. Otherwise Talk header} should suffice. Also consider {Calm talk}.
Unfortunately, I have run into a few pages with lots of accusations and insults and even multiple trips to Wikiquette and ANI don't work. I'd say 2/3 of hiding/deleting comments is uncontroversial, and it is per WP:NPA. Perhaps a slight rewording to reflect Wikipedia:NPA#Removal_of_text. Something like:
Please remain civil to one another. If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore them. Uncivil messages will be deleted. Per Wikipedia policy, serious personal attacks may be removed or hidden by any editor.
Note that sometimes whole sections are filled with borderline personal attacks, interspersed with real ones and various important or relevant editor commentary, so that hiding may be best. I think it's an excellent way to stop some of the nonsense I've seen on some pages. It probably worked really well on new essay WP:Activist which is only the second page I've seen it on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Per recent edit summary, I will make this change unless there's objection/modification to discuss. (Though I might do "(or hidden)" in parenthesis. Proposing there also. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


See Also: Template:Inappropriate_comment Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It is bad practice to delete uncivil messages. That just risks starting an edit war or a WP:BATTLE. The correct action is to politely ask the editor to refactor their uncivil message. This tactic provides two benefits: (1) it avoids starting an edit war or argument, (2) it informs the editor how their comments are perceived and helps them improve. I am not keen on editors currently under ArbCom sanctions for WP:BATTLE and WP:TE violations mentoring other editors in the fine art of Civil POV pushing. Please, have some sense about what conversations to join, and which ones to avoid, to prevent the appearance that you're gaming the system. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, only messages being deleted are the ones that are outright vandalism, and not comments that merely need to be refactored.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
That's not what the template said. I just changed the template to avoid dispensing bad advice. In the midst of a heated debate we frequently see false allegations of "vandalism". If something truly needs to be deleted or is vandalism, people will have to have the good sense to identify that situation and apply WP:VANDAL or WP:DENY. Jehochman Talk 16:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It's still considered "uncivil". Both this page and TALK say that such messages can be removed immediately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Then add a note to the template: Comments that are vandalism or blatant trolling may be removed. Let's be crystal clear what we mean. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


  • Agree, that users should ask the folks to refactor first, and they should ask for consensus to peacefully escalate disputes so as to avoid WP:Battle distractions. There can be no battle with peaceful consent to dispute resolution. However, the templates are beneficial when they are not abused. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What about adding this text, including Carolmooredc's suggestion: Comments that are vandalism, blatant trolling, or serious personal attacks may be removed by any editor. Jehochman Talk 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good - except the trolling which is very much in the eye of the beholder and will lead to too many disputes. (Per What is a troll: It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent). Go for it or I will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine, leave out trolling. Severe trolling would look a lot like vandalism anyways. Go for it. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Will give it 24 hours for others to comment. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Throwing a template with a big red warning into a dispute won't help. At best it will be neutral. Most likely, it will just exacerbate the situation. Gerardw (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not been used (to my knowledge) in a dispute, but in high profile pages where rampant IPs just come in to attack editors that are trying to keep a page up to policy standards. It's usually listed just at the top of the page, not in a section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If people are out and out insulting others, despite even visits to WP:ANI and WP:Wikiquette, as I have seen in articles in various topics, it can't hurt as much as the insults. Of course, the refusal of admins to block such people to chill them out is the real problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you got back through the archives of Spider-Man 3 and I think The Dark Knight (film) during the early stages of development for those articles you'll probably see what it was like. The template was originally designed just for those pages and then someone suggested that it be made "mainstream" for other articles that experienced the same problem. It was made "loud" so that it would get your attention and disuade you from making personal attacks on a talk page. Seemed to work too.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This template should be deleted because it is itself uncivil per Wikipedia:Civility#Incivility, and for the same reasons Civil0, Civil1, Civil2, Civil3, and Civil4 were deleted. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is "uncivil" about the template?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Template_talk:Be_civil#TfD? --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus to escalate a dispute over civility

Care to discuss the dispute [7] here peacefully? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You added the material, noting it was a bold edit. It was removed as being nonsensical. What else needs to be said? --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There must have been a misunderstanding, who said obtaining consensus was required and nonsensical by virtue of such? Perhaps we could amend to "In good faith, attempt to obtain consensus ...". That could be said to improve the content here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand how it can be necessary to obtain consensus before escalating a dispute. How is that supposed to work? E.g.: "Person 1: I dispute your edit! I wish to escalate the dispute to the noticeboard. Person 2: No, I don't want you to do that. Nor will I discuss the issue with you. Person 1: Oh dear, in that case policy says I can't escalate, as I have no consensus. Person 2: tee he he" You see the problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, there appears to be a misunderstanding of WP:CON. If someone makes a bold edit to a policy, they should offer a very convincing argument for restoring that edit after it has been removed. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems like you two are constructing faith in the requirement that it is necessary, and then arguing against yourselves. To the point, it is a good faith issue to work for consensus from the beginning, even before escalating a dispute. Please address the good faith issue here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)
Have you ever read Wikipedia:Model Wikipedian? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
We (and MastCell) are the only significant contributors there, so far as I can tell. The Model Wikipedia has faith in others contributions and their ability to achieve consensus, and build constructive content, before deleting or escalating. Would you agree? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was the "build constructive content" bit I was thinking of William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, what do you think of the amended content to this Project, can you accept that is a sufficient goof faith matter, and that is not necessary to obtain consent to escalate? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your question William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe you can propose a constructive method to resolve this, good faith building on the proposed content is well appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. I propose we allow this revert [8] to stand and cease discussing it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, seems like Unclean hands to me. Let's wait and see. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not getting your banter old chap. Never mind - I'm quite happy to fall in with your suggestion to "wait and see" William M. Connolley (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with WMC. Leave it as is. The very idea of "escalating a dispute" is nonsensical. We try to minimize them, not "escalate" them. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It's ok .. I understand, it's just the language of civility. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion isn't just over, no one has bothered to even attempt to support the bold edit. WP:LETGO. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough

When does this policy stop being used as a sledgehammer for the cabal to beat down their enemies, and start being what it was meant to be: a tool to enforce a professional atmosphere?!

Enough is enough!!!!!

Refragatio Est Vacuus (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess if the cabal's enemies started acting civilly, that ought to do it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
myself, I see real enforcement of this policy as needed to deal with some of the members of the cabal,using "cabal" in the sense of long-established editors who are set in their ways and difficult to challenge. It's very easy to deal with rude newcomers. The solution might be some sort of equivalent of 3RR, enforced in a routine manner against everyone, regardless of position, but with moderate penalties, much less than the possibilities of sudden erratic drastic enforcement by arb com or an/i . DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you literally mean everyone, including Jimmy Wales? He, for instance, quite frequently comments on other editors in terms that it would be difficult not to interpret as personal and incivil: "sexist troll" and "toxic personality" spring to mind. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Every mid- or long-term editor has their moments. Even such a sanctimonious but angelic editor as myself knows well when they are sticking the knife in, no matter what the wording employed. I can see two problematic aspects of "civility" from the regulars: biting newcomers with undue language, rather than engaging them on the field of ideas rather than personalities; and editors just falling into habits of uncivil behaviour in certain fora where they have pre-determined how the "scene" works and bully/provoke away, no matter what the initial response. Malleus, I'd invite your own opinions on how well the FA process works with maintaining civility when new editors come along, and conversely your own contributions at WT:RFA where familiarity with the process is a given, but where I've seen you be less than productive in subsequent posts to a thread (i.e. I always read your first post, but everything following seems to rapidly devolve into "did so","did not") (and I'll hasten to note I haven't seen that happen very much lately, but I have seen your habit in the past). You are actually well-placed to comment on where the lines could be drawn around "uncivil" and "whatever", so I'm interested... Franamax (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
My view is very simply expressed by saying that to focus on civility is to focus on the wrong thing. What's important is to treat other editors with respect, the respect that they have demonstrated that they deserve. In some extreme cases that may of course be none at all, but more usually respect will be returned in equal measure to that in which it is offered. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The FAC process is no more able to control incivility than is RfA, so long as it's worded within whatever are considered to be the parameters of the day. Nominators should be treated with respect, reviewers should be treated with respect, RfA candidates should be treated with respect, and supporters/opposers should be treated with respect. Civility is a red herring that's well past its sell-by date. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree pretty much exactly with the ideas you express, but how does that translate into something actionable? My first choice is plain old peer pressure, if you see someone else you know going off the rails then call them on it Can that be worded in here? And although you are completely right, how does that help me use my much-vaunted admin bit? For me, if the dinosaur editors want to tangle with each other on their own user talk pages, whatever. But what should I do when it's a newish editor where someone really experienced arrives somewhere to help them out (which is often good), then another experienced editor shows up diametrically opposed to the first and it turns into a shouting match betweem the the two old dogs? What lesson are we teaching, what editing habits should the new editor adopt? Acting as either an editor or admin, how should I act when I see a clear imbalance? Franamax (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Your "much vaunted admin bit" is arguably nothing more than a nightstick, to beat up and intimidate other editors. If "dinosaur editors" want to dook it out on their own talk pages then where's the harm in letting them? Dr. Blofeld and I recently had a falling out for instance, but we sorted it out between ourselves despite the unnecessary and officious intervention of an administrator. And if he were still here I'm sure he'd agree; we're not all children who need to be protected from a bit of argey-bargey from time to time. Do you have any examples of where your hypothetical situation has cropped up? I doubt that many "old dogs" would be so disrespectful as to carry on an argument on a new editor's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, it is a nightstick and I prefer to remain a figure of quiet menace, muttering about possible consequences whilst letting others break from their pattern of mutual confrontation and arrive at a solution. The best outcome is always the one where I don't have to do anything involving admin permissions, but it is nice to be able to outline "if-this-then-that" scenarios and let the protagonists decide how to proceed when they know I'm capable of acting. A rather Leninist approach maybe, but I try to use a softer touch.
My hypothetical situation I think is a real one, but not on the conditions you posit. Rather my concern is where newer editors proceed through the project space and encounter the back-biting where it is spilling out from individual editor disagreements. Let's say a GA review where two old combatants both show up, or god forbid a newish editor asks a question at WT:MOS. What lessons do they learn? Same goes for RFA, where some poor sucker sees their bid go up in flames because others decide "THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH RFA" and start a flamewar. Incivilty between peers is mostly fine with me, it's when it spills over to an imbalance of experience or onto wider fora that it becomes a concern. Franamax (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Then I think you're not framing your argument correctly. As an example, I was involved in the fallout from the first GA review of this article. My concern was to keep the good editor, and I could give you many more examples like that. The very clear perception is that wikipedia regards editors as easily replaceble resources, therefore the emphasis is on attracting new blood, not on retaining existing contributors. Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, the things that happen while I sleep. I'm laughing, but it's a laugh-because-it-hurts laugh. I mean, there's a certain irony that while I'm trying to discuss appropriate parameters for the civility policy with you someone else comes along and throws you a totally spurious civility block. Kind of stomps all over whatever points I was trying to make, but at least we have a data point for the "when not to block" area of the graph. Bloody embarrassing. Maybe we can resume the discussion at a later date, I could see where you might be pretty pissed-off right now. Franamax (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been paying sufficient attention here, but did check out the block and it was pretty innocuous by itself - not to mention in comparison to some of the horrendous things I've seen. It's just flabbergasting. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution the debate has narrowed to how to more easily impose blocks for truly obnoxious behavior that tends to be ignored (usually in my experience because a little gang of buddies of the "flamer" comes in and trashes the complainant). CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Franamax: pissed off is somewhat of an understatement. The administrator is claiming however that it wasn't a civility block, but was to prevent me from continuing to disrupt the project. I'm not laughing, I'm quietly seething. Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is why we should try to avoid civility/NPA issues being decided by individuals if at all possible. See my proposal below for getting the community to decide these things. Rd232 talk 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: there's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution#Punitive_blocks_pre-endorsed_by_the_community. Rd232 talk 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For a very funny and only barely exaggerated on some articles rant about incivility on Wikipedia see the Independent article Wikipedia: This is a man's world. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to open up discussion to add sexual orientation to the list of derogatory references that are listed as direct rudeness under this policy. More clearly, this sentence:

"(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;"

would become:

"(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, religious slurs, as well as slurs based on sexual orientation, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;"

The wording can clearly be changed but I think this is absolutely a necessary addition to the policy. Thoughts? Comments? Also, if I have posted this or gone about this in the wrong way, please point me in the right direction. WMO 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support the concept, but would prefer tighter wording:
"(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, sexual orientation and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;"Gerardw (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not clear this also means attacks on women as women. Sexual could be a gender free sex term used against a male or female; sexual orientation usually means GLBT. So where is it clear not to insult women for being women? (Which does happen; I won't even go into the attacks on women who dare to opine and fight for their position, attacks made without specific sexual references.)
Couple suggestions to get us thinking, not necessarily the best, especially since I don't like the word "gender" to mean women or sexism:
1 -"(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, sexist, homophobic and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
2 -"(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It means rudeness based on sex, gender, or sexual preference regardless of specific content. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the first one. Perhaps replacing homophobic with "anti-LGBT" could also be desirable? What does everyone think of that? It appears that there is support to the addition of sexual orientation to the civility policy. WMO 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course everyone here knows that use of the proposed derogatory references in relation to other editors is prohibited, however the suggestion to tighten the wording is contrary to how policies are organized in general. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we do not spell out every bad idea. Anyone who reads the current WP:Civility#Identifying incivility should be in no doubt that derogatory references of any kind are not permitted, and there is no need to cover every possible insult (what about yo mamma?). We see the difficulties that result when trying to cover all bases by the above point that "homophobic" is not quite the correct term. Furthermore, the current wording already links to NPA which covers the situation (see WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?). Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with John. I would also like to add that the MoS is bloated and unwieldy due in part to overexplanations like this. Taken case by case they don't seem bad, but when added together they result in a several hundred page series of guidelines that could be halved in size. Also I don't think anyone needs to be told not to call a gay guy a fag, a lesbian a dike, or a woman a dumb broad. I can't believe thats necessary. AaronY (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is long enough to accomodate a couple more categories. Change sexual to sexist in the current rendition and the problem will be solved, from my perspective anyway. And others can opine on theirs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I find John and Aaron's points persuasive; per WP:CREEP support leaving as is. Gerardw (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Somebody, not me, made up this list of sexist attacks on wikipedia. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Appreciated the collection of precedent, something that Wikipedia has neglected for fair administration. However, the list is sexists; because, the same issues happen to both sexes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Please raise any recent sexist problems somewhere (I guess here or WP:WQA; if elsewhere, link to it from here). I am pretty sure that sexist comments directed at another editor would be regarded as a bad breach of CIVIL, but the more generic issue of people trolling or making stupid jokes is harder to handle, and would not be fixed by tweaking the wording here. For reference, related issues were inconclusively discussed at Jimbo's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, even changing that language addresses just a small part of the problem. The bigger problem is not explicitly sexist comments as much it is a) that some guys are much more hostile to females, especially those who disagree with them than they are males and b) women don't like hostile competitive environments and will leave them sooner unless they know incivility will be deal with quickly and effectively. Putting in language against explicitly sexist language would be one little help; swift, short blocks on uncivil editors, including against groups of editors who gang up on one editor (male or female) would be a bigger help. This is one reason that a big part of the recent RfC on dispute resolution was more short blocks for incivility. (And that has to be careful overseen since some Admins block for relatively innocuous comments, while others allow quite nasty stuff to pass.) Of course, I've found civility has increased a bit on a couple contentious articles where I know editors knew about the recent initiatives regarding women, so raising consciousness remains the number two strategy, after getting more uppity women involved, which is number one. (Also, FYI, recently found this Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Civility_restrictions which was a relevant 2008 discussion.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Carol; sexist slurs should be explicitly mentioned here. I don't consider that CREEP; it's more important than some of the categories we do mention. For example, we have "racial", "ethnic", and "nationalities"; if we have room for three adjectives on those related concepts, there's room for addressing gender. (The same goes for the corresponding list at NPA.) --JN466 05:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Carol and Jayen. As well, sexist comments can be more subtle than an explicit slur. For example, a woman who stands up to a discussion rather than running away has been called aggressive, and that point used in an arbitration as pejorative. I doubt male editors would be considered aggressive given the same comments and the same situation.(olive (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC))
Just to confirm, are we agreeing the language we want to see is additions in bold: "(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, sexist, homophobic and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
Note, sexual is different from sexist or homophobic since it can be a sexual comment without a specific sexist or homophobic reference. Like "you all need to get F*** in the a**" or "You can all *** my ****." Just to be clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Perhaps this sequence might work: "racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic, sexual and religious slurs..." but I am fine either way. --JN466 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Carols version has a slightly different meaning than does Jayen's....There are attacks: racial, ethnic, sexual... and there are slurs: sexist, homophobic, and religious.....If that differentiation isn't being made then either version is fine. If it is then Carols's version might be better.(olive (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC))
"Sexual attack" carries a completely connotation to "ethnic attack", for instance. A sexual attack is a physical thing, not some words on a web site. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a misunderstanding, Olive. The only thing I meant to change was the order of the adjectives. The wording intended was "(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;" --JN466 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Jayen, makes sense and your version seems fine to me.(olive (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

Sexual innuendo

Sexual innuendo is appropriately listed as an example of a violation of civility. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cursing at bots?

Now we all know it's bad to be uncivil to other users, but what about bots? If you call, say ClueBot, a d-bag, is that uncivil? He's technically an editor, but he doesn't have the ability to get offended or respond. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well bots have programmer/operators that could get offended. But incivility is uncool regardless of whether the "target" is offended or not, because it's a violation of the WP community norms. I don' t know that frustration cursing at a bot would itself be uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but usually you would cuss on your own page or in an edit summary or possibly talk. It's unlikely the operator or programmer would know unless you contact them or they happen to be editing there. =p Yep, the idea was cursing out of frustration. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Impeach

Sorry, is this the place to impeach uncivility or there is a special administrator? I ask because of this: To impeach vandalism there is a special page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.75.48 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alertsis probably a good place to start. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this civility???

:Ahh don't give me that bullshit. I get so sick of single purpose editors telling me this shit. No where in your extensive edit history have you reported a problem nor sought dispute resolution. Now take your complaints to the proper venue before you really piss me off and I say something you regret. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
???? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User RFC

I don't think we want to go into a lot of detail for RFC criteria as these are spelled out on the RFC page. Gerardw (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Vulgar jokes

I've seen several instances recently where disputes have arisen due to people posting vulgar, offensive, and/or sexist jokes on article talk pages. Although our demographics skew heavily towards young heterosexual males, article talk pages are not locker rooms and such behavior is certainly not "civil". More importantly, such behavior can create a very unwelcoming environment for women (as well as people from other cultures/religions/backgrounds) and discourage their participation. (To understand why, please read through Why sexualized environments are criticised.) As we are supposed to treat each other as colleagues on Wikipedia, asking for a minimum level of respect and professionalism doesn't seem unreasonable in these cases. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you Kaldari for bringing this up. I recently saw the talk page edits for the Pregnancy article.. I was shocked by the joke that was placed on the page (a medical joke about a woman getting sodomized) and didn't find it funny that the editor seemed to be using it as a clever way to wrap up a heated and intense conversation about photographs in the article. I couldn't believe that someone actually posted it. For me, Wikipedia is my volunteer work place. Behavior like that would never be tolerated in most workplaces (sexual harassment and sexual jokes? illegal in my workplace), and it's hard to know that my opinions are mocked in vulgar and/or hurtful jokes. I am not perfect, I have a temper and I get frustrated, but, I also believe that it's not hard to "be nice" and have "good manners" on Wikipedia. People wonder why we struggle to retain editors :( SarahStierch (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur that offensive jokes don't belong on talk pages. What actions are you suggesting? Gerardw (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the "sexual innuendo" item under "Identifying incivility" could be expanded to "sexual innuendo or vulgar jokes". They are similar behaviors with similar effects, in my opinion. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Made the change. However, I suspect that by itself it won't change anything unless the community pushes back against the vulgar jokes when and where they are made. Silence is consent. Gerardw (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
They seem to me to be quite different things. How would you define a "vulgar joke"? Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
@Malleus: I would define Vulgar jokes more or less as defined here.
@Kaldari and all: I also agree with the general idea here, but share Gerard's question about what specific action would be best. I think in general, it is rather meaningless to have a policy requiring civility, if comments deemed uncivil cannot be redacted from discussion pages. I have had difficulties with this in the past, not specifically around vulgar jokes, but most prominently in RfAs. If we mean what we say about civility, we should have wording in the policy, and accept practices, of removing uncivil comments. -Pete (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)First step should be to ask the editor posting the comment to remove it, and that can be done under current policy. Gerardw (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Distasteful [[9]]. Is there a need for jokes on talk pages? I don't think they contribute to making better articles and humor is frequently very culturally sensitive. Gerardw (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Who's going to be the judge, and which culture will be considered the standard? You only have to look at the differences between British and American television to see that very different standards are applied across the world. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Begs the question -- is there a need or benefit to jokes on talk pages? If not, the standard is if it's offensive to any reasonable editor, it doesn't belong. Gerardw (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm astonished that you even question whether social oil is of benefit. Let's remind ourselves as well that offence is one of those things that can't be given, it can only be taken. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • ?? Are you being sarcastic? Per Kaldari: "As we are supposed to treat each other as colleagues on Wikipedia, asking for a minimum level of respect and professionalism doesn't seem unreasonable in these cases." I shared that link to provide examples of what vulgar/crude jokes are for those that needed a "cited source" SarahStierch (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm simply trying to remind you that this is not a professional environment. In a professional environment you would know the people you were addressing. They wouldn't be walking around wearing masks, and thus you would be able to learn what they did or didn't find acceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
And you failed to remind me, because, oddly enough, I know a large portion of these folks offline and many of them don't wear masks. I might not know every jokester, but, I do know a jerk or a rude person when I see them, and usually the users who make these offensive jokes that serve up an unhealthy environment often fall into one of those two categories. SarahStierch (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No, you have failed to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The term "professional" is very useful, even if used metaphorically. We are trying to do something serious here -- build an encyclopedia in a civil, collaborative manner. Malleus, if you would like to propose a better term to capture that concept, please do; but if not, let's just stick with "professional." Nobody is under the illusion that this is our paying job. -Pete (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you may redefine the word "professional" in any way you choose, but I prefer to stick with the dictionary definition. The two key concepts of "professional" are pay and competence, nothing to do with collaboration or civility. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
From Wiktionary: "Of, pertaining to, or in accordance with the (usually high) standards of a profession." (emphasis added.) Again, if there is a term you prefer, please just suggest it -- I can't imagine anyone would have a problem with adopting more precise terminology to help us through this discussion. -Pete (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
As much as I dislike vulgar jokes myself, Wikipedian is not yet a profession, except perhaps to a small number or PR people and self-promoters, and even for them, it's probably just part time. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Because so many different cultures share space on Wikipedia English, we need to refrain from making jokes that could be offensive, misogynistic, or racist. Talk pages need to be welcoming of all people who want to discuss content. Vulgar jokes are offputting to many people for numerous reasons. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
If these "vulgar" or hateful jokes were about African Americans or Jews, for example, and people made them freely here and there, they could be banned from editing, at least on relevant topics. One person last spring was banned from editing articles about Jews not because they made nasty jokes, but because they either quoted multiple reliable sources who made generalizations about Jews that editors considered politically incorrect and/or "antisemitic", or they quoted a lot of people who said nasty things about Jews allegedly in the guise of criticizing the people who said these things. Perhaps others have been banned for similar reasons on religious/racial/ethnic grounds. If sufficient evidence of such a pattern IS grounds for banning people on a topic, than it should apply equally to at least a one day block for a dirty joke about women, with escalating blocks if the behavior continues. (Also note that under WP:ARBPIA people can be blocked and eventually banned from editing on the Israel Palestine topic if they once and/or repeatedly accuse others of being antisemitic, depending on the circumstances, showing that there is some sensitivity on both sides of the issue.) CarolMooreDC 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
+1 The idea of a ban for a day is a pretty powerful and really great idea, honestly. I'm also glad you made the point about race. SarahStierch (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are we singling out "dirty jokes" about women, rather than "dirty jokes" about men? Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Because that was the example, as seen in the Pregnancy article. Again, any "dirty joke" is unacceptable regardless of gender specifics for a public forum such as Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The policy this edit violates is WP:RD2:

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs.

I'd love to see your definition of "ordinary" incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Gross means of exaggerated quality. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't asking about "gross", I was asking about "ordinary". Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading the discussion that led to that joke being told, I disagree it was grossly uncivil. The joke was given as analogy with editors' requests that some pictures were objectionable. So a joke about pictures in medical context vs. lay context was not a bad analogy. A simpler way to put it would have been "in the eye of the beholder", but there was nothing grossly uncivil about using that joke to illustrate that objections to pictures in those terms speak of one's biases. Removing that analogy for RD2 would have been an abuse of administrative privileges though. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion will never end as there are irreconcilable views involved—however the matter does not need to be resolved. I do not think that the obvious should be added to WP:CIVIL, and there is no need to say that vulgar jokes are uncivil, and there is certainly no need to define vulgar. I agree with those who found the joke at Talk:Pregnancy inappropriate—just remove the unhelpful comment (i.e. remove the joke, as was done). If an edit war breaks out, the matter should be escalated to some noticeboard where the community would have to decide on a case-by-case basis what commentary should be removed. No wording can be added to WP:CIVIL that would help identify exactly when a joke is or is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with your procedural comment, the important thing is that those who are most likely to be offended (women) are not as likely to aggressively pursue a comment to a forum. Even I who am known as a pretty aggressive editor didn't take people to forums for the first couple years and only have gotten really good at it over last 18 months or so. Maybe if we have and widely publicize a HOW TO FIGHT SEXIST VULGARITY essay that teaches women the joys and techniques of fighting vulgar sexism through appropriate complaints to appropriate noticeboards that would help. Lots of women fighting back is the only thing that will change the culture. CarolMooreDC 04:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: This is indeed the approach I have taken in the past. However, in every case it has required lengthy discussions and tediously building consensus in order to overrule the vocal minority who seem to believe that there is no harm in such jokes and feel it is their duty to defend against "censorship". In the case of the Rubyfruit Jungle talk page, it took 4 years, 10 editors, discussions on two different forums, and two edit wars to remove a joke posted by an anonymous IP about how vaginas smell like fish. What an epic waste of time and effort! The whole reason we have policies is so that the same arguments don't have to be hashed out time and time again. On the issue of definitions, I don't think there is any need for us to define "vulgar jokes". It is a fairly universal concept (even if the standards may vary somewhat) and I think it is understandable enough to be useful in situations like the ones mentioned above. Kaldari (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: I agree that editors need to resist junk. On an unrelated matter, I used to patrol WP:MfD to assist the removal of inappropriate user space NOTWEBHOST problems (haven't had time for that lately). One recurring theme there was "what harm does it [some silly page] do?". My answer (which never convinced the questioner) was that tolerating stuff which does not assist the encyclopedia will lead to good editors (i.e. those who agree with me!) being overwhelmed by the social network generation, and there is a real risk that eventually policies would be watered down to turn articles into coatracks.
However, I think a better title for the proposed essay would be needed. In much the same way that the discussion above will never resolve what harm does it do? in relation to jokes, a specific essay on fighting sexist vulgarity would only attract the NOTCENSORED crowd who would think their human right to say what they like is being offended. Instead, I would suggest something more generic: unhelpful commentary should be removed from talk pages. Of course that needs a lot of explanation, but WP:TPG is a start. I would argue that vulgar jokes should be removed not because they might offend someone, but because the point is probably unhelpful, and is probably too confusing for someone trying to follow a discussion on an improvement to the encyclopedia. I'm sure occasional exceptions will arise, but no guideline can define when a joke would be helpful, so an essay should encourage editors to oppose material that does not assist the encyclopedia, and should explain the procedures (never edit war; how to escalate; choose which battles are worth pursuing). @Kaldari: I'll read your comment and try to respond a little later. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I had a quick look at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle. The problem there was that an editor renowned for their unique judgment opposed the attempts to remove the joke on the basis that the nonsense had been posted five years previously (btw, that editor is currently blocked for a week after following their judgment in other topics, and their next block is likely to be indefinite). Unfortunately, the argument that there is no reason to fiddle with five-year old comments has merit, and that's the problem with trying to base policy on hard-to-define issues like no vulgar jokes—counter arguments will always be available. If I were the first to respond to such a joke I would remove it with edit summary "remove per WP:TPG", but it's not so easy when other editors have already started discussion, or when someone indistinguishable from a troll objects. While I don't like to burden WP:ANI with trivia, I think that after a couple of rounds of remove/add/discuss, I would take it to ANI and appeal for an admin to invoke WP:IAR to nuke the unhelpful discussion (archiving is always an option). People do not like instruction creep, and particularly given the definition problems, I cannot see that attempting to add no vulgar jokes is going to give a good result. While I agree that no definition is needed, others will point out that what is vulgar to one group is not to another. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • An user is being warned in an ArbCom case about making sexualized jokes and comments. See the evidence. Spelling out the problem in policy, as well as it being good for the editing environment, is a service to users so that they are forewarned that they could end up in hot water. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
"Ok, Bob, tell me the truth now, are you hoping to get a date from Ms Oda Mari?" is pretty far from reminding people about personal biases by recounting an extant joke about an individual who sees a penis for every rectangle, told in order to illustrate the "in the eye of the beholder" problem. ArbCom didn't even sanction the editor who made the "get a date" comment. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, I support spelling out in policy that vulgar jokes are among the things that are not acceptable here, and I also support ensuring that they are not accepted here (e.g. by immediate removal, and blocking of persistent offenders). Same applies generally to examples of incivility. No reason to continue to tolerate this kind of thing when we're trying to attract more and "better" editors. Doesn't matter that we can't define vulgarity precisely - we don't have any need for jokes at all, so the fact that at least one colleague was offended should be enough to convince the poster that it wasn't appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Concur the jokes are not acceptable and policy should reflect that. One colleague offended standard is too low, as editors would attempt to use that to game the system when in conflict with other editors. Gerardw (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
OK but I mean genuinely offended, obviously making spurious claims of offendedness (or of anything) would itself be disruptive.--Kotniski (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, given what a waste of time going through the procedures are to remove one stupid comment, one does start to look to the authoritarian approach: give a couple people the right to remove the most obnoxious comments and block anyone who puts them back. (Or maybe some anon IP will take up the job of finding all the nasty jokes and coming up with even nastier ones of the same ilk that would offend the manhood of the joker so much he'd compromise and remove both. RobinHood meets Zorro, feminist style. A girl can dream.) CarolMooreDC 13:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Administrators have the right now using WP:RD2. It does not take an oversighter, let along the Arbitration Committee. Wikipedia:Civility is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I have not removed this example as we have discussed it, quite productively and people need to be able to view it. Context is important; dirty jokes have a place, but probably not on the talk page of "pregnancy". User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
More constructive, though perhaps more controversial: Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism could have a permanent listing of vulgar jokes and encourage feminists to comment to the page or the maker until it was removed. Hmmm.... CarolMooreDC 13:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Nah, just quietly remove them, don't discuss them, don't allow them to become the source of drama - let it become the norm (easier said than done, I know) that editors don't restore comments that have been removed on reasonable grounds of offensiveness, and if they do they can expect to be blocked fairly rapidly.--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Although I prefer not to side with the speech police and my own talk page is open to ribaldry, hostile sexual jokes are indefensible. This does not place me in disagreement with Malleus above, however: keeping a sense of humor is good "social oil". But regarding the unbelievable obstinacy at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle, this was a vulgar and offensive remark without context in any discussion; it was mere vandalism, and Kaldari's application of the policy was entirely apt. I don't like the thought of banning humor, nor requiring a robotic tone; in dealing with cultural or individual differences or sensitivities, in real life one says "I'm offended by that" and expects the behavior to stop. A person who persists in or defends such behavior can no longer claim to be greasing the social wheels; this is by definition not civil. I don't see why applying WP:RD2 should be controversial; just delete the crap. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I favor clear policies that focus efforts on building the encyclopedia, so would welcome a consensus to reinstate the edit by Gerardw which inserted the underlined text in "sexual innuendo or vulgar jokes" under "Other uncivil behaviors". However, I suspect that this page is of concern to those with a particular interest in civility and I'm pretty sure that some of the wider community would not accept an argument based on "at least one colleague was offended" (we have lots of articles which offend editors: one trivial example is astrology which, depending on who is currently in control, offends either its opponents or its proponents). If I were supporting the removal of a joke, rather than looking for someone who was offended, I would prefer arguments based on "not helpful for the encyclopedia/community", or "may encourage further inappropriate usage of talk pages". Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think many of us agree - it' also "not helpful for the encyclopiedic/community," as some of us are stating above (above above this..). It's not professional, it's not a healthy environment, and I promise you if you showed that joke on the talk page to a user who is interested in reading about pregnancy (a generally "serious" topic - no one reads the Pregnancy article to find Carol Burnett jokes about it) they'd most likely find it offensive. I was offended and it's environments like that made me not want to contribute more frequently until the past year. I had a hard time seeing people get verbally attacked and its an often sexualized environment (which I couldn't figure out because this is an encyclopedia - the only excuse was "this is the internet") that makes some people uncomfortable. This isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica, it's Wikipedia, and if someone wants to make stupid tasteless sexist/racist/vulgar/etc. jokes, go there, or perhaps a private mailing list for them and their buddies. You can't deny that people get offended by jokes like that, and if they translated it, I'm sure many people would also be offended regardless of language/culture. Something has to be done to make a statement and show that immature, hurtful behavior isn't welcome on Wikipedia or we're going to sit around for years having these conversations. Something needs to change from within if we ever intend on continuing to be taken seriously. On that note, I'm sure Public Policy programs and doctors would love to see jokes like that when considering their students working with Wikipedia. Let's do this, it wouldn't take long and it seems to have support of everyone but two people here (I believe). SarahStierch (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh for pity's sake. The comment on the Rubyfruit Jungle talk page could have been removed by anyone at any time because it does not meet talk page guidelines (specifically, it has no relation to the subject of the article). Don't add things to this page that are already covered by other policies and guidelines. One of the main reasons that this policy is essentially unenforceable is that it is a coatrack, and almost everything that's here is covered somewhere else. Blocking for "civility" violations has rarely had any positive effect except when it is a permanent removal from the project; nobody has ever become "more civil" as a result of a short block, and there are strong correlations between increased embitterment and hostility following such blocks. "Vulgar jokes" - a phrase that means radically different things to different people - can easily be handled in other ways, particularly by removal. Risker (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The joke at Rubyfruit Jungle was removed, multiple times by multiple people, but each time it was restored with the explanation that WP:TPOC prohibited such deletion.[10] A similar course occurred with the pregnancy article. In both cases, the poster (or someone else) claimed that the joke was related to the subject of the article or other talk page discussion and thus could not be removed. The only recourse in these situations is either argue that the joke is not civil or take the rather drastic step of deleting the revision under Wikipedia:RD2 (which is sure to evoke controversy). It would be nice if someone could point to this page, say that such jokes aren't civil and firmly request the poster to remove it. It seems like the most drama-free possible solution in my opinion. Other solutions have been tried and have proven ineffective. I agree that instruction creep is evil, but every once in a while it is necessary to put something in writing so that people can be shown, "yes, this is an established community norm". My experiences with this issue lead me to believe that this is exactly such a case. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
See now, part of my problem with this notion is that I don't think it has anything at all to do with civility; it's bad talk page hygiene, but I am not persuaded that stupid things on talk pages (whether or not they're jokes, rude, or anything else) are civility problems. It appears that the user who keeps putting this particular comment back in is one who is already in a fair amount of hot water, and I believe that this issue should be pointed out on his talk page and the ANI report about him, with a proposal that he be topic banned from that page. Another part of the problem is that pointing to this page will make no difference whatsoever; as I've already pointed out, because it's such a coatrack, it's unenforceable, and I have never seen an effective use of this policy in enforcing any kind of behaviour, let alone something like this. Do the root cause analysis of the reason that that particular page is being edited in this way, and I believe you'll find that civility has little to do with it, nor does the content itself - it is the act of annoying people that is producing the desired effect. ("Haha, they're going to change a policy because of me!") To me, that is not a vulgar joke - mostly because it isn't a joke. It's a troll. Risker (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be guidance somewhere (probably WP:TPG) for what editors should do in a situation like the Rubyfruit joke. Your suggestion of raising the matter on the user's talk and then at ANI for a topic ban only applies when one editor who is known for trouble is retaining bad material. What should other editors do when one trouble-free editor (or a couple of such editors) think a tasteless comment is so funny/harmless that it should be retained? WP:WQA then WP:ANI? Normally WQA would be a waste of time (and may feed a troubled editor), but perhaps a culture of quickly agreeing on how WP:TPG should be interpreted in a particular case may arise at WQA, with a quick escalation to ANI when the WQA result is not accepted. Then, we would need a culture at ANI of quickly responding to nonsense. Or are you suggesting that junk on talk pages is not such a problem that a response is needed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPG would need to be changed. The current wording:

doesn't support removing jokes. I'd support updating the guideline to include offensive jokes which do not contribute to the discussion. Gerardw (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that specifically mentioning "offensive jokes" is going to attract unwelcome attention, although I would be glad to be shown wrong on that. Ultimately it's not the fact that someone is offended that is the problem, it is the degree to which off-topic commentary is tolerated. The thrust of TPG should be to avoid NOTFORUM violations. What is a violation can be contentious and TPG might say that disputed removals should be escalated to WQA where the community can (quickly, I hope) resolve whether a particular talk page comment or thread should be removed on the basis that it is counter to building a community that will build the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem is that someone is offended, rather than whether some WP:XYZ has been "violated". A mildly off-topic remark that doesn't have the capacity to upset anyone would probably not be removed, and such remarks in moderation can be good for the community spirit. But off-topic offensive remarks (jokes, whatever) need to go, preferably quickly and quietly, to prevent them from doing the twin damage of (a) distracting from on-topic discussion and (b) putting people off contributing to WP.--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that whole above statement needs to be looked at with a fresh set of eyes (I've never read it until now). Anything in that statement can bring unwanted attention - that is why we have a community of people who monitor things to remove that unwanted attention and deal with it. Perhaps having the "unwanted attention" can up cleanse the environment a bit, as well. People are sarcastic (internet fail!), snappy and rude enough on Wikipedia, and I just think that means they are jerks in the real world, but, and sadly those types are the vocal minority in some specific situations leading some people to not want to participate. It needs to be something that the average user can feel empowered to use to provide a healthy environment and to know that it is *ok* to be offended and remove that material. You have to remember - most people don't know what WQA's, TPG's, etc (I don't, actually) - we need to have accessible policies so that every user can find them, check the boxes off and go about handling it in a simple and easy manner - deletion or having access to a list of volunteers who can help patrol. Just some ideas - but I'm an advocate for "non-Wikispeak" in policy. SarahStierch (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue I am raising here is not about off-topic content. While vulgar jokes are almost always off-topic, they represent a more fundamental problem for the project, which is definitely tied to the issue of civility. The heart of the matter is that vulgar jokes create an unwelcoming sexualized environment that drive away certain contributors (especially women). This hurts our efforts to build a better encyclopedia and thus should not be casually accepted. Yes, the Rubyfruit Jungle example is not a good example of a civility violation (its closer to blatant trolling). I was using it as an example of the fact that simply deleting the joke generally doesn't work. In fact, in cases where such jokes are made by established editors, I usually don't take any action at all and just remain silent since I don't have anything in policy to cite and I don't want to have to spend my whole day explaining why such jokes hurt the project. All I'm asking for is something in a guideline or policy (any guideline or policy) that specifically discourages vulgar degrading jokes. I don't need it to be enforceable, I just need something to point to so that I have a leg to stand on in such situations. Just knowing that it's mentioned in a policy will make me more likely to proactively address this type of behavior, which I think is the first step to improving things. Even if I lose the debate regarding a particular joke, at least the poster will be less likely to continue posting vulgar jokes if they know they are likely to be challenged. Please be assured that I am not proposing this change casually. I have dealt with this issue for many years (due primarily to my involvement in women-related articles), and have come to the frustrating conclusion that the current policies do not adequately support my efforts to keep talk-page dialog civil and welcoming. I don't think the change I'm suggesting is especially crufty or coat-racky, in fact I think it is actually an important point for us to clarify as a community, especially if we hope to make any progress retaining a higher percentage of women editors. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Ahem. Woman editor here, please don't play that card; there are plenty of men who find vulgar language disturbing too. Vulgar language is lacking in taste and boorish, coarse and common. It's grounds to roll eyes (and think to one's self "what are you, 12?"), not to block people. There's a huge leap between vulgar and offensive (the latter of which I would classify as "offending most people who read it"). The example on which this proposal is based is clearly trolling, and its reinsertion also trolling. It's not a vulgar joke, because it isn't a joke. I'm not seeing anyone coming up with any other examples that were not addressed by other policies and guidelines.

As I write this, another longterm editor has proposed the "facepalm" template for deletion, because some people use it in a sarcastic or ironic (rather than self-deprecating) way. I could throw in there the "like" button and the "wikilove" templates, because they're often used sarcastically and ironically, too. Almost every page on this project will contain something that someone finds offensive or rude or vulgar or disturbing in some way. (Remember, we still have skirmishes about wikiproject templates on a regular basis.) Trolling comments that are mischaracterized as vulgar jokes is probably not even close to the top 10. Risker (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really glad you said that. I find the implication that it's only male editors likely to post vulgar jokes, and only female editors likely to be upset by them, to be somewhat offensive in itself. We're all people, regardless of our gender, and we all have feelings. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, the other thing that crosses my mind is that there is little hesitation on the part of administrators to use revision deletion to remove these very kinds of comments from other pages (noticeboards in particular), so it strikes me that this issue is already covered. I don't think this is even close to a significant reason that women are leaving/not editing the project: instant CSD from new page patrol, heavy use of officious templates associated with automated tools, and instablocking/threatening of potential COI accounts are all much more serious issues. The templates in particular strike me as threatening in a lot of ways, and I'm pretty sure if I'd wound up with one of them on my talk page within the first dozen edits, I'd have been gone. So we have plenty of ways to drive people away that are all well within policy, long before we worry about "fish" comments on talk pages. Risker (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you about templates. The problem, or at least part of it, is that they look official, and therefore intimidating. I am still steaming mad about having an ArbCom enforcement template dumped on my talk page a week or so ago, so they do little to cool the atmosphere. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned women in particular is because 100% of the cases I have seen involve jokes that are degrading to women. Yes, it is possible to tell vulgar jokes that are degrading to men, I just haven't seen them on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why you think they're only degrading to women, Kaldari. Trolling is deliberately intended to create strong reactions in everyone and anyone, and I think the examples given here were quite successful in doing just that. Risker (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Many of the jokes are specifically about women. For example, how buying jewelry is the best way to get a women to orgasm. How is that degrading to anyone other than women? Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(Kind of outdent, actually responding to something mid-thread) I just removed that whole talkpage section about the Rubyfruit "joke", as it wasn't related to article improvement, and hasn't had the "joke" in there for months, and it didn't make any sense to have the discussion but delete the reason for the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

I'm female and I tell filthy jokes. I find them hilarious. I'd rather work with someone with a sense of humor than someone without. I'm more offended by 19 Kids and Counting than I am by humorous comparisons of vaginas to fish. Tell those Fundies to put on some shorts for God's sake.

NewYorkBrad said during a NYC meeting I attended a year ago that early in his Wikicareer he saw someone on Wikipedia downgrade an article he was working on from Mid to Low importance. He got his feelings hurt with that. Bottom line: there's no way to tell what's going to hurt someone's feelings. If you're going to be on the same venue that hosts 4chan--the Internet--you need to get a thicker skin. Blocking people for telling off-color jokes, or removing something you find offensive on a talk page where everyone else finds it awesome will itself become a joke. If women are trying to find a place to work where it's all chai latte and soothing Enya all the time, this ain't it. It's not likely to become that kind of place either. --Moni3 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So our standard for civility is the same as 4chan? We're just "the internet"? If that is the case, why do we have a civility policy? I guess if people want to make jokes about raping women and children, I should just get a sense of humor and forget about it. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps what you really need is a sense of proportion. At least until it becomes possible to rape someone (male or female) via a computer screen. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
e/c I said our standard of civility is 4chan? Remarkable how I don't remember saying that. Communication on the Internet is very different than real life communication. Wikipedia is on the Internet. So is 4chan. Wikipedia topics include many 4chan topics, even basic ones like fuck. Vandalism comes in many forms. How regular users aren't inured to the language used in vandalism I don't know.
And I don't know why we have a civility policy. I think it gets in the way of true communication. And this is the first time anyone has mentioned rape or raping anything or anyone. (ctrl+F to check) This is a strange bend of the discussion. First it's about the smell of vaginas and now that I posted my opinion that I don't care, it's about raping? Why wasn't that mentioned at ANI or the person warned and blocked for that? Is this the true crux of the problem or did you just get frustrated? --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
What I've never understood, and never will, is why we have a civility policy and a no personal attacks policy. In what way does one differ from the other? Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari, there is a discussion on one of the WMF public mailing lists where a longtime user mentioned an interaction he had observed/been involved in (I believe at another project), where several users discussed how they would go about getting a video of a rape, for the explicit purpose of posting such a video into the Rape article. Now, *that* worries me. Nobody's mentioned any "jokes" about rape, and I'd have no problems at all sanctioning an editor for making such a comment/joke (heck, I've voted to sanction someone for suggesting that a male and female editor were dating when it was used to devalue someone's comments), but it has nothing to do with the civility policy. Risker (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I keep coming back to the many women I've worked with and work with here on Wikipedia, including you Moni3, easily as many as the men I've worked with, and I honestly don't see any difference in their tolerance for jokes, vulgar or otherwise, or the likelihood that they'll turn out to be fragile little things likely to crack if they hear a rude word. Remember the Donner Party Moni? What that demonstrated pretty well is women are the tougher sex, not the weaker. And I've long cherished what some might consider a vulgar comment made to me by one female administrator: "You are a dick of porn star proportions". Was I upset? Not in the slightest. How can you be upset when you're doubled up with laughter. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. This edit summary was directed at me. Made me lol. Bad edit, but good edit summary. --Moni3 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually on reflection I was a bit upset, as it really ought to have been "porn-star proportions"; I really don't like sloppy English. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is absolutely disheartening to me. If you guys feel that jokes with punchlines like "My mom's fucking the turkey" and "A woman's anus after being sodemized" are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia, then I guess I don't belong here. For some reason I thought Wikipedia was different than the rest of the internet and actual took civility seriously. Apparently, I'm wrong. Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 I feel the same way. :( SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 They contribute nothing to the project. – SJ + 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm unreasonable, but I would totally say that thing about the turkey. The sodomy thing, less. But that's someone's compulsion to shock. Sodomy itself is not offensive but rape is implied in that comment if one tries hard enough. Clearly, however, the editor who made the joke about the sodomy must have experience with it. I'd wager on the receiving end. Oh, shit. Receiving end. Did you catch? Nevermind.
So what are you trying to accomplish, Kaldari? I mean, you can't be trying to ban all humor that might be construed as offensive somewhere someplace. That would be impossible and my block log would be a mile long. The inherent truth in comments that are very degrading to women is that they are made by males, probably, who have themselves been degraded and who are trying desperately to shift the focus to those they feel should shoulder that cultural responsibility. They've done their job when you get degraded, humiliated, or otherwise offended. Their job can't be done and they have to face that women should not have to accept the responsibility for being lower on the cultural totem pole when you remind them of their own flawed history of being degraded themselves. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to look the other way in 90% of questionable jokes on Wikipedia. The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is establishing a way to successfully fight against the 10% of dirty jokes on Wikipedia that really are degrading and offensive (and occasionally misogynist). If you can tell me a way that I can do that without edit warring, I'm perfectly willing to listen. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
As I've responded to you on my talk page, Kaldari: disruptive and/or trolling remarks, which is what you're getting at here (vulgarity is too low level) should be reason to use your admin tools. Revision delete them. Sanction the offenders, and don't be afraid to use your block button (I'd say go straight to indef until you have agreement that this will not recur). In fairness to Moni3, yep, if you were to make some of those comments, I'd be trouting you as well. Degrading remarks are degrading to all who come in contact with them; men shouldn't get the idea that the odour clings less to them than to women. Risker (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that this sort of provokes people of all genders. I think current policy may suffice - though Kaldari's wording suggestion also seems fine to me - but we do need to discourage people who think that others who are offended by things "should just get over it". If a single person tells you you wrote something offensive, and it's not important to improving the project, the polite thing is to retract it. (If you think it is important to the point you were trying to make, you should be able to politely explain that.) – SJ + 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: I get your point about being less timid and just removing offensive content and blocking people who are being disruptive, but the wording at WP:TPOC makes it difficult to feel empowered in these cases. It would be nice if there was a counter-balance somewhere to address these sort of situations. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Disruption is prohibited, and that is all we need to say. This recent move to make policy more and more prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) with blanket bans on things is something I do not like in the least. I am sure there is a possible situation where a vulgar joke could go over well, but its a users responsibility to be competent with it. I do find the reason for this thread kind of week; a single historically problematic user on page that gets zero page views per day more often then not. If the arbitration committee was running around making vulgar vagina comments all the time, I might be convinced that a conversation needs to happen, but right now this smacks of a certain clique of editors searching out material to get upset about to justify the holiness of their instruction creep. extransit (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
So what action do you advocate when an editor comes across an offensive joke? Gerardw (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Why does everyone think this thread is about Rubyfruit Jungle? That was just an example I gave of how tedious removing such content can be. Several other examples have been given in this discussion, and the most recent case at pregnancy is a very high traffic talk page. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a comment - one of my biggest problems with the people opposing those of us who support being more sensitive to users; some seem to think this is specifically about editors (i.e. the representative group of people here). This isn't just about someone like me being offended, or another highly active editor - for me this comes down to potential editors, new editors, and non-editors; the librarians that use Wikipedia to look for quality references about a subject, a school teacher researching in class material, a student doing research (at any age), our mothers for that matter. The culture of Wikipedia is dramatically different than what it was 6-10 years ago, at least in English speaking. We have to consider what effect "vulgar jokes" might be on potential editors, new editors, or users. And I believe that if educators, GLAM professionals, Campus Ambassador professors, and the like, stumbled across a highly sexualized, or racist, or sexist, (etc.) joke on a talk page, they would scratch their heads and perhaps they might write it off as a one time thing - but, perhaps not. They might write OTRS, they might attempt to remove the content themselves - but, while some of you are admins (some of us are not), people might not feel empowered enough - and we see it with OTRS requests. The fact that it has had to happen, this conversation, is something people should be taking care with - it's a sensitive topic, and not something that should be blown off or trolled or broken down into some "pull the stick out of your ass you bores" series of comments. I voted about the image on the Pregnancy article, and when I went to see the outcome, I was shocked by the joke. As someone who yes, opposed the main image on the article, I was offended, and felt terrible about just sharing my opinion when that joke was the "punchline" in the outcome. I felt that the joke was intentional to make people who opposed the use of the current main image feel like crap. That's not right. Again, professionalism isn't something "cliquey" to ask for, it's called common sense. And stating that people aren't being "competent" is a rather frustrating for me - especially when making vulgar jokes falls into this essays incompetence area: "Immaturity: Some folks just can't act like reasonable adults." And competence is defined as able or suitable for a certain role. How can people feel competent when they're being offended, or pissed off, or saddened by the environment of Wikipedia? For example: we see it in OTRS emails from readers about vandalism. Examining how we can carefully, and with empathy, take care of problems like this will be one way for us to not only create a more welcoming environment, but, allow us to avoid any slipper slope scenarios in the future. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not be a bunch of bullies or jerks. How about someone create a section on Wikiquote for vulgar jokes instead? SarahStierch (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that the reason we're not meeting eye-to-eye here is that I believe very strongly that the purpose of the project is development of content, and that we already have the tools to address almost every single situation referred to in this discussion, but people don't have the courage to actually use them. If any policy/guideline needs to be beefed up, it is the talk page guidelines, which should clearly state that the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of the article and that material that does not fall within that scope can and will be removed. In fact, it pretty much says that now, and the tools are there to do it. That some people would rather spend hours and days debating the value of such 'contributions' is a problem in and of itself. Yank that stuff out. If someone insists on returning it, find an admin to yank it out again and possibly even revision delete it. Don't keep discussing it, keep removing it; these are trolls, not civility issues, and should be treated as such. "But it's funny" is never a reason to keep something on the talk page of an article. Take care of the truly offensive stuff (Kaldari gave a few examples) quickly and decisively, and the boundary lines start to shift. Risker (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
omg, thank you thank you for saying what I've been thinking and saying for some time (only better than I've been saying it, as a general rule.) Often I remove personal attacks and other useless hostile posturing from talk pages, I get someone, sometimes several someones, crying out that I'm censoring them or preventing them from expressing themselves etc. or in some other way doing something Terribly Wrong. This happened only this week, in fact, although for some borderline snide comments rather than for crystal clear personal attacks. I point to TPG and say, were you talking about the article? No? Then that didn't need to be on the talk page. It is so nice to have someone else say this; I have no issue with people wandering slightly off topic, it happens to everyone, but the semi-constant hostility and battleground mentality here is not conducive to attracting quality editors. And "jokes" which disparage anyone are completely unacceptable; or should be in any kind of civilized venue. I'm going to frame that quote, Risker. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What would really help, I think, is outlining/creating some clear and effective procedure for regular editors to deal with this issue. I mean, as it stands when someone posts something stupidly demeaning, trying to remove it is like falling into quicksand: anything one does will simply start an argument (because someone who posts something like that in the first place is unlikely to be responsive to civility requests), and one is effectively stuck with the material on the page while arguing against self-righteous diatribes about freedom of speech and how everyone should have a thicker skin so that the original poster can post bad jokes without feeling guilty. Maybe if we added something like the following:

Statements in talk pages which are considered offensive should be immediately {{hat}}ted and a discussion opened in wikiquette. Such statements should remain archived until a consensus is reached about their appropriateness.

In other words, hide the material immediately and let the original poster argue for its reinstatement off-page if s/he thinks it's worthwhile (rather than leaving the material entrenched on the page while people argue for its exclusion). In most cases they won't bother, and where they do the community can weight the merits of the case without disrupting the talk page. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Disagree on both counts -- offensive off topic content should be removed. And WQA is not an enforcement venue. The wording of the current WP:TPG (as I quoted above) don't support the interpretation that it's legit to remove offensive comments which are not personal attacks. Does Risker's position here have a tentative consensus? If so, we can start a discussion at TPG to get the wording changed. Gerardw (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Gerard, you misunderstand. WQA is in fact one of the most appropriate places to discuss poor editor behavior (such as posting offensive material or inappropriate jokes) - that is precisely what WQA was created for. The very first line on the page says "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation.""' The only difference I am suggesting is that purportedly uncivil material should be removed first and the discussion should focus on whether it should be restored; purportedly uncivil material should not be left on the page to fester while people argue over. that seems fairly sensible, no? --Ludwigs2 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
TPG formerly had verbiage to support removal of off-topic posts. I don't know when it was removed. That said, if we are to change the verbiage, we must take care not to go too far in the other direction, or we'll have the problem of people removing valid comments due to a word taken wrongly. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the current wording at WP:TPG does not seem to support removing offensive or disruptive content. I'm not sure why Risker believes this is the case. In particular: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission... Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection... Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is". @Risker: Would you support strengthening the wording at WP:TPG to make it more clear that removing disruptive offensive comments is often an appropriate course of action? Kaldari (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. Risker (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry it took so long to answer, little technical glitches tonight...
(ec) Possibly because WP:TPO contains the instructions: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." Which was formerly "Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything." and prior to that existed with no caveats, because it wasn't that darn controversial. Only those who wanted to keep their right to insult and offend complained much. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how I did it, but I found the discussion on Talk:Pregnancy and the post in question last night. I didn't even relate it to this discussion. I have no idea how I wound up there, but I saw the post that was made there and thought it was completely bizarre that someone thought that post had any productive purpose. It was very clear to me that the guy who posted it probably has some compromised judgment (this site does tend to attract folks who are rude for fun then blame it on Asperger's syndrome, among other issues). His comments did not strike me as representative of a wide swath of sexist commentary that I've seen across many pages, but instead the (really kind of) dumb decision to post something that should have been removed based on WP:NOTAFORUM alone. And it was, again, completely bizarre.
I also saw that he was defending his post by claiming WP:CIV doesn't cover this. Hah. Ok. I would have removed the post based on the fact that it added zero to any article talk page discussion and was an obvious attempt to troll the hell out of the editors in that discussion.
It's my experience that CIV is overused by editors who have no point in content discussions and participate only to use Wikipedia as a merry-go-round. When truly invested editors get involved and get frustrated because other editors won't engage on any meaningful level, WP:CIV is the guideline used too many times in place of sources and logical argument. What I'm hesitant to support here is a reason for no-purpose editors to refactor my comments on my own talk page or of those of editors I know can communicate freely enough in adult language. That's unwarranted. It's my personal experience that more editors are interested in keeping the conversation meaningless but nice rather than prompting each other to engage so that content can be improved. I agree with Risker that processes are already in place to handle the commentary that was posted at WP:Pregnancy. His reply was lame. The answer isn't to make CIV more stringent. Kaldari was not the only editor who objected to the editor's comments. He found himself friendless pretty quickly from what I could see. ANI loves to deal with this kind of stuff. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to point out what seems obvious to me: everyone is focused on immediacy, and immediacy is the enemy of reasonable discussion. Moni, I understand that you do not want some 'no purpose editor' removing good comments any more than one of those 'no purpose editors' wants you to remove those vicious little jokes. The real difference is that - given time for reflection - the community will support you and reject them in both of the cases. You are trying to argue for some wording that will allow people to immediately distinguish a good post from a bad post; it can't be done, and by insisting on it you are playing into the trolls' hands. There's nothing a troll likes better than a rule that calls for an immediate classification, because such rules allow endless possibilities for extending the dispute by arguing about the classification itself (Note that the editor on talk:pregnancy did exactly that, making several efforts to redefine his 'joke' so it would fall into the 'technically allowable' classification).
On the other hand, if you are willing to put up with the risk of being refactored for the short term, you actually make that risk smaller: someone who starts refactoring good comments by claiming they are bad is going to raise the ire of the community: after people have had a change to reflect on it, all your good posts will be restored and the troll will find his block log growing.
We want a rule that's going to err in favor of reasonable conversation, not in favor of the trollishness. that's wikipedia's biggest problem, you realize: the trolls know that they can push the boundaries of common sense and civility a long way, because the project chooses to err in incivility's favor. To my mind, if a few good comments are archived along with the bad for w few days - until the community realizes a mistake was made, and fixes it - that is a small price to pay for making sure the bad comments get taken off the page in short order. As long as people like you going to insist that your beneficial comments cannot be removed even for a second, the trolls are going to insist on the same thing about their bad comments, and we are all effectively neutered in trying to deal with them. Please appreciate the bigger picture, where the value of one person's comment at a particular time and place does not outweigh the interest of the community as a whole in reasonable, productive discussion. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I think your reply here indicates the folly of the civility policy and certainly any part of it that would allow an editor such as yourself leeway in refactoring other editors' comments. You don't appear to understand my point at all. Why would I want you to reword what I've said if there's no indication that you understand what I've said? It would be appropriate for me to refactor your entire post there to read "Moni3 is as hot as she is wise." That way, everyone can agree. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
A subset of editors who feel perfectly free to use racialized or sexualized language within their own group need to realize that the talk pages here are not within their own group, but places where all the world must feel open to to participate. When an educational or encyclopedic purpose is served by including unpleasant language or material, that is justified; for the purposes of internal discussion, the standard should be what is tolerated by everyone. When I see a British comedy, I know what sort of language I am likely to find & if i do not like it I do not watch it; in a mixed group of people I expect that everyone will avoid making others uncomfortable. The excuse that "we say this all the time" has been used in the past to justify language expressing all sorts of hatred. "it's just a joke" is fine within a group where everyone accepts it as a joke, but to impose it on coworkers who do not talk in that manner is offensive. I seriously ask the people who defend the use of such language here: do they mean to be offensive? Even if they think people should not be offended, don't they realize that they actually are, and that it prevents others from working here at all? Anyone who uses sexualized language without realizing it's offensive is ignorant and must be educated just like anyone who uses racially loaded language; anyone who uses it despite that realization is either trying to be offensive--which amounts to vandalism, or is too indifferent to the feelings of others to work in a cooperative enterprise. It's time to change the guideline. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
+1 SarahStierch (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
+2 KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
+3 --Crusio (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm general agreement with the DDG's feeling on this, except not every discussion that involves sex is "sexualized language". Relating the joke about the guy who saw a penis for every rectangle is not that egregious in my view, and certainly not RD2 material, especially in the context in which it was told—people finding an image objectionable. Granted, it would have been more straightforward to just point to projective test. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
+5 Have proposed Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Removal Gerardw (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Piling on endorsement of this statement by DGG. causa sui (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "NewYorkBrad said during a NYC meeting I attended a year ago that early in his Wikicareer he saw someone on Wikipedia downgrade an article he was working on from Mid to Low importance. He got his feelings hurt with that. Bottom line: there's no way to tell what's going to hurt someone's feelings." Recently someone added to the WP:NPA policy that saying a passage is "poorly written" may be a personal attack against the editor who wrote it. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And the rating of the Chemical Revolution as of lower importance in the history of science than the Second voyage of HMS Beagle surely would hurt someone's feelings. [11]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about hurting people's feelings, it's about being blatantly disrespectful and disruptive. Wikipedia needs some guideline somewhere that says such behavior is not appropriate in our community. Right now, it looks like there is no chance of getting any wording changed at WP:TPG to make it easier to remove such posts. The current RFC there has no support whatsoever. This reinforces my view that Risker's assessment of the community's understanding of WP:TPG may be somewhat off-base. That being the case, I think it is still worth stating that such behavior can contribute to an uncivil environment (which seems pretty obvious). Please note that we are not saying that vulgar jokes are always uncivil or that vulgar jokes are banned from Wikipedia. The "Identifying incivility" section gives lots of caveats (5 in fact), and is about as cautiously worded as an EULA. I really don't see why it should be at all controversial to say that vulgar jokes can (not do) contribute to an uncivil environment. This would seem to be the case by any definition of "civility". Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

Warning: Rude-ish content ahead.... (Not directed at any individual poster, I'm afraid, just adding to the fun. IMNSHO Wikipedia should just allow admins to operate as moderators with regard to the talk pages, just like most Web forums looking for intelligent input do nowadays (by intelligent input, I mean beyond irrelevant scatological jokes that are being dropped into Talk pages etc. for the sake of mere shock value. We all know the stereotype of the tuff-talkin' scarwee Net freak who turns out to be a kid typing away from Mom's basement. That's all I can think of when I see Users purporting to be educated, enlightened, autodidacts, I don't know what, and then the next thing you know out pops a "witticism" involving, perhaps smegma or maybe a more anglo-saxon term. Whatev. News Web forums have moderators, large forums for political, economic, environmental, science, literary, etc. topics have them, don't see why this place doesn't have them yet. If you don't want Mods acting as your Net nanny, then perhaps it's time to put on your big-boy/big-girl underroos, quit acting like kids out to shock your parentz, and other people won't see a need for it. The policy cited way above sez: "This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." I'm thinking "'ordinary' incivility" is too subjective for this sentence to really be useful, the discretion to use the RD2 should be left to the subjective judgement of the admin, period. <---Hey, someone just used a tangentially dirty word, tee hee! Seriously, the "humour" level on Wikipedia at times would have Lenny Bruce rolling in his grave. OttawaAC (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility Police need to lighten up

WP's "Civility Police" are trying to impose rules that represent the writing of a minority even in USA - perhaps only in New England and California. This interview shows a Irish financier summary and the current financial crisis. Of course I don't want to see this often in WP, although it may pop out occasionally, e.g. when illustration the behaviour of 3rd parties. However, expressions like "dolt" and "lie" and various terms about others' morals are just parts of normal life. The "Civility Police" also need to check cases when WP:Civility is used as a weapon, for example in some cases the aggressor gets off while the victim is penalised - e.g. the "get your retaliation first" was in soccer in the 1970s and it took a year for referees to wise up. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. This is a community that relies on collaboration, not survival of the rudest. Of course people should not expect someone's head on a plate just because an isolated and unspectacular example of abuse has occurred, but neither should they expect to be called a fool or a liar on every talk page. Wherever the civility line is drawn, there will be numerous examples of comments which cross that line. So the current policy (must be civil) is best, with the unwritten rule that a certain amount of incivility is tolerated when reasonably due, and not unduly harmful, and not unduly repeated. Since this is not a bureaucracy, the community is not bound by rules so "get your retaliation first" should not be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Some people are fools and liars. Parrot of Doom 07:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, and they need to be removed. However, individual editors should not decide that User:Example is a fool and tell them so repeatedly. Instead, the dreary dispute resolution processes needs to be followed. I would be quite happy to see RfC/U scrapped as totally useless, but condoning individuals who identify fools and call them on it is not a sustainable model. It's better to get other editors at some noticeboard and together they can use civil language to tell the problem editor effectively that they lack competence. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
How does this model not infantalize everyone involved? You don't give credit to editors who can identify a dumbass on sight, nor give them license to adjust the unduly confident self-esteem of a troublesome editor. You treat behavioral traits that are not helpful to Wikipedia as if they require intervention, where everyone in the circle says "I statements" and passes along the candle so they can speak next. My obvious question is: how is it better to use civil language? What--or who--specifically, does it help to use civil language in such a case? --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Moni3, but will be direct. Is WP trying to build an encyclopedia or become just another social web site. If WP's project is to build an encyclopedia, IMO:
Yes there are many different codes of English that exist in the world. There are some people I know in real life who in private would use language that would probably get a block here. But the wiki is not a private monocultural medium, it is a public and multicultural one. If our objective was to create a discussion site for male metropolitan technoscenti then a civility policy would be neither viable nor desirable; But that isn't our aim, instead we are trying to write an encyclopaedia for the world. I've taken part in some of our events at the British Museum and the V&A, do you seriously think we would be getting cooperation from those sorts of organisations if we had spoken to them as if we were a bunch of drunken lads on a stag do? ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you actually think groups on Wikipedia might approach museums or universities with an invitation ringing like "Hey, motherfuckers, come contribute to our goddamn encyclopedia! Fuckshite."?? Do you think language in academic departments dealing with academic disagreements has all parties thanking each other for their patience when it's entirely clear they all think the other is misguided or simply stupid? So, there's abuse, like spewing racial epithets at another editors when race clearly has no meaning on editing Wikipedia, or just whacked out notions of communication, like the post on WT:Pregnancy that is the topic of the above conversation, but high-functioning editors are being censored by editors whose only position of authority seems to be knowing what language is used to be nice. I get these editors on my talk page whom I've never interacted with before and their motivations simply puzzle me. Am I supposed to listen to you? Or someone else? I barely recognize arbitrators to have authority. Maybe two of them. Yeah, ok...none of them. It's becoming clear to me that the majority of admins and editors see Wikipedia NOT as a place to build an encyclopedia, but one where people get along. Their apparent reward is the warm feeling generated by sharing, placing the accuracy of content at a much lower priority. It stifles true conversation and honest understanding. And it makes me think the editors whose mantra is civility above all else are simple-minded and duplicitous. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've thought that for some considerable time (that editors whose mantra is civility above all else are simple-minded and duplicitous), and as my block log shows, had I said what you just said I would by now be blocked. I just wish the civility police had the honesty to say something like "we are determined to get rid of Malleus Fatuorum, no matter what the cost to the encyclopedia"; I could at least understand that position. And as for WereSpielChequers' nonsense, well, least said soonest mended. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a very superficial and rudimentary idea of "civility" here, which is focused almost entirely on punishing people for profane outbursts. In reality, it's uncivil to stonewall a discussion, or to misrepresent other editors, or to drive others away with endlessly circular but superficially polite walls of text, or to be inconsiderate of other editors' time and effort by consistently refusing to try to understand this site's basic content and sourcing policies. It's uncivil to come to an article that someone's worked hard on, drop a bunch of tags, and leave without helping fix the problems. It's uncivil to insist that an article be "kept and improved", but then to fail to actually try to improve it. Those are all uncivil behaviors, and honestly, if we started taking them more seriously, we'd probably see fewer profane outbursts. MastCell Talk 19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Treating other people with respect, even if you disagree with them, isn't hard. If you can't do that, you should find another project to contribute to. Viciously attacking people and then complaining about being persecuted by the "civility police" is a bit hypocritical, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What's hypocritical is blocking editors for using a word you don't approve of, and then claiming that it was a "vicious" attack. As you are wont to do. Treating with respect means not treating editors like naughty children, no matter what the WMF may believe. Or not initiating ArbCom cases under false pretences as User:Georgewilliamherbert did recently. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There are quite a few editors I don't respect here. Not because of who they are or what they look like or something meaningless like that, but because they consistently refuse to do the barest essential work of adding sourced content and referencing reliable sources when they disagree with what's in an article. It's not me that needs to get another hobby. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
@Malleus: I don't care what words you use as long as you are aren't attacking other editors. Criticize the content, not the people. That shouldn't be difficult for someone of your intelligence. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Criticize what now? An editor who refuses to access sources and still complains, templates articles for improvement because he doesn't understand the issues of constructing an article? One who goes on a blank-article-and-redirect-loop tear without accessing sources and notifying relevant wikiprojects? Even after you spend hours or days attempting to educate them about the ways things are done? "Your content is substandard." What now? How about "Your actions and edits are thoughtless and you need to start considering someone other than yourself right about now. Stop messing things up. Your judgment sucks." Your suggestion of criticizing the content is meaningless. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's remind ourselves of the substance of Kaldari's complaint against me, for instance: an editor who very clearly labels himself as a non-native and incompetent speaker of English arguing on a matter of English grammar. "Ignorant arse" seems to me to be an accurate description, not an "attack". Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Before this is lost in the latest cage match, I'd like to point to MastCell's examples above as behaviors that make me feel I'm not being treated with respect. At staff meetings for any publication I've worked for IRL, an exasperated "that's idiotic" is understood as a mere exclamation. With DE in the mode of '"endlessly circular but superficially polite walls of text," discussion becomes a test of stamina, and it's eventually impossible to distinguish between behavior and content issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Saying "that's idiotic" is fine. Repeatedly insulting people with comments like "I think you're an arsehole and a waste of space" or "That's rich, coming from the most pompously self-important windbag it's ever been my misfortune to encounter" or "Wikipedia really does need more prissy arseholes like him" isn't fine. I don't imagine any of those comments would fly at your workplace, yet here we rarely even blink an eye at such incivility. Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You have much to learn Kaldari. The usual argument from the wikipolice is that saying "that's idiotic" is equivalent to calling someone an idiot. I can't be bothered right now to look for the diffs, but I suppose will have to if you persist with your naivety. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The comparison of Wikipedia to a workplace is ineffectual. My workplace doesn't have employees undoing what I do and making me seem incompetent. My workplace does not hire people to have them do complex tasks the day they're hired. My workplace has a clear mission, a hierarchy of power, channels that are mostly effective in hearing my complaints when I feel like I'm being treated unfairly, and a boss who makes final decisions. This is not a workplace and it's not set up for any kind of efficiency. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

One imagines that environment is very unfamiliar to some here. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, in a couple of my workplaces, I did have people undoing what I did and making me seem less competent. The difference was they could be fired. My objection to the civility policy has always been its subjectivity. Any time I've tried to make a case against behavior I consider hellish, I've essentially been told to shut up and take it. And I don't quite agree that this isn't like a workplace; it's a place where people try to get stuff done through collaborative efforts. Wikipedia does have a clear mission, a hierarchy of power (an admin can block me, I can't block anybody), and channels for airing complaints (probably too many of them). What we lack is a boss to make final decisions, and instead rely on the inefficiency of consensus. But some workplaces are set up for productivity or innovation rather than efficiency as such, anyway. And those kind of workplaces usually have a higher tolerance for unorthodox behavior—as long as the stuff gets done. That's why I find MastCell's examples worthwhile, because those behaviors get in the way of getting stuff done. I have a high tolerance for obscenity and invective, but I recognize that others don't. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with MastCell, Cynwolfe and Moni3. I'm not bothered by swearing or the so-called incivility I see around here. What I consider to be rude is the water-torture of low-level "I know better than you although I've never cracked a source on the subject" mentality that's rude and happens all too frequently. It happened to me very recently and almost made me give up here. But not a single swear word was uttered - simply that work I'd done was swiftly undone without a source to back it up. That's just plain rude. And please please don't give us the crap that the so-called incivility needs to stop because of the women on the project. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, that's exactly what I had to go through with the editor who started this thread. When Philcha started editing spider articles, he didn't know much about the subject and kept reverting my corrections (even though I've published several peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject[12] - real world peer-reviewed, not Wikipedia peer-reviewed). It was extremely frustrating, but somehow I didn't feel the need to call him an "ignorant arse" or any other names. I explained my sources and debated their merits against less reliable sources. In the end, the articles were improved and no one had to get AN/I involved. Luckily Philcha is much more knowledgeable on arachnology these days and is making good contributions. By the logic of the anti-civility-brigade I should have just chased him off the project and been proud to defend my fiefdom. Kaldari (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well you beat me there. You're published and can link to published pages - so that makes me, what? Just a wikipedia editor who wastes time. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to be published to successfully defend your contributions. These days Philcha is correcting my mistakes :) But I get your point. Featured articles, especially popular ones, are extremely difficult to maintain the quality of. I don't know what the solution to that problem is (but I don't think it's throwing out the civility policy). Kaldari (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the real point is that Philcha is an intelligent editor who is amenable to discussion, whereas as other editors like ... really are ignorant arses. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
But to the extent that you need (in individual cases) to make that observation explicitly, you can do so in a way that avoids inflammatory language, and indeed more objectively and precisely describes the problematic behaviour requiring attention. As one who is not an ignorant arse, you certainly have that ability, and can make use of it. (You benefit because the focus stays on the problematic behaviour and not on your own word-choices; Wikipedia benefits because the problem can be more easily addressed; and we all benefit because the atmosphere is more pleasant.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Few in Wikipedia's bureaucracy care about long-term problems like disruptive admins who continue to act like arses, or pov-pushing editors who never use rude words. Addressing such problematic behaviour is so time-consuming and so disheartening for people who primarily build content (my output has reduced massively due to issues like this), that they just stop bothering. It's often easier and more constructive just to tell someone to fuckoff than it is to deal with the problem "civilly" and "collaboratively".
You civility warriors need to recognise that long-term disruptive behaviour is a far more serious problem than a few rude words. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is. So why not set about solving that serious problem, rather than engaging in behaviour that will certainly not solve it (someone's not going to f*** off just because you tell him to; but he will use your use of those words to shift the focus away from his own disruptive behaviour).--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The solutions I'd propose would be frowned upon and laughed at by the legions of people here too interested in maintaining a structure that rewards nepotism and punishes honesty. For a start though, I'd insist that anyone applying for admin status should first have at least one FA to their name, and by that I mean a reasonably-sized FA that they wrote alone, or a large FA that they co-authored. And they'd have to have experience reviewing articles at GAC. Parrot of Doom 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I take the silence that greeted this as a recognition of its basic soundness, though perhaps off-topic. For an acute example of an effort to derail a content dispute with a civility distraction, see this extreme example, where saying a statement is "demonstrably false" is interpreted as "calling me a liar"—a complete inability to distinguish between impugning someone's character, and considering a piece of information he provided to be false. No one would take this seriously, but it points to how the civ policy has become an easy gun to reach for. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. While editing experience is good, some of us just what to write without getting into the whole FA thing. And editors attempt to misuse essentially every policy -- that's not a reason to get rid of policies. Gerardw (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the suggestion is off-topic here, but I don't think it's unreasonable that an admin be required to participate in at least one FA project. Not for the status, but as a way of becoming more familiar with what should be the most rigorous standards of content development. I've seen at least one admin candidate I thought was excellent who had minimal content-building experience, but I don't think it would've hurt to have the candidate even during the RfA (since the question of content experience was raised) participate in one of the FA processes that were open at the time. Anyway, the point about misusing a policy (in this case civility) is not that it should be abolished. It's that we should be clear what the policy is not meant to do. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

{outdent} I'm not getting your point. Are you suggesting a wording change? Do you fell there are more attempts to abuse wp:civility, than, for example wp:iar?Gerardw (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was a long thread! I got here by following a link. I'm a female editor, too, and though I think respect and civility is vitally important among editors (maybe because I'm female), I dislike the term "Civility Police". A bit more background: I come from a horsey environment, and have worked for decades in places where the air can get quite incredibly blue, quite incredibly quickly. I also have adult children (who can at times swear like troopers), and school-age grandchildren (who I'm sure also can, but haven't yet done so in my presence). Swearing about things is, however, a whole heap different from deliberately being uncivil to someone. There's an immense difference between saying "This is fucking crazy!" or "my life is shit!" and saying "You're a moronic retard" or "You're a pompous, self-righteous hypocrite!" I think the vast majority of editors don;t actually have any real problem in knowing where the borderline is. Having said all that - there is a point in that female editors may very well find the apparent aggression in some areas off-putting, and just not want to join in. There's obviously a great deal of overlap between genders in many, many areas - but, on the whole, I think it's safe to say that "yer average female" will feel less welcome in a testosterone-heavy fighting environment than "yer average male" would. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
After days of digesting this discussion, it has occurred to me that we need to stop reaching out to average editors, male or female. Both sides of this discussion are reacting to what they perceive as behavior of the lowest common denominator: content editors on others who do no work and make it difficult to maintain and improve articles, and editors who dislike foul language, prioritizing civil discourse despite what the disagreements might be. Simply put, the way the civility policy is worded now, it helps no one. Blocking longstanding editors for civility violations infantalizes editors and inflames arguments. And the tendentious atmosphere, not just one Wikipedia, but all over the internet, dissuades people from participating despite Wikipedia being fairly genial compared to many popular venues. So the impossible needs to occur: ratchet up the expectations around here so it's not so preposterous to expect editors sauntering by to do some work before shooting of their ignorant fingers when they pollute articles with crap. And raise the expectations that civil discourse will actually accomplish something, we'll all feel like our sides have been heard, and we have faith that the system will work to maintain and improve the content in articles. That's what the civility policy should include. Creative solutions to reword it to reflect that should be listed below. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It should always be possible for intelligent people to disagree agreeably. And I really do feel that more experienced, longstanding editors should be setting a good example, not getting away with it. It's not as if productivity and politeness are mutually exclusive. Anyway, that's it from me (I'm off now to deal with Real Life Issues. Ho hum.). Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's idealistic, perhaps unreasonably, the intelligent people should be expected to disagree amicably at all times. But for practical purposes, should anything be accomplished in this discussion, or in turning the trends on this site, it's that the interested parties acknowledge the elements in this conflict are valid: the civility policy is abused and in its current format is not only ineffectual but harmful, and the systems in place on Wikipedia need to simultaneously promote civil discourse and the protection and improvement of content. Not one over the other. I see no editor in this discussion pushing for wanton swearing for no purpose or abusing other editors for sport. What bothers me is that the valid concerns of editors who are frequently frustrated by the open-editing system in place combined with do-little civility blocks, or pointless finger-wagging that harm content and quash enthusiasm for the project are not being heard here. There is a genuine problem with the way this policy is written and the way it is being applied. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this conversation for days too - comments above directed at me and linking to a particular editor's publications left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I decided to slink away. First I'm happy to see that the women are expressing what we all know to be true: we're no strangers to bad language. We are human. We are not shrinking violets, and that attitude has to stop. I'm also keeping an eye on the separate thread within a thread above - I think that admins, or those who are in charge of policing (if that's the right word) the civility policy, should start spending some serious time in the writing trenches which gives a sense of who the enemy is. The enemy isn't the casual vandal easily taken care of with rollback, the enemy isn't the experienced editor; the enemy is the uninformed drive-by, plop-a-comment-on-the-talkpage editor who will not crack open a source. But can suck away all patience. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The idea that civility is a gender issue is a canard. It's a cultural issue. I've worked in both extremes. Unfortunately WP does not seem to be converging on a consensus as to the degree of blue language which is appropriate/tolerable. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just been reminded that some of the greast poets in Britain compose saucy works. Robert Burns published Merry Muses of merry of Caledonia, including Poor people have nothing but mow (sex; original in broad Scots dialect). Violet Jacob (1867-1946) wrote Tam i' the Kirk, where the phrasing is more discreet but the meaning is clear. In the Metaphysical poets, John Donne composed Song (ends, "Yet she / Will be / False, ere I coome, to two or three") and The Sun Rising ("Shine here to us, and thou art verywhere; / This bed thy center is, these walls thy sphere"); and [[Andrew Marvell wrote "To His Coy Mistess". Go the Fuck to Sleep (2011) is not poetic, but makes the point, and was an instant hit. The Civility Police's Ivy League diction means nothing in the rest of the USA, and is ignored elsewhere. --Philcha (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the notion that intelligent people can and should always disagree amiably just doesn't gel. "Martin Amis vs. Terry Eagleton" comes to mind. Incivility certainly can be an issue of sexism, however, for the same reason that we don't tolerate racist or homophobic remarks. But it requires us to see the difference between calling an editor a "dumb bitch" and using obscene language in front of the Vestal Virgins. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
All this misses the point. Civility isn't about using genteel language, it's about treating other editors with respect and decorum. In your face hostility can certainly come from anyone, but it typically comes from people with fragile egos. Interesting that some editors, particularly women, react so vehemently to the obvious suggestion that there's a gender issue in there somewhere. Whether you call it a gender issue or not, no-holds-barred verbal combat for who controls the public discourse does tend to marginalize people who aren't into that sort of interaction. To take up Truthkeeper88's point, who the enemy is probably depends on the subject area and one's level of patience. In my Wikipedia career the greatest frustration have been deliberate troublemakers with agendas, those who know a lot less than they think they know, and some who play mental games or simply behave in an off-kilter way. Their trouble-making often gets personal and malicious, and that's one place where civility policy comes into play: it's not permitted to antagonize other editors for one's own ends. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The argument that civility is about banning dirty words is a red herring promulgated by those who believe they have earned the right to attack other editors without consequence. As is the argument that they are only attacking inexperienced clueless editors. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Recent experiences with you have taught me that you don't have the first idea what you're talking about, so your opinion can be safely ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
As can that of the "Four Pillar Party" who have nothing better to do but whine about other people trying to edit the articles they own. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Better to edit than to pontificate on matters about which you are entirely ignorant. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How about we just all take a breather and enjoy what we originally came here to do: build one heck of an encyclopedia

I'm going to be bold here and say this in good faith. I have to admit - a number of you participating in this conversation make me nervous due to confrontational natures and a passion for argumentation. But, I can't keep watching this conversation run in circles, like usual. This is just another failed series of conversations about civility and bad manners, even though I know some of us appreciate the effort. How about everyone just go back to their corners and work for the betterment of the encyclopedia and all stop being disrespectful. Or if you really have a problem with someone, how about you take it else where (I mean really Malleus and Kaldari? It's like a bad on-Wiki reality show, nothing personal.) and see if you can "get over it" or stop hanging out on the same pages.

It seems whenever this "topic" is brought up it delves into passive aggressive comments and "high brow" shots at one another. I think most of us have learned there are no other options, this isn't giving up, it's just another way to stay healthy for the sake of one's sanity. When I find someone I dislike on Wiki or offline Wiki, I either "deal with the problem" and if that doesn't work, I stay away from the problem. Either be bold and take initiative or just ignore those who are causing the problems. And if something escalates, step way and call for someone else to take a fresh look. A number of you here seem to dislike each other or constantly have poor experiences with each other, and that isn't helping any "Civility issues". And I really doubt anyone here is going to be changing this policy anytime soon since no one will ever agree on proposed changes. It seems most of these conversations end up being lost causes. Is it too much to ask that everyone just go back to improving Wikipedia? These conversations often appear like everyone on all sides trying to justify their behaviors, so come on. (My motto goes "If I won't say it in real life to your face, I won't say it online to you." And anyone who knows me offline, knows I'll say a lot to someone's face.) I mean this with absolute good faith (seriously!).

And if people feel that change is possible, then I call for a meeting at Wikimania 2012. People really seem ready to sling it and discuss civility on Wiki. I'd love to see this conversation move to offline and see what really can be done to improve civility on Wikipedia. I appreciate all the positive contributions everyone here makes, and I mean that with sincerity. SarahStierch (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC) (Who is dreading people freaking out on her in a bad way just for posting this!)

I'm constantly amazed that anyone would believe I wouldn't say to your face what I say here on Wikipedia; you bet your ass I would. Time for Wikipedia to reflect the real world, not an impractical Californian dream. And if you want to see what really improves Wikipedia then just do what I do, and fuck the rest. Kaldari and I don't hang out together on any pages, as he's a policeman and I'm a writer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
We don't get changes here at meetings. We rarely get changes by policy discussions. We get changes by dealing with individual situations, one at a time. ~
But otherwise I agree with what Sarah said -- the only way to end a personal conflict is to separate the two parties. Any sensible person will do so voluntarily. For the others, we do need sanctions. Sanctions will never be taken seriously unless we actually apply them. Myself, there a few people here whose actions of Wikipedia I seriously dislike; I avoid them. I recognize it's a problem when they don't avoid me (though I can't think of anyone doing that at present), and that's what interaction bans are for. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi DGG! I do agree that perhaps "in person" meetings aren't always the way to solve anything when it comes to the wild world of Wiki, but, people seem so frustrated, I think it'd be fascinating to see people vent offline and meet each other. I bet people would actually sort of...like each other, god forbid! :) Perhaps that's the mediator in me...regardless, I do agree that just stepping away and "avoiding" conflict is our only way to save ourselves the trouble and stress. It's like being in an unhealthy relationship - the best thing you can do is free yourself of a that partner and do what makes you happy (aka dump them!). It's really not rocket science. And if for Malleus that means to "fuck the rest," then so be it ;-) SarahStierch (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sarah, to be honest I thought it was a constructive discussion in a meandering, stop-and-start sort of way. Clearly Moni3 and Cynwolf had some good suggestions to bring to the table, as others have, and it seems wrong to for it stop. Unfortunately face-to-face meetings aren't really feasible for most of us, which is why we're here online, and not spending a lot of time in meetings. Anyway, I would say to your one point that we're here to build an encyclopedia two things: one, many of the frustrations result from exactly that. Those of use who do spend most of our time here writing are often pulled away from writing to address talkpage issues which often are incivil by their nature of demanding changes without consulting sources; two, please have a look at the contribs of the participants - you'll probably find that an encyclopedia is being built, word by word, paragraph by paragraph, page by page. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course I agree with Truthkeeper because she's such a classy dame and all, but to put a fine point on this, in-person meetings, unless we're all going to gather at my house, are out of the question. Seriously, who has money to travel to Wikimania? Don't answer because it will depress me.
The edits in the past 24 hours--well, all over this page--indicate that parties involved are not discussing the same issues. These problems aren't going away by folks going back to their corners when the corners are articles that some editors have spent a lot of time, effort, and sometimes money building.
To reiterate:
  • The Civility policy is ineffective in stopping arguments and decreasing tensions. It does the opposite.
  • To accomplish anything in this discussion, both sides will have to acknowledge that the other side has a point. Arguments and foul language dissuade readers from becoming involved in Wikipedia. Civility blocks are abused and ineffective. Wikipedia does not exist to bolster low self-esteems by allowing editors who don't know what they're doing to muck things up. Nor does it exist to tear down the self-esteems of anyone.
  • Admins can do much more by wading into a disagreement and understanding the problems involved than simply blocking anyone who uses foul language. There's a reason the admin process is so brutal and incisive sometimes: the community wants to know that admins aren't hotheads who make knee-jerk decisions without understanding what they're doing. Civility blocks are exactly that: cool down blocks that cool nothing down and just irritate an already bad environment. I'm concerned that admins block for civility because they are either unable to understand the issues at play or simply unwilling. Too lazy? It's a valid concern.
  • There have to be alternatives. Protect the talk page for an hour. Order the editors who are at each other's throats to take it to your talk page and try to figure out what the problem is. It seems to me as if this entire discussion, in which I'm involved so I'm including myself here, is limited to Urg! Civility Good! Civility Bad! There are areas in between and I can't be the only creative genius on this site, can I?
So at this point, it seems a site-wide RfC is in order, natch. To resolve the following questions:
  • What's the purpose of the Civility policy?
  • Define what civil discourse is among English-speaking editors. There appears to be a great cultural divide over this. Determine, with examples, what uncivil discourse is.
  • Is civil discourse a higher priority (or should it be?) than the maintenance and improvement of content?
  • What other actions can admins take than blocking editors who appear to be engaged in a war of words? Be creative.
These are the questions that I think are important to answer. Other editors may have other questions to add.
It's not going to go away without figuring this stuff out. Solemn promise. --Moni3 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What's the purpose of the Civility policy?
To provide an environment which maximizes the productivity of the WP editing community. To include the number of editors, the quantity of their contributions, and the quality of their contributions.
Is civil discourse a higher priority (or should it be?) than the maintenance and improvement of content?
Of course not. But neither is maintenance and improvement of content an excuse to be incivil. Gerardw (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Define what civil discourse is among English-speaking editors. There appears to be a great cultural divide over this. Determine, with examples, what uncivil discourse is.
Acceptable Not acceptable
I don't give fuck Fuck off!
Are you fucking kidding me? shut the fuck up
That was a moronic thing to say You are a moron
It's a stupid idea You're stupid
It's a stupid idea What are you, stupid?
That's POV statement Your Elbonian propaganda
A warning template Repeated posting of the same warning
A request Repeated unrequited requests
Asking a question Demanding an answer
Politely asking a user to tone it down Dragging MF's name in every civility discussion that doesn't involve him

Gerardw (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on Moni3's questions:

  • What's the purpose of the Civility policy?
    • To establish the minimum level of cordiality that is necessary to keep people focused on content rather than each other.
  • Define what civil discourse is among English-speaking editors. There appears to be a great cultural divide over this. Determine, with examples, what uncivil discourse is.
    • I don't buy the argument that there is a cultural divide. Civility is not an especially complicated idea. Repeatedly insulting another editor isn't civil regardless of what type of language you use.
  • Is civil discourse a higher priority (or should it be?) than the maintenance and improvement of content?
    • They are not competing priorities. There is no case in which one must discard civility in order to maintain and improve content.
  • What other actions can admins take than blocking editors who appear to be engaged in a war of words?
    • I've tried lots of different techniques: offering friendly advice to seek mediation, giving warnings, and even just deleting the attacks. The advice and warnings are typically ignored, and deletions just get reverted.[13] If anyone has other ideas, I'm all ears. According to other admins I've consulted, I'm just supposed to ignore incivility or personal attacks from established editors. Not only is this unfair to new users, it is also corrosive to the editing environment over the long term (and thus does affect the quality of the content).

Kaldari (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Moni3's request, here are 30 examples of incivility. I was feeling lazy, so I pulled them all from a single editor's recent contribution history. Interestingly, none of these examples resulted in any action against the poster, which suggests to me that admins are habitually ignoring one of Wikipedia's core policies. You'll also find that only half of these use the dreaded naughty words (which are irrelevant to considerations of incivility). Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it time to drop the stick Kaldari?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I'll go back to keeping my mouth shut and allowing the abuse to continue unabated. Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You're free to discuss the issue, but using the talk page to dump a laundry list of grievances about a single editor you're in a dispute with is just as wrong as the behavior you claim to be against. Although this isn't userspace it's the spirit behind WP:POLEMIC.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. List deleted. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the offending user wasn't even mentioned, I see no reason to have deleted this. It's clear evidence that we do have a genuine problem around here, and it's the opposite one to the one that was originally being complained about - there are a few people around here who think they are so valuable to the project that they think they can treat their fellow editors and our community norms with utter disrespect, and the so-called "civility police" are nowhere to be seen. While civility is no doubt occasionally over-policed, in general it looks like it may be being under-policed.--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This is also one of the main reasons why no one is running for adminship anymore. Wikipedia:RfA is currently a ghost town, and will probably remain that way as long as we refuse to take civility seriously. I'm sure this makes some people very happy, but it is a loss to the project. Kaldari (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is not the actions of any editor, but the chronic inability of the Wikipedia community to converge on a clear, consistent understanding of what civility is. Gerardw (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That might be part of it, but the quotes that Kaldari posted here earlier seem pretty indisputably uncivil - the lack of consensus here seems to be over whether the policy applies to all editors, or only those who are not part of a privileged clique (those who don't have enough admin friends to unblock them every time they transgress). --Kotniski (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • There seems to be a some confusion here; how many (if any) of the quotes that Kaldari posted were made at RfA? And I'm quite certain that nobody is really arguing that any policy ought not to be applied to all editors, but all means all; that includes administrators themselves, who are not infrequently the most uncivil of all, but are almost never sanctioned for it. Malleus Fatuorum 11:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        • To Kotniski: No, that is not at all where the lack of consensus is. The lack of consensus has to do with the relation of civility and DE: that is, behaviors that disrespect the process and other editors while superficially remaining courteous. I object to the use of "incivility" charges as a tactic in content disputes. I'm an older sibling, and I've seen many cases that take me back to childhood: my younger sister would bedevil me until I threw a Barbie doll at her or yelled something nasty, and then she's run and tell our mom. Until we figure out how to do something about civil-POV pushers using "he called me a name" as a way to shut down the opposition, we'll continue to have these differences on how to police civility. It also has to do with the subjectivity of civility. What I consider uncivil, and truly insulting, demeaning, belittling, and just plain rude, appears to differ from what some editors find most offensive, since none of my complaints has ever been taken seriously. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Malleus, enforcement is inconsistent. However, that's the second step. First, we need to converge on a standard WP understanding of civility. Second, figure out to motivate the community to follow it. Then, and only then, should we discuss the actions of individual editors. Gerardw (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is certainly not the place to discuss the actions of individual editors; but I don't see anything wrong with discussing them in the appropriate place - it might help to achieve the aims you're talking about (as general rules tend to come out of specific cases).--Kotniski (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarising shamelessly from Gerardw above, here ( :P ) - how about thinking / wording along these lines:

Acceptable Better still
I don't give a fuck I'm moving on to something else now
Are you fucking kidding me? Did you really mean that, or did I misunderstand you?
That was a moronic thing to say Did you think that one right through?
It's a stupid idea I'm sure we can come up with something better
That's POV statement That's not neutral enough for here

Why just go for "acceptable" if we can encourage "better"? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting situation developed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badger Drink, I suggest folks interested in civility read it (including the talk page) and have a look at the immediate antecedent, which was the Steven Zhang RfA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

TLRBDGTP (Too long, read but didn't get the point). Casliber could you briefly summarize the connection you're referring to? Gerardw (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civility/Archive_15&oldid=1142666129"