Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Deletion and Blocks as Incivility

Hello, I was just wondering how content-deletion, AfD, blocks, bans etc relate to WP:Incivility: say there's a spurious AfD or a misplaced, one-sided, two-fingers - is that not pretty uncivil? Is there any scope for updating "policy" accordingly? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand misplaced, one-sided, two-fingers? Nobody Ent 11:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actions might violate other policies, while words are uncivil: Certainly, many blocks or bans are hostile actions of rude, disgusting behavior. However, the scope of WP:CIVIL generally focuses on the words of messages as posted, rather than other actions. As for mass deletion of text, I have written an extensive essay (which some people have periodically edited to contradict the concerns), which explains how the blanking of text often violates several policies:

· See essay: "WP:Blanking sections violates many policies"

As for improper placing of blocks or bans, some people use the term "badmins" to label admins who make bad decisions and bad blocks. In general, it is not helpful to encourage negative labels for people; however, it might relieve some of the stress of being unfairly blocked or banned (which many editors have been). In some cases, an admin has been duped by groups of other editors who are WP:GAMING the system, to dog pile against a novice user, while they shout false claims and lies about that user to manipulate the admin into a block or ban. In such cases, the best change might be to replace the letters "CI" in "CIVIL" with "E" and consider it as "WP:EVIL" (see link). -Wikid77 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." All this would suggest that the policy applies equally to actions and words - editors should interact according to a standard of conduct and should behave (not speak) civilly. I'm not sure I entirely understand the OP's point, but yours would appear to be incorrect according to the current policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"misplaced, one-sided, two-fingers". That sounds quite painful, but I'm not sure how it relates to civility :) Kaldari (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion pages

Is there a template page to use on discussion pages to remind everyone in the discussion to be civil? I'm in a discussion that just got pretty heated, but I would up making my own message using {{tmbox}} D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is - but what a good idea! Do take care, if you're making your own one up, to word it as gently and kindly as possible while still getting the message across, as if the template itself gets people's backs up it will only inflame the situation. I'd suggest maybe going for something along the lines of pics of nice cup of tea, a beer, etc. and inviting people to chill and chat as all the angst just does harm, and we're all here to do good, right? Pesky (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Is calling somebody "ignorant" OK ?

I find this insulting, but others insist it is not. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances; if you've got a specific situation in mind, I would suggest WP:WQA. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It also depends very much on whether it's simply a statement of fact, or actually being used in its role as an insult. For example, I'm pretty ignorant about molecular physics, compared to most of the people who edit articles in that area. "Ignorant" being misused as meaning "stupid and worthless" is uncivil, though not in any kind of big-league way. Very often things like that are best ignored, or do as the policy suggests – try to talk it through, it may be a case of simple misunderstandings. It's just as uncivil to call someone a know-it-all, or pompous, or patronising, or condescending, or pretty much any other belittling name. It's always best to try and clear up misunderstandings in a low-key manner than to try and go for vengeance, reprimand, getting someone bigger to "bite" the person for you. All that happens is that the situation escalates, and the ensuing flame wars are far more disruptive than the original comment could ever be. And always take into account that we're all humans in here (I think ...) and it's only human to have a bad day, to be a bit more irritable than we should, etc. Pesky (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to tackle some of the most pervasive uncovered forms of incivility

It's time to recognize that the most pervasive forms of incivility in Wikipedia are not driven by emotion or hot-headedness, they are tactics used to prevail in in disputes such as content disputes. Denigrating the individual or what they said, or misrepresenting what they said (in a wiki-saavy way that avoids clear policy violations) are very effective, widely used uncivil tactics. Here are two places to start:

• Implying misbehavior or violations by linking to policies or essays on mis-behavior while providing no basis for doing so. Usually that means there was no basis for doing so, so this is a safe way to make baseless allegations of misbehavior. Example: "Please read wp:disruptive, wp:Civil and wp:Dead horse before making more of the type of comments that you have been making", implying violations of all of those, with no basis given for any of those accusations.

• Mis-stating or mis-characterizing what the person has just said in a strawman way or that makes it sound bad. Restating can be useful when asking for clarification/confirmation of understanding, but should not be done in a battling situation.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your second one is already on the page: "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them". The first one is probably a good one to add. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition WP:CREEP if you ask me. Incivility involves being purposefully hurtful to others through aggressively rude behavior. Either of these two examples could be uncivil depending on context and tone, but they could also reflect a good faith disagreement. If we expand the definition of incivility to cover just about anything that ruffles someone's feathers we lose focus on what we're trying to achieve here, that editors should be courteous and maintain a collaborative and productive environment. Sometimes that does mean cautioning people on their behavior or initiating a dispute process. Accusing people of things wrongly or in bad faith can be a violation of WP:NPA and other policies, no need to invoke civility. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Ego White Tray, on my second one I wasn't referring to quoting out of context, I meant mis-stating or mis-characterizing what they said, and doing so as a battle tactic. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Wikidemon, the core point of wp:NPA is making the distinction between criticizing individuals and their behavior. So wp:NPA explicitly does not cover false or no-basis-given accusations of wrong behavior, and rightly so. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Start of an idea for #1

When implying or alleging mis-behavior by a fellow Wikipedian, please provide a specific basis. discuss the particular behavior in question. For example, when linking to a policy, guideline or essay implying that a Wikipedian is violating it, identify the person's specific behavior (statements etc.) in question as a basis. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this might be covered by the more general idea that you should never link to policies without context, that is, explaining how the policy is relevant to the current discussion. I don't know where such a statement would go, but it is clearly more general than civility. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Could be that that general unlisted homeless concept would envelope it, but use of it to denigrate someone or their ideas (while giving no specific basis) is one of the common things that makes Wikiipedia such a nasty place. And IMHO it's a common and good practice to list a more specific version of general concepts in areas where it is an issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Start of an idea for #2

Modification of what someone said (i.e. in a restatement of it) should only be done for constructive purposes such as clarifying your understanding of it. A modification of what a person said in a restatement should not be done just to make the person or what they said look bad. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the statement already there about out-of-context I think covers it. If you want to rephrase that sentence, you can suggest something. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that that covers it. I'm talking about a deliberate misstatement / mis-spin. For example:

• Editor A says "I propose we ignore the manual of style in this case and do XXXX". About that editor B says "SO, you are saying that your personal authority authority overrules Wikipedia guidelines"
• Editor A says "I propose that we put XXXX in the article". About this editor B says: "Editor QA just said that WP:NPOV does not apply to them"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the sections

is this:

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

I don't really understand the point being made and I wonder whether it should be clarified, or I think shortened and/or merged. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading it again, I think it's a Talk-page guidelines thing, if it needs saying at all and doesn't seem to be about civility. Sure the tone might be more informal on user talks but I don't see how civility changes. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I like that section, as there is a difference between article and user talk both in terms of content (which is what you're referring to with TPG, I think) and in tone, which affects what would be seen as incivility - it's much more acceptable to be joking around on user talk, for example, than article talk, and user talk tends to be more user-focused (which this policy is technically against - "comment on content, not the contributor), so standards for civility could be looser (friendly, but not necessarily professional). There's also the issue of "blocked user venting on his/her talk page", which we probably don't want to get into here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That was one of my contributions; I thought it was important for precisely the reasons Nikkimaria outlines here. Pesky (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this section could be simply shortened to: "You get no slack for telling another editor you don't like their editing habits, just because it happens to be on your own TALK page." See the end of my own TALK page for an example. This gassing about "different atmospheres" serves no purpose, because in the end it makes no difference. I would suggest that if you continue the present policy on WP:CIVIL, you simply delete all that. SBHarris 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there's a bit more to it than that. Editors should expect user talk pages to be more informal and relaxed, and go wandering "off topic" regularly, and have more of the individual's personal stamp on them, and the language to be more pub than lecture theatre. Without personal attacks being acceptable, still. The only part you've covered in your suggestion is the last bit, but the first bit is important. Pesky (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What's important about it? This is a policy article about behaviors that get people kicked out of Wikipedia. It's not meant to be a tourbook or sightseeing description. Put that someplace else. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines or something. SBHarris 03:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Defintions

It seems that many of the definitions on here are locked, even though they are not seen by most who visit wiki, and are not changed around, why are all of these constantly locked?184.98.143.25 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

By "definitions", do you mean policy pages? If so, then it's to protect policies from being changed too dramatically by people we can't identify by their nickname / login (so locked to editors from IP addresses, etc.) Tweaking policy pages about is pretty hard even for old-timers (often involves weeks of prior discussion! Sometimes months of it!) ... but recognisable old-timers are expected to know more of what's likely to be an acceptable tweak. We have to avoid the chaos that could be caused by, for example, letting a class of unruly 12-year-olds start editing the "laws of the land" to whatever suits their current ideas of "what is funny". ;P Pesky (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalizing the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(Two words into one word) change, please.

In the seventh bullet point of Wikipedia:CIV#Avoiding_incivility, please substitute "actually" for "very well".

Although "may very well be" is a commonly used phrase, it seems to me to be an extraordinarily inapt descriptor of "idiot" — inasmuch as I can find almost nothing "very well" (nor [thankfully] am I motivated to try) in regard to the state of being best described as "idiot".

Despite this description of "mongoloids" as "happier than you and me", there seems (to me) to be no direct causal relationship between lowered intelligence [IQ] and happiness. Though I will concede that an inability to perceive at least some of the world's many woes may be contributory to overall happiness (or being "very well"); it may be equally likely that lowered intelligence is a perceivable frustration to those afflicted by it, and therefore is contributory to overall unhappiness (or not being "very well").

I think that "actually" is a better choice than "in fact"; because it perhaps reads more smoothly, and "in fact" perhaps seems to be a harsher judgement, but either would be OK by me.

Thanks for your consideration. 67.91.184.187 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss edits, not the editor

I thought there used to be a clause saying something like "discuss the edits, not the editor". IMO that was immensely helpful advice. This would prevent a whole lot of cases where, in a dispute, an editor's personal life is brought up to make him uncomfortable. WP:UNCIVIL should ban all forms of commentary on a user's personal life, but currently I think it bans only harassment.

Take this snide remark. Not exactly an "attack", it doesn't really contribute to the discussion either. It just poisons the atmosphere and makes me frustrated.VR _talk 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. Its first two sentences: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Hyacinth (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:APR is what you're thinking of? Isheden (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was the first one linked by Hyacinth. It is the exact same thing with different wording and is actual policy, not an essay.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility Enforcement RFC

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement § Civility Enforcement RFC

Nobody Ent 20:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep but rename

This idea had been rolling around in my head a couple days, so this statement resonated. We should stop talking about civility and start talking about respect. Too often the gestalt of what we (ought to) mean as civility might be better conveyed if we use the term respect. Nobody Ent 21:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• See the antonym Incivility, which includes lack of respect and compare with Respect. To me, civility has to do with civic virtue while respect has a direct personal nature. Talking about respect in the context of civility seems good, but can't support renaming to help the gestalt, cause the civility term is already deeply embedded into the Wikipedia community. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• True, but haggling over what the heck it means is also embedded Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Professionalism_and_civility. Doesn't mean we have to keep it that way forever. Nobody Ent 01:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• The problem with the term respect is that you can not respect another person but still act respectfully towards them. Who I choose to give my respect to is no ones business but my own so long as I don't act disrespectfully towards others. Its just a reality of life that there are going to be other people who we dislike, think are stupid or otherwise hold in contempt, we will never force everyone to like each other, and so should focus on conduct not motivation. Monty₈₄₅ 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• You can respect the community by acting respectfully to those you hold in contempt. Nobody Ent 01:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• The original linked page seems to have gone. The word 'Civility' convey to me civil affairs. Perhaps a title such as 'good manners and cooperation'? or just 'be nice'? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC question phase now live

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire to participate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility vs. IP vandalism

"We do block for major incivility: when incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies."

LOL. We could note that nearly any amount of IP vandalism is tolerated on Wikipedia, including article, section, and page blanking, insertion of deliberately wrong information, jokes, claims that a named classmate is GAAAAAYY!! and long strings of vulgarity and profanity clearly aimed at disrupting the encyclopedia. None of such edits are dealt with as being "uncivil" in the way that this page prohibits, since incivility matters only realistically come up for nameusers. These are usually dealt with by page after page of warning notices, and blocks seldom last more than a day or two, if that. Indeed, blocks against IP editors are often issued only if the vandalism is "ongoing" which means within the last few minutes. If it has quieted down for an hour, nobody will do anything.

But blocks for "disruption" or incivility can extend from months to indefinite, and the wikipolice can come after a name user on a complaint, days later. Why? Because usually somebody's feelings are hurt, is why. Generally there's a personal fight about information, politics, beliefs about nationality or sexuality or some bit of fact, and somebody has more friends who are administrators than the other person, and that gets the block button. In my six years on Wikipedia I've observed that an editor is more likely to get blocked for multiple-reversions of an article to something approximating the truth, than for inserting profanity into it! Provided that they don't have a username, of course.

The irony of this is that the more a user wants to improve Wikipedia, the more likely they are to have a username, which of course makes them vulnerable to administrative proceedings, as now they have a history that can be used against them in any Wiki-Court. And if you go to WP:AN/I you'll see many a case dragged out for a long time before somebody is finally banned-- but that doesn't ever happen to IP users who vandalize, unless they are suspected of being socks of nameusers.

We need a place to explain all this to newbies. Possibly also a place to explain it to somebody who is trying, in good faith, to make a better encyclopedia, and who wonders why they are being threatened with a block for being a hothead. Why is it that people who care about Wikipedia so much that they call an ignoramus an ignoramus, are more in danger of being blocked than the average vandal who erases a page and replaces it with *&%$ YOU! Well, the reason is that the well-being of Wikipedia (and the intent of the user toward same) is not the issue in "civility" matters. Even though the content of WP supposedly takes precident per Pillar 5. "Civility matters" are really just proxies for what happens when somebody with the admin tools does not get the "respect" they think they're entitled to (and which they usually do not get in real life). No amount of actual vandalism is as bad as that.

.SBHarris 00:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything you say, but I think a good deal of what you say is totally true, and I will comment about one aspect of it, even though it is rather off topic for this page. Suppose I see vandalism from an IP address, the last edits being four hours ago, and very similar edits have been going on for months, including several edits to the same article spread out over a period of six weeks. Let's also suppose that there is a string of warning messages on the IP talk page, including three "final" warnings, the last one being about 24 hours old. It is glaringly obvious that the same person is repeatedly coming back and vandalising, and I block for at least a month. Time and again I see reports at AIV in this sort of situation dismissed because the last vandalism was half an hour ago, so it's not "ongoing", or because the last "final" warning is a day old, so it's "stale", or for equally silly reasons. Those reasons are reasonable if it looks as though the latest edits are likely to be from a new editor, not previously warned, but a modicum of common sense says that if it is abundantly clear that it is the same person then you don't apply the same standards. Vandalism from a one-off vandal who made three edits in five minutes and has not come back in the next hour is not "ongoing", but vandalism from a persistent vandal who has been coming back repeatedly over months is still "ongoing" if the last such attack took place 10 hours ago. If more admins applied principals with a little intelligence, rather than mechanically and unthinkingly, then a lot more IP vandals would get blocked, and a lot of the IP blocks would come sooner. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Vagueness of Incivility

I marked the incivility section as confusing. I suggest that the criteria on User:FT2/Civility_draft#Incivility, 'What incivility is' section is far clearer. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but what specifically do you find confusing about the current section? Also, note that there is an ongoing RfC (linked in section above) relevant to this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just taking a look at it for the first time in a while this sentence is a bit problematic:

Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviors: personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours—when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict.

I think that sentence is a bit confusing because such behavior often does disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stressors and conflict. It also drives people away. Also "Unfolding pattern" used later in the paragraph is a bit confusing also since it implies over a number of articles. However it might be just repeated incidents in one article. CarolMooreDC 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the use of subjective terms. What's a 'minor incident' and how many is a few? If a few is two why not say two? 'disrespect' also a fuzzy word, to some being WP:BOLD is showing disrespect. Likewise 'rudeness' is in the eye of the beholder, unrefined can be rude. Also 'It applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia' does not appear correct. I do think comments and edit summaries that 'targets someone' should be stressed here. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the tag is still there. Either we clarify the confusion or take off the tag. Here's a proposal, eliminating some excess verbiage and making the concepts a bit clearer, from years of experience dealing with incivility (and controlling my own propensities!):

Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviours, especially when done in an aggressive manner: personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. These often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. If incivility is repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks against one or more individuals, then it may result in blocks. Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.

In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have considered it uncivil; Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Only take things to dispute resolution (see below) if there is an ongoing problem you cannot resolve.

This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has corrected their behavior, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

Thoughts? Please do not edit within the box but quote alternatives in your reply. CarolMooreDC 20:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we add something like this?

• Never over-react to incivility. Over-reaction causes far more disruption than almost any form of minor incivility: it polarises the community into battling factions and wastes hundreds of editor-hours. It leaves everyone far more damaged than the original incivility, and merely generates more ill-feeling from more people.
• If someone is getting into an incivility tiff, piling-on with accusations and dragging up old history, jumping onto an "Off with his head!" bandwagon, is escalation at its worst. If the accused person wasn't uncivil to you personally, if you weren't involved in the original minor spat which started it, then unless your intent is to de-escalate and encourage everyone to take a breather, walk away, and calm down, then stay out of it.

Due to Real Life issues (major, major issues) and some personal disenchantment with the 'pedia, I'm watching very few pages and not keeping up with everything, everywhere, so if answers could stay on this page I'd be very grateful! (Otherwise I may miss them.) Pesky (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have some objective reasoning for saying Over-reaction causes far more disruption ... It polarises the community ... It leaves everyone far more damaged ..., these things shouldn't be said in Wikipedia guidance material because they are just original research or someone's fantasies. Find a more objective way of saying what needs to be said. Dolphin (t) 07:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we really only need to be aware of how much drahmahz is caused on / around the subject of civility, which is so subjective a subject anyway (hehe!) to see the truth of that, though. Pesky (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am watching this and trying hard to walk away and stay out of it. Some meta-users seem to set such store in the wording of these pages searching for the impossible- a clear definition of what civility means. It is fascinating to see the various personal perception of civility and incivility- and it explains why people who dedicate enormous amount of time to WP are so prone to overreaction. It is MPOV that new named users are pretty clear as to etiquettte, and take their lead from more experienced editors- the guidelines are more relevant for those with edits behind them, seeking to make a mark and achieve personal status. I am afraid they need to learn to deal with editors from different cultures rather than generate these incivility flareups and witch hunts. For them it is important that we point out Over-reaction causes far more disruption ... It polarises the community ... It leaves everyone far more damaged ... If you need a reference quote Signpost. But in MPOV I would be far stronger- and say 'Incivility witch hunts are part of the reason that we fail to retain out most talented editors' and that is personal observation and not just OR. You could try saying Over-reaction is the worst form of incivility. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• While I understand the motivation behind the suggestion, I don't see that including it would help. One more bit of instruction-creep, increasing the amount of text in our corpus of policies, which we can do without. Also, it reads more like advice than like a policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• If the policy contains clear "instructions" not to over-react, and why, it might help.

  However, a thought occurred to me about this "workplace civility" idea. Maybe our different cultures' different workplace unwritten-rules may have something to do with it.

Is this all it really is, sometimes?

Y'know, in a working environment here in the UK, the only people you haveto be unfailingly sycophantically polite to, never tell them they're an idiot, never use a swearword when you're talking to them, are those who are your acknowledged superiors. When you're talking to someone of equal status, your language is far more down-to-earth. And if someone of equal status to you decided to tell you that you could only address them in the sort of terms you'd use to a company director, the response is likely to be: "Who the fuck do you think you are, telling me I have to lick your boots?"

Some of the dissonance could really be something as simple as that. Pesky (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Note the colloquial, idiomatic British English ;P Pesky (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The most pervasive unchecked-form of incivility in this absolutely VICIOUS place called Wikipedia is making false, unsubstantiated implicit or explicit accusations of violating policies and guidelines and other transgressions in order to gain the upper hand in a dispute or pissing war. The issue of rough language is 100 times smaller than that one. Why not work on making some changes where they are really needed and truly make Wikipedia a less vicious place. North8000 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We get our priorities horribly wrong, in here. "There are little crimes, and there are big crimes, and sometimes the big crimes are so big you can't even see them ...". I've never really got over this one. Not been the same since. Pesky (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets fix it. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My own answers to the recent questionnaire are over here, if anyone wants to read through them. That does cover quite a lot of stuff, though obviously it can never really be exhaustive. There are so many possible situations which can arise. And, when civility is a central feature, almost all of them are far more complex and contextually-dependent than they appear on the surface. Pesky (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think there's some dissonance in how we're defining "workplace", across differing cultures. Sometimes it seems as though there are editors who feel that "workplace environment" should have the same etiquette rules that some of the rest of us feel would be more appropriate to Queen Victoria's Drawing Rooms. An awful lot of people's workplaces aren't white-collar, management-structure boardrooms. They're shop-floor, car-repair workshop, farmyard, stable-yard, and any amount of other workplaces where down-to-earth (maybe apparently coarse, maybe seemingly vulgar, maybe swearing-is-no-big-deal) places. Pesky (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Past behaviour

I would like to suggest that the following comment is removed.

“ It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. ”

The reason I'm suggesting it, is from my experience if you are ever sanctioned for foolish behaviour, then it seems it is acceptable to repeatedly fling that in your face. By way of explanation I am ex-soldier, who left the army approximately 10 years ago suffering from PTSD. In 2009, I had a deterioration in my mental health triggered by the suicide of a former comrade. This spilled over into my editing and when baited by a number of editors I exhibited behaviour that was uncivil. As a result I was ultimately sanctioned in an arbcom decision.

It does not matter that my behaviour was acknowledged by others as uncharacteristic, it does not matter that I acknowledged my behaviour was unacceptable, it does not matter than I apologised repeatedly and unreservedly, it does not matter that I have never repeated the behaviour, it does not matter that since even when subjected to extreme provocation I have not repeated the same behaviour. No, it seems it is acceptable for other editors to be allowed to repeatedly refer to this episode as evidence I am not fit to edit wikipedia, it also seems that they can do so knowing I find it upsetting and they can do so without fear of having their conduct questioned.

It is difficult, particularly for a proud ex-soldier to acknowledge they have a problem, it is worse to have past mental health problems repeatedly referred to as a means of antagonising you. I am sure that the person who wrote that had it in mind that editors who had been uncivil could learn from the experience, move on and improve. Sadly in my experience that isn't the case and it seems I must wear the mark of Cain forever. But I don't think that wikipedia should misrepresent the way it deals with past behaviour, because it seems once punished forever condemned. Lets at least be honest. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I so totally agree with this. And I also have massive sympathy for you. I have C-PTSD myself (and I'm also a high-functioning autie). Hugz! There should be some kind of way of closing a particular chapter, some kind of statute of limitations, some kind of something to stop ancient history being dragged up over and over and over again. Once someone's been "labelled", that label seems to stick, no matter how unjustified or out-of-date it is, and it does go on affecting them pretty much forever. This is a major problem in here. In relationship-mediation situations, partners are most strongly advised not to go on and on dragging up old history, re-opening old wounds, and once something is resolved, to put it away and move on. Keeping on keeping on about ancient old stuff, resolved long ago, is also a kind of incivility. It just isn't fair on people. And yet, and yet, and yet ... we see it all the time. Grossly wrong. Pesky (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Past behavior should not be dragged up again unless the person keeps engaging in it. If they have no control over it, for whatever reason, they should stop editing til they deal with the issue. I did add something about it in my proposal to correct vagueness above, however. Since I know I've seen other references to not throwing past behavior in people's faces. (Unless they're doing it again which I had to do recently resulting in a second block for a bad boy. So I'll have to control my own dang self when he returns, if he's good.) CarolMooreDC 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol- can I say that I find the form of language you are using in the previous post as 'patronising' in the extreme. I appreciate you are struggling to find a non-contraversial form of language, to me that fails. If I were not used to dealing with folk from other cultures I would be offended- and suggest that you were being 'incivil', however my respect for you as a Wikipedian causes me to conclude that in your culture 'patronising language' is problem free. I am uncomfortable with people using the sort of language shown in the video clip but accept that that is my problem. It is certainly the language that subordinates have used to me in stressful business situations- and with a little analysis- I realised that they were speaking to me that way because they respected my integrity and felt I was managing the situation in a way that made them feel comfortable.

There is a tendency on wikipedia for small cabals of hardworking editors to think they are running a nation state and need to set laws - run a judicial system- write constitutions run their own foreign policy, and given the chance to have an army and navy as well. Well it has taken 750 years to mature from the issuing of the Magna Carta to removing the death penalty from the UK criminal code. Wikipedia could do well to look to the principles of small government, and rein in these time absorbing debates.

This morning, I realised that I had become far to focused on rules for the 'ideal editor'. Under discrimination legislation we need to recognise that many of our editors will be on the autistic spectrum and will be contributing to WP will fighting off demons like PTSD. I think that means we should reread most of our behaviour guidelines to see that these prolific editors need are being satisfied. Inclusivity means far more than checking that the language used would not offend a schoolkid.

As always, anyone I have offended is most welcome to come on over for a cup of tea and a slice of Parkin- its open house tomorrow night to celebrate that great event of social injustice- the stitch up of Guy Fawkes.--ClemRutter (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, the "patronising language" one! Quite a while back, I attempted to be as kind as possible, to (sort of) make up for having previously possibly being considered unduly harsh with a user, so worded my message in the most un-aggressive, FemaleSpeak / GrannySpeak (I am a grandmother) way ... and was accused of incivility which was considered (by one editor) as "blockworthy" !!! It really can be quite incredibly hard to work out where other people draw those lines in the sand; when is bluntly truthful uncivil? When is gentle, granny-type language "patronising"? Where are these lines ... well, they're all in different places for different people. Now more people "know" me, I seem to get less of this kind of problem, but it could still happen, so easily. Pesky (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Pesky. If I had it all to do over I'd have a cool handle like yours! But at least I can agree with the cool thing you just said!! Patronizing is in the mind of the writer and the reader. Insults, slurs, etc. are pretty obvious, i.e., the difference between "Perhaps you should study WP:NPOV policy more thoroughly." Vs. "Hey, idiot, ever hear of NPOV??" Which would you prefer to hear? Yours, SeXegenarian-wise, CarolMooreDC 16:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So much depends on my previous interactions with people! There are many, many editors here who I'd have a wry chuckle at myself if they said to me "Hey, idiot, ever hear of NPOV??" I'd know it wasn't meant nastily, from them to me. I've jokingly threatened spankings in here, not to mention the ultimate granny-weapon of suffocation-by-cleavage (forcible hugging to death ...). And there are also editors from whom I'd read the former as if it had been said in the most scathing and contemptuous tone of voice. In both cases, though, my most likely reaction would be to consider whether the underlying point had merit, and other than examining my own behaviour to see if I really had strayed off into POV territory, I would let the language in which the point was made wash over me without hurting. Pesky (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Extremely silly and extremely poor English

Blocking is employed for major incivility: when incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be allowed, as explained in those policies.

(!-- you have just said that Blocking is a tool to inflict major incivility. Then looking at the rest of the sentence- is this some scale like windspeed. Is clear disruption equivalent to Gale Force 9, and personal attacks Storm Force 10-- because that is what rises to the level means. Then we have those policies which refers back to the word blocks... this is extremely silly and extremely poor English. I will shove this on the talk page if I am not interrupted.--) From project page inline comment --ClemRutter (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I like Fluffernutter's change. It sure beat mine. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep- yours was a nice try and did seem to describe the status quo perfectly :) Now we still have the rising to a level problem- personal attacks is a behavioural guideline guideline not a quantitative value. I still reckon that all this is a useless waste of time as the concept of civility is cultural dependent (and probably age and gender dependent too). --ClemRutter (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Culture, age and gender all affect our social behaviour, but none of them as dramatically as frontal lobe function. Some people have poorer social sense than others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning for civility blocks

To the section titled #Blocking for incivility, I propose adding a 4th point, reading something along the lines of

"Users must be clearly warned before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to refactor, explain, or apologize for uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. As with other blocks, civility blocks should be preventative and not punitive."

As a side note, while the long Schopenhauer quote in the Blocking section is interesting, I don't think it's quite appropriate for a Wikipedia policy page. I recommend that it be moved to a footnote or something for those who are inclined to dig deeper. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. One one hand, blocking for anything without giving the person a chance to reconsider and make things right is usually unnecessarily fast escalation. On the other hand, you'd have to try very hard to truly argue that experienced users seriously have no idea that civility is expected of them here, and that they somehow need extra chances - especially if we're talking about people who habitually attack others, and in that sense a warning is technically unnecessary. In the particular case you're thinking of tonight, I think that was the blocking admin's reasoning - "here we have to extremely experienced editors, who indisputably know better than to attack others...and they're attacking others. It's not ok, and they already know it's not ok, so $consequences." On the meta-level, however, there's little to be lost from a "See this edit? Here? That's not ok. Please refactor that." prior to blocking. Yes, the experienced editors who know better get an "extra" chance, and yes, I can think of cases where it would be gamed, but if the warning is of the type "You need to do something to fix what you just did," as opposed to "Gee, what you did wasn't nice", the possibilities of gaming are minimised and the possibility of the situation being smoothed over are maximised. But again, nothing about this makes the initial incivility ok or excusable. If I call someone an "asswipe", the fact that I haven't gotten a warning for that beforehand doesn't somehow give me a get-out-of-jail-free card, and I would be expected to remedy the fact that I think it's ok to call people "asswipes" if I want to retain my editing privileges after the warning I get. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and gaming the system is a possibility. I would like, however, to keep the 2nd sentence (about experienced users). We all lose our head from time to time, and no matter how many contributions we have, we can lose control, temporarily forgetting everything about civility. It is in this situation where the stern warning would be useful (instead of the surprise block). I would guess that most long term experienced editors, after a warning, would quickly back off, remember policy, and apologize. Newer editors would probably have a range of reactions, some ignoring the warning but backing off anyway (feeling intimidated perhaps), some realizing they had done wrong and apologizing, and some continuing the attacks, and getting blocked. I think all of these scenarios, however, are better than a surprise block, with the possible exception of those new editors who manage to squeeze in one or two more attacks before the block.

For users who try to game the system, I suggest treating them like users who vandalize up until the final warning and then stop, or users who edit war up to 3RR and then stop. Keep an eye on them for several days, and if they are gaming, then block. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone constantly attacked by one or more AnonIps, including with comments that are so bad others remove them even and their edit summaries before I've seen them, I think one does need to specify something about "egregious" incivility and personal attacks; and we all know them when we seem them, but it's good to get that concept into people's minds. Also, it's not clear (or needs to be repeated, depending on where paragraph is) WHO should give that warning, admin or any editor on their talk page. CarolMooreDC 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, as it adds another step towards WP:BURO. For WP:3RR, we give users one warning the first time. After that, they are supposed to know the rule. The same thing should apply to WP:CIV. And for WP:NPA I'd allow block on sight if the attack is serious enough. I can laugh off "you stupid jerk", but if it moves to "you white thrash homo are a lying piece of shit" or "you are as stupid as I would expect of a schizo chink", I don't see a need for a warning. Everybody should know that talk like that is not acceptable in any even semi-civilised society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephan, I agree with most of what you say here: there should definitely be room for admin discretion based on the severity of the attack. As for 3RR, you're correct that they don't need to be warned every time if they're experienced, but users without a warning are still less likely to get blocked, depending on who's running the noticeboard. And with 3RR, the warning helps separate the users who forgot to count reverts (possibly from a previous day) from users who knowingly violate 3RR. (With civility, the warning would separate the users who get flustered and slip up, but are willing to apologize and correct their behavior from those who will just continue the attacks.

For civility blocks, I agree with you that users should not need to be warned every time, but they should at least have a recent warning or evidence of gaming before a surprise block is issued. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. If incivility is serious or persistent enough to justify a block, a warning is superfluous. If it is not that serious, admins should have sufficient good sense not to block, with or without a warning. If a block truly comes as a surprise, something has already gone seriously wrong. --Boson (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe something has already gone seriously wrong, and I can think of a very recent example where a block came as a surprise. Of course serious and persistent incivility justifies a block, but the user should be notified that it's a block-able offense before being hit with a block. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

By the same token, Adjwilley, I could say - and be telling god's honest truth - that I was flabbergasted the time that I got a speeding ticket on a local highway. Not because I didn't know I was speeding, but because it's so uncommon for the speed limit to be enforced in my area that it simply didn't occur to me that I'd be called on my law-breaking. The same could be said in cases like this, where a civility block comes as "a surprise" - the user knows very well that civility is expected of them; they're just gambling that it's enforced so rarely that the odds are stacked against them being held responsible. The correct approach when that's people's mindset isn't really to stop enforcing the "law"; it's to enforce it evenly and commonly enough that people stop believing that their actions probably won't have consequences. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a speeding ticket in front of me right now as it happens, for doing 35 mph in a 30 mph area. My initial reaction isn't to debase myself in front of local magistrates but rather to take my angle grinder down to the post supporting the camera and save some other poor schmuck. We're different people, and we make different choices. Yours is no more or less reasonable than mine. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is "civility," not "reasonable." This is perhaps the biggest misunderstanding. A reasoned person might think another is an idiot or whatever other epithet can be raised. There can be reasonable evidence to support that view and many other people can agree. "Civil", however, is treating the editor with courteous indifference to their idiocy as is what would happen at your angle grinding trial. When an editor can't be civil, a block is in order. --DHeyward (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The "other poor schmuck", of course, may just be the guy on a bicycle hit by a speeder who could't stop in time. And the tax-payer who has to pay the incidental damage to the infrastructure. I'm very much in favour of getting rid of rules that serve no good purpose, and I've been arguing against encroachment of bureaucracy and self-important pseudo-police running around harassing people as incivil simply for voicing clear opinions or using some "bad" language. But not all rules are superfluos - some actually serve a good purpose. Most traffic laws and regulations do indeed help to reduce accidents. And a reasonable minimum standard of civility is necessary in a collaborative enterprise. Moreover, in any society, I'm unlikely to get exactly my preferred ruleset accepted by all. As long as I want to uphold the overall principle of generally applied and enforced rules, I have to accept some rules I find stupid, and live without some I think would be useful. If I cannot, in good conscience, make that compromise, I am free to leave, or to be obnoxious enough to be thrown out (or into something, depending on the details of the situation and the society). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter, I think the speeding ticket is a good analogy. I got pulled over myself a little over a week ago (53 in a 40) but the police man was kind enough to have just given me a warning, asking me to drive slower. And believe me, I did. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that civility should be enforced, and I believe it should be enforced uniformly, but if you're a police force and experienced drivers are leaving the country in anger and shame after getting their first ticket, don't you think it would be time to make an adjustment to policy? What if policemen flashed their lights at you and gave you a chance to slow down before giving you the ticket? There would be less speeding (more civility), policy would be applied uniformly, and there would be fewer blocks. Is that not an improvement over the current situation, where policy is not applied uniformly? Half of people think these civility blocks are crazy, while half think their application should be more widespread; some editors are getting a free pass while others are getting surprise blocks. Solution: fix the policy so it can be applied uniformly without driving off good editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And after the warning, or second warning, or third warning? Is there a speed limit if there are never any tickets? Let's put it this way, if a user has been blocked for as little as 15 minutes, they should know what's expected. If they are so childish as to leave every time someone calls them on their general assholiness, good riddance. Repeat assholes are unneeded. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support This will prevent long term editors in good standing from being blocked for a one off. I would add an exception for "death and legal threats" where the person should be blocked right away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note: I have made an edit moving the Schopenhauer quote to a footnote, as I proposed earlier. (There didn't seem to be any opposition to that.) Basically it's a really wordy quote saying that punishment should be an attempt to influence the future, not just punish people for the past. In the context of blocks, this just means that they should be preventative, not punitive, so I added that text. I feel this is amply supported in existing policy (see WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE).

  As for the other changes I proposed above, I agree with much of the feedback that has been given, and I'd like to redo the proposal incorporating that. I'm thinking something along the lines of "Users should be clearly warned before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to refactor, explain, or apologize for uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings and are gaming the system." I've softened the "must" to a "should" and added some exceptions. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I plan to come back later with a more concrete proposal. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Strike "and are gaming the system" in your revised wording, and you have something I'd probably support. It doesn't matter if they're deliberately gaming the system, or just absentmindedly continuing an established behavioral pattern - if they've been warned before, especially multiple times, they already know the rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Good point. Stricken. Shall I start a new subsection for voting/comments again for the revised wording? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Try 2

Based on the feedback given above, I have revised the wording of the proposed addition to:

"Users should be clearly warned before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to refactor, explain, or apologize for uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings."

As I said above, the must has been softened to should, and a sentence about exceptions has been added. Thoughts or suggestions on this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll just be bold and do it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

I just placed suggestions for changing the Wikipedia talk:Editing policy page to improve civility in the section titled "Talk and edit section". All comments are welcome. Jim Derby (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fairness

The text "Be absolutely, scrupulously fair and impartial at all times" has been removed several times from the section about blocking, on the grounds that it is "off-topic" or "obvious". I'm not quite sure why this wasn't brought to talk after it was first reverted, but now: it speaks well of the admins removing that they think it obvious, but unfortunately not everyone keeps this principle in mind. Certainly "off-topic" is not a valid label for this text, to my mind, since contrary to the removing editor's assertion it relates to blocking and not "what is civility". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's already in WP:BLOCK as well as WP:AFNN (part of the New Admin School) as well as covered implicitly in WP:AGF and WP:COI. As another editor has noted, this is obvious to any admin. In order to think it necessary to add this injunction to be "fair and impartial" one must consider not abusing one's position is something which requires spelling out for those who have passed Rfa. Anyone who might conceivably be considering being impartial or unfair will already be ignoring the AGF and BLOCK policies, and possibly COI as well. Adding redundant verbiage here is unlikely to make any difference. And finally, it is incumbent upon you, who wish to add the verbiage, to convince others it is needed. I see the removal of this content, by multiple editors, as a rejection of the proposed verbiage. KillerChihuahua 22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps you're misreading the history, KC: this wording has been there at least since August (didn't check further back); it was first removed earlier today, re-added by me, re-removed by you. Thus, it is incumbent upon you and/or the person who initially removed it to support its removal. As I noted above, it should be obvious to any admin - and is so to you - but bears repeating nonetheless, for those citing this page in block rationales who may not have considered it. Will it make a difference? We don't know, but it certainly wouldn't hurt and may help. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman: "Be scrupulously fair" is 100% correct, but also obvious and applies to all administrative actions. No need to repeat - and I suppose in an article on table etiquette you could add "don't steal the silverware" and it wouldn't hurt, so much as be needlessly redundant and add to the length of the article. I disagree that it would be helpful, as I have explained above. Anyone already ignoring multiple policies is unlikely to be swayed by an injunction to "be fair!". One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 23:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd suggest that half this page is redundant to either AGF or CONSENSUS, yet somehow I don't think I'd get consensus to delete it. Perhaps we can get some more opinions on either side. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion: Yes, it's important, but it's not uniquely important to civility. If it is to be mentioned, it shouldn't get it's own bullet point or number in the list. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• The "fairness" exhortation was an addition of Pesky's, if I recall correctly, and came out of a discussion that she and I were both involved in where she was trying to make our policy on this more explicit, so that it's easier to comprehend for younger or non-neurotypical editors. Pesky believes, I think (though obviously I don't live inside her head, so perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm happy to be corrected), that unfairness is a very, very serious issue in regard to admin actions, and that it bears stressing that an admin must always strive to give equivalent ("fair") sanctions (or non-sanctions) to users for the same or equivalent behavior. I think, however, that spelling it out the way it was in this policy until today does something along the lines of what KC and Jehochman are arguing, yes - repeats the obvious - but also adds an implication that shouldn't be there - that there must always be equivalency in admin responses to behavior from different people. Again I'll try to represent Pesky's POV here by saying that she thinks that equivalence of sanctions/approach is perhaps one of the most important expectations there should be of admins, and then I'll add my POV: that individuals are different, and admin responses to them must be tailored, at least to some extent, to fit the individual editor. So to the extent that I think the "fairness" clause in the Civ policy is both redundant to what we're already doing, in one sense, and also implies something that I believe to be a wrong approach, in another, I support the removal of that clause from the policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Protected

Edit warring by admins on a policy page? Really?

I've protected for a few days. Hash it out here, for crying out loud. — Coren ^(talk) 23:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We already were - you're a bit late to the party :-P but feel free to chime in above. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Calling another editor's editing behavior "reprehensible" is NOT uncivil

...or so a small group of Administrator's (and perhaps some non-Admins, I don't know) just determined over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on a recently closed incident. (the current link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#.22The_ed17.22_and_civility, but I expect that to get moved to the archives in the next 36 hours.)

As the editor who lodged the request for review of another editor's behavior in that incident, I accept the outcome of that now-closed ANI as the working consensus that referring to another editor's behavior as "reprehensible" is not WP:UNCIVIL. That was news to me. But then I guess social and cultural norms vary rather widely. I will accept that as the WP consensus at this point in time from that group of Admins, and read that as a working community standard: specifically, that accusations of "reprehensible" behavior are not considered uncivil.

So as a behavioral matter, with that specific editor, I accept the community consensus that hollering "reprehensible" in a crowded theatre is not considered uncivil.

However, as a policy matter, there might be a policy question here that would be worth thinking through so I bring it to the attention on this core content page. The ANI incident was open only very briefly before it was closed. My own sense is that editors lobbing the loaded term "reprehensible" at one another would not lead to a long term equilibrium of a better encyclopedia, and it would certainly tend to continue to keep the focus of discussion on "about the editor" rather than "about improving the encylopedia."

But your mileage may vary. So feel free to weigh in on the policy matter if you have an opinion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the issue concerns this comment where an editor remarked "I think your systemic gutting of articles over several years, like Minor Humans in Shannara, is reprehensible" at User talk:N2e#Systemic gutting of articles. Systematic gutting of articles is reprehensible, so there is no problem with that statement. An appropriate response to such a comment would be to look for what the editor is trying to say, and evaluate whether they may be some validity in their comment, then respond by asserting that systematic gutting is good, or that you have not been systematically gutting articles. Claiming that the comment is uncivil, then not discussing the underlying issue is a problem. WP:V is a powerful tool that provides a backdoor to allow articles to be gutted—that is the issue that needs discussion. Many people notice incidents at ANI and the fact the report there was quickly closed and not re-opened shows that no one agrees that the statement is uncivil. Indeed, how else might two adults discuss a problem where one believes the other is being unhelpful? Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, on the policy question with respect to WP:CIVIL, thanks for sharing your opinion.

On the content dispute, I think you are rather jumping to a conclusion to accept the assertion of one editor in that content dispute, who happened to allege that there had been "Systematic gutting of articles". In other words, that would be something that would have to be determined in an appropriate forum when that (the content dispute) is being discussed. That has plainly not been the case as I have stayed away from editing any of the affected articles, and of starting a content-based discussion, while the Civility/Editor-Behavior discussion was going on. I recognize that this page is not the forum for that, but felt that since you brought your acceptance of an allegation as fact onto this Talk page, I rather needed to respond on this same Talk page.

The question here, on the Civility Talk page, was simply about whether editors are likely to be able to have civil content-based discussions while the whole "reprehensible" accusation thing was going on. I'm fine if the consensus that accusing another editor of "reprehensible" behavior is within policy; that is what the ANI said, and that is, so far, what one of one comment on this Talk page has said. I will ultimately live with whatever consensus emerges, and may even eventually change my view on the loaded nature of that word in Wikipedia editor to editor discourse, if that's how it comes down. But you should not accept the accusation of a single editor as fact until I've had a chance to defend my actions, as reasonable, slow and measured attempts to improve the encyclopedia over the long term; and I've not had the chance to do that yet. And this page is clearly the wrong place to do it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I said that a proper response would be to assert that gutting articles is good, or to deny that you have been gutting articles. The assertion should be accompanied with some reasoning—that would be a response. Fixating on one word and claiming stuff about CIVIL evades the issue. Editors cannot be expected to always agree about everything, so there will be times when a serious discussion is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely read what you wrote, and was trying to be polite to the other editors of this page by leaving content dispute discussion for elsewhere. I will emphatically dispute that reading of my attempts to improve Wikipedia in another forum, and soon. But that is not what this page and this discussion is about. This page is—and, as you and I have both noted above, should be—about a code of conduct discussion. N2e (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be really helpful to have several additional editors who care about CIVILITY policy weigh in on this policy question. For purpose of civility policy, set aside the alleged guilt or innocence of the single editor's characterizations of the other editor's actions "systematic gutting of articles". The accused editor might be a "systematic gutter of articles", or might merely be an editor "attempting to improve the encyclopedia by gradually and methodically removing the most unreasonable of the unsourced claims after considerable time has passed requesting sources." However, in order to be discussed openly and honestly, a civil discussion is needed. So that leads to the following civility policy question to be addressed:

QUESTION: Do you believe that a civil discussion of that case, and the guilt or innocence of any editor in a content dispute, can be fairly discussed if one editor is hurling accusations of "reprehensible" behavior at the other. Obviously, as the one asking this question, I do not. But it would be great to get a cross-section of other editor opinion on the matter of the use of the word "reprehensible" in civil editor discourse.

• as original questioner, my view would of course be that accusations of "reprehensible" behavior are uncivil, and should not be condoned on the Wikipedia. Rationale: such accusations would tend to get in the way of conducting reasonable content-based discussion and resolving content disputes in a fair and impartial manner. N2e (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It was uncivil. No doubt about it. As was Johnuniq's assumption of bad faith. Have you followed any earlier discussions about civility here? The community is unsure how to deal with incivility. Personally, I'll tolerate pretty much anything on user talk pages, I'm less tolerant on community pages like this one, and a bit of a civility nazi on article talk pages, where we should uphold the highest standards of rhetoric. You might consider telling the editor to improve his approach or stay away from your talk page. If he's insulting or disrespectful on article talk pages, or won't respect your wish that he stay away from your user page, you may get a more sympathetic response from WP:ANI. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What bad faith? Please do not make such an assertion without some kind of explanation. I have no idea whether N2e has been gutting articles, but that is clearly the opinion of the editor who made the comment. My response above was to say that it is not helpful to fixate on whether gentler language should have been used—just respond to the issue. The standard advice is that saying that a particular editor is reprehensible breaches CIVIL, but the post actually offered an opinion that (a) an editor has been gutting articles over several years, and (b) that gutting is reprehensible. It is not at all clear that such a statement, delivered in the way that it was, breaches CIVIL. The (b) clause is obviously true, so the only issue is whether (a) applies. Raising such a matter is not a breach of CIVIL.

The remarks about a sympathetic response at ANI are obviously not applicable because the matter was raised at ANI (archived here) and was quickly closed, but not before several people commented, with no one supporting the OP, and the only comments regarding civility were "I consider ed's comments to be blunt but not uncivil" and "Ed was civil and policy driven". Further, there is no suggestion of any inappropriate commentary on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, Johnuniq. I have deliberately left the content dispute for later, as in my mind, it is not very possible to have an open and honest discussion about content if insults are being thrown around. I'm simply attempting to get a policy consensus on whether the accusation of reprehensible behavior is okay in standard and civil Wikipedia editor-to-editor discourse. If it is, then my previous cultural take on the matter would be wrong, and the content discussion might be fairly started with symmetric claims of reprehensible behavior by each editor against the other. As a general matter, I think that likely would not be helpful to civil discussion of the content dispute, but then perhaps that is just my parochial cultural bias. The question here, for editors not involved in any particular content dispute, is to weigh in on whether that use of "reprehensible" accusations is, in our Wikiworld, considered civil. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I clearly misunderstood you, and apologise for that. My point about ANI was that N2e would likely get a more sympathetic hearing there if the complaint was about an editor who kept posting on a user talk page despite being asked not to by the user, or if the disrespect was occurring on an article - rather than a user - talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

N2e's last comment talks about an "accusation of reprehensible behavior". The language that was actually used is subtly different, and a key point is that "behavior" was not mentioned. There was no statement about N2e's behavior, and that is what makes the comment "blunt but not uncivil". Suppose editor X thinks that Y is gutting articles, and that gutting articles is reprehensible. How should X raise the matter on Y's talk page? There should not need to be a sugar coating to the message, and it is the underlying issue that should attract discussion. I intend to not comment again here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We disagree on that. The comment that sparked this was, in my humble opinion, unambiguously intemperate, inappropriate and disrespectful. But, I doubt that either of us will change the other's mind on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"I think your systemic gutting of articles over several years, like Minor Humans in Shannara, is reprehensible" may not be incivil (I'm seesawing on that), but I would say it's certainly not diplomatic and I might (politely) call out an editor who left such a comment. Part of the problem is that it's not entirely clear whether the statement is directed at the practice itself (systemic gutting is reprehensible) or the practitioner (you're behaving reprehensibly). I'm inclined to think this is intended as a dig at the editor, which granted isn't AGF on my part.

Given that the comment was left at the editor's Talk page, they'd be within their rights to remove the comment entirely or simply not respond...for that matter they'd be within their rights to say that they found the comment incivil and consequently will not respond/would like an apology before they respond/etc.

In my case, I've gotten enough incivil comments on my Talk page that I now preface it with an advisory that I reserve the right to not respond to and/or summarily delete comments I deem incivil, and that if an editor wants to have a real conversation but can't find it within themselves to be civil at the time, they're welcome to WP:CHILLOUT for the time-being.

Maybe there's room for policy to be improved in this regard, but since we are talking about an editor's Talk page here, I'm not sure what else is really needed. Doniago (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

True. Civility, though does apply to user talk pages as well, but calling someones comments reprehensible instead of say, inappropriate, is splitting hairs, but judging from the fact that the editor who received the complaint complained about it both at ANI and here, it is obvious that more tactful wording would have been infinitely better, such as "less than ideal". Apteva (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Incivility: Does it matter where it happens?

Without commenting on the specific issue raised by N2e in the above discussion, Anthonyhcole raises an interesting point.[1] Assuming that someone says something uncivil, does it matter where it happens (user talk pages, community pages, article talk pages, etc.)? This doesn't seem to be addressed by WP:CIVIL although I might have missed it. I don't know if this has been discussed before as I'm not really a regular of this policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is partially addressed by Wikipedia:Civility#Different_places.3B_different_atmospheres. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So, this may be a dumb idea, but...

I was thinking last night about civility and the apparent longstanding difficulty Wikipedia has in dealing with it. (I am deliberately not invoking names or past blowups I've read about, so if a discussion happens here maybe we can keep it to general principles? I think that would be awesome).

WP:CIVIL, as a Thing, is just bloody hard to enforce in any meaningful way. But there is a policy that's actually really easy to enforce, and I don't really understand how it's not used in civility/NPA issues. (And hey maybe someone has thought this before. I admit I didn't comb through the archives because that way lies madness and a rabbithole like TVTropes).

WP:BLP, in a nutshell, says "Don't say shit about people that isn't supported, kthx."

Would it be a terrible idea to reorganize the concepts of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and just use WP:BLP as the basis for any blocks/enforcement/finger-wagging? Different countries have different standards of civility which is a big problem... but basically anything that really is a problem is something that would get an editor blocked pretty quickly for if they ever did it in an article. And BLP states that it applies to every page on Wikipedia, and unless I'm mistaken all editors are live human beings, so BLP applies.

What does everyone think? I haven't worked out all the details in my head, but it seemed like it might be a good approach, and would have positive effects on traditionally unpleasant areas like AfD and RfA and so on. — The Potato Hose 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A Higher Standard

Of the five pillars of Wikipedia, it is being upheld by four pillars, and this is not one of them. Wikipedia is not doing an effective job of ensuring civility.

I think that it should be mentioned that editors are held to a higher standard of civility in Wikipedia than they hold themselves to in live discourse. In live discourse, if you are joking or being sarcastic, that is clear. On the Internet, there are no non-verbal cues. It has been known since 1985 that the lack of non-verbal cues in electronic discussions and the permanence of electronic comments creates a real problem for people who post quickly and then rethink. Because there are no non-verbal cues on the Internet, including in Wikipedia, an editor needs to be careful about their comments. You can't just say what you feel like saying, and then think that it will work out. It may, in a live discussion. In Wikipedia, or elsewhere in the Internet, what you have posted is there forever. You can apologize, but it isn't necessarily enough to apologize. So think before posting, even to user talk pages.

I will also mention that I have stated on other pages my concern about editors who are said to be "excellent content creators", but who are habitually uncivil. Should "excellent content creators" be given a pass on civility? (Answers are optional, because I just violated my own rule, and was being sarcastic.)

At least since 1985, it has been understood that the lack of non-verbal cues in email can cause problems, especially if people are hostile, sarcastic, or engaged in weird humor. (See http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283.html)

I think that this policy should be revised and strengthened to include some reference to the permanance of what are thought to be casual insults (there are no casual insults) and the permanence of electronic communication. Comments?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lovely, so long as the policy can also say something useful about how to deal with the devastating effects of CIVIL editors who push and poke indefinitely. Wikipedia does not need more text on being nice—instead, two things are required: a mechanism for cutting off nonsense that passes the CIVIL test, and a reasonable way to handle the case referred to above (hint: over-the-top blocks that are known to upset many good editors are not helpful). Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

First, I propose that something be added about the lack of non-verbal cues. Policies don't always need reliable sources, but I have cited one of the oldest reliable sources on netiquette. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Second, I agree with User:Johnuniq that the specific case in point was handled badly. I have, on other pages, said that editors such as the one mentioned should be dealt with by the ArbCom (as was the case in 2005 through 2007), because "community consensus" is a will-o-the-wisp. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Third, it appears that User:Johnuniq is referring either to civil but tendentious editors who edit with a biased POV, or to editors who try to provoke other editors into incivility. It is not clear which. I agree that both types of editors are problematical. The first should be dealt with by Dispute resolution. Stricter enforcement of civility would make such disputes more likely to be dealt with by dispute resolution than by name-calling, a common practice in disputes. If he is referring to the second, editors who deliberately provoke other editors, I think that deliberate provocation should be viewed as uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are talking about the tiny little overly small area covered by this policy, and you are probably right about that area. But Wikipedia is a very vicious place and this policy completely fails to get into the areas where that occurs and so overall it tolerates and sanctions vicious behavior and so is overall very lenient. My impression is as follows:

• Editor A says: Dear sir, I just killed your wife and kids and am trying to get you killed. Happy editing! Have a nice day! Editor A will live long and prosper in Wikipedia.

• Editor B says: Hey bro, I read your stuff and it sucks! Editor B will end up banned from Wikipedia.

North8000 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Recently I actually agreed with North8000 on a talk page. Now it isn't clear what he is saying should be done. Is he actually aware of a case where someone discussed a murder that he, the editor, had committed in Wikipedia, or is he being sarcastic on the Internet, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After spending time at WP:ANI and other noticeboards, the meaning of North8000's comments becomes very clear, and is related to what I wrote above. Many onlookers do not want to take the time to evaluate a case, and so try to judge who is "right" by counting how many bad words each side used. That's an oversimplification, but it's not far off the mark in practice. Someone who satisfies CIVIL can cause enormous disruption. Sending people to WP:DR against a civil POV pusher is saying "we don't care, just go away", and DR will do nothing except swallow another large slab of time and energy, and will almost always not resolve the issue in a manner that helps the encyclopedia. DR only works when there is some rationality on both sides. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand North8000's comment. I think that I addressed Johnuniq's comments. Civil but tendentious editors who push a biased POV are difficult but can be dealt with by dispute resolution. Editors who are civil in the sense of not using offensive words, but who habitually provoke other editors, should be treated as uncivil. I still don't understand North8000's comments about murder. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I used "murder" as hyperbole(/metaphor for trying to get someone discredited, banned, blocked, shamed, chased away etc. as a way to further ones ends) to clarify a point. The real viciousness that makes Wikipedia such a nasty place is mis-using policies and guidelines to try to do harm to people, includine misstatement/misrepresentaitons etc. regarding them. And those people are clever enough to pretend to be civil while they are doing it and slip under the wp:civil radar. Two real but unnamed editors come to mind that illustrate this:

• Editor #1 (who I disagree with about 98% of time) uses rough language, and is extremely blunt and rough. I've gone to bat for them at least 2-3 times at noticeboards when they've gotten in trouble for that.

• Editor #2 is the most vicious warrior that I know of, who is always trying to mis-use the system to get people who stand in the way of their POV quest smacked or banned. They pretend to be sweet when writing, and even have the equivalent of "Have a nice day" embedded in their signature.

I consider editor #1 to be refreshingly blunt, and if they tell me that I'm full of sh*t, I appreciate that they are being straight with me. They do not try to do harm to other editors. and yet they keep getting in trouble with wp:civility. Editor #2 is emblematic of what makes Wikipedia such a vicious nasty place, and they never get in trouble with wp:civility. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The worst perpetrators of real incivility and violence on Wikipedia are those admins and editors who hunt other editors, particularly highly productive content editors, that they can accuse of or provoke into some form of superficial verbal incivility. These perpetrators, who rarely contribute anything of value to Wikipedia articles, then try to get their target banned or blocked, or try to bludgeon them with threats of banning or blocking. Instead of giving this destructive malevolence short shift, these perpetrators are indulged on the drama boards and given barnstars by other perpetrators. As a result, it is no longer possible to have honest and robust disagreements between honest and robust editors on article talk pages. Instead, we have to resort to a sick-making form of doublespeak and politically correct wikietiquette. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North8000 and Epipelagic. Anyone without experience of some of the POV wars has no understanding of (a) the purpose of Wikipedia (to build an encyclopedia); or (b) the chaos caused by those POV pushers who manage to adapt to CIVIL; or (c) the pathetic inability of any noticeboard (particularly DR and Arbcom) to deal with the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite some time ago, after some extraordinary run-ins with the niceness police, I made a vow on my User page to stop swearing and to stick to lying, as I had perceived was common among those who couldn't cope with the language I am used to using where I work and live. I have since had trouble over a couple of "bullshits" that slipped out, but seriously.... HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We should evolve wp:civility based on the above, to help make wikipedia less of such a vicious and nasty place. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If North8000 wants to evolve this civility policy based on the above discussion, that sounds like a reasonable approach. However, can North8000 explain in more detail how he would like to evolve this policy? By explicitly stating that provoking other editors while using apparently polite language is a gross breach of civility? If so, I agree. In some other way? Please clarify. I am likely to agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert - the problem is that, despite the page we're discussing here defining incivility very broadly, in ways that probably cover most of the concerns people like North and I have, almost the only things that ever get chased up as being uncivil are the use of what some think are naughty words. Forget the naughty words for a while, and police the things that really matter. A bit of a test for you. Which would be worse? Me telling outrageous and slanderous lies about things you have done in the past here as an editor, or me telling you, in the heat of a discussion, to become a better fucking editor? If I wrote to another editor "Stop telling so many fucking lies about me", would you investigate the lies? HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point I was more seeking feedback / mini-consensus on whether or not trying to work on this is a generally good idea. This is a complicated area, (but immensely worth it.....we could do a HUGE amount of good) and I've moved into a few week period of sporadic Wikipedia presence, so it would take me some time to present specific ideas. Others could start now. North8000 (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Two Follow-Up Questions

First, is Johnuniq asking about POV-pushers, or about editors whose words appear to be civil but are trying to push or provoke other editors? If the latter, would it be appropriate to treat their behavior as being uncivil? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Second, having not spent time to WP:ANI, can someone explain the context of what is being said about the homicide? Is the basic point that the use of "bad" or "inherently offensive" words and phrases is only a part of the civility policy, and that it should not be oversimplified by reducing it to the avoidance of offensive language, but that context is important?

Please see above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolving the Policy

Is there agreement that the policy should be clarified and should explicitly state that civility is not limited to the avoidance of naughty words, but that trying to provoke other editors into using naughty words is both uncivil and malicious? If there either is agreement among those editing here, or at least isn't disagreement, I may originate a policy Request for Comments to get a larger consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the policy, but with the application of the policy at the noticeboards. The policy contains the following:

2. Other uncivil behaviours

• (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
• (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
• (c) sexual harassment
• (d) lying
• (e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them

Notice that baiting or taunting and lying are both explicitly defined as breaches of civility. The problem appears to be with the application of the policy. Are there any ideas as to how to improve the application of the policy to ensure that baiting and lying are addressed in addition to cursing? My own thought is that, while the noticeboards are the proper place to report gross incivility, seeking "community consensus" at the noticeboards is often pursuing a will-o-the-wisp, and serious breaches of civility, whether by one editor or by multiple editors, should be written up and sent to the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for digging out that policy Robert. It certainly highlights some areas that are not strongly policed. But what about misrepresentation? Quite often, after I've made a suggestion that someone doeasn't like, a comment will be made along the lines of "So you're proposing that...", followed by statement that is very different from what I have said, and designed to prove that I'm some sort of irrational bigot. It's very difficult to carry on a rational discussion with such editors. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@HiLo48: The policy does address your concern explicitly. Misrepresentation of another editor's views is either 2d, which is lying, or 2e, which is quoting out of context "to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the noticeboards are a good place for reporting civility violations, but "community consensus" at the noticeboards is not a good way for resolving the underlying problems of editor conduct that are reported at the noticeboards. What is reported at the noticeboards is typically a personal attack or a string of profanity. Cases only stay open at the noticeboards for a few days, and time and resources tare not available o look into the underlying causes, such as baiting, lying, or misrepresentation. Because the time and resources to look into the sometimes complex causes of the problem are not available at the noticeboards, such cases should, in my view, be written up and sent to the ArbCom, which does look into the evidence in more detail, and will identify baiting, lying, or misrepresentation. Long-standing civility problems, in the broad sense, should be handled by the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is a policy, it's completely ineffective. I have never seen any editor anywhere on Wikipedia get into any trouble at all for misrepresentation. On the contrary, me pointing it out has usually only led to such editors spouting further bullshit, with no negative consequences whatsoever. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Not only is this correct, the issue is widespread and important. Dealing with with is a would be a good place to start in this effort. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

I am planning to submit a policy RFC to propose two changes. I am giving a small amount of advance notice to see if anyone wants to add or tweak anything. First, the policy should cite the 1985 Rand Report, possibly the first report noting the special status of electronic media, because of both the lack of non-verbal cues (so that sarcasm and humor) can be misconstrued, and the permanence of comments that can be made without review. (Prior to electronic media, written comments required time, and verbal comments had non-verbal cues and were often not permanent.) As a result, it should be noted that the poster should use judgment, and especially should wait before posting if they are angry. Second, it is my opinion that civility violations of the second kind (uncivil or even malicious, but not visibly rude), and all civility violations reflecting long-standing issues between editors (e.g., personal dislike) should be dealt with by the deliberative proceedings of the ArbCom rather than an attempt at "consensus" at a noticeboard. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Only one, which is that it will be yet another waste of time until everyone is held to the same standards of civility. The wikilawyering around "you can call me a dick, but I can't call you an asshole?" is absurd in the extreme. Eric Corbett 20:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not planning to call you anything except a pixel-waster, but you, Eric Corbett, appear to be wasting pixels by saying, reasonably, that everyone should be held to the same standard of civility, but making cynical and non-constructive remarks about any attempt to do anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Does he make cynical and non-constructive remarks about "any attempt to do anything"? I don't find your kind of hyperbole constructive either (or civil, for that matter, not that I care about whether it's civil). Please try to glean the signal of Eric' post from the noise that appears to be distracting you. I think Eric has a point. Don't you? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not planning to call you anything except a pixel-waster please remember to refer yourself to Arbcom if your proposal passes. I would not expect an RFC asking that arbcom deal with every editor who ever makes an uncivil comment will be well received. Monty₈₄₅ 01:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Selective blindness to your own incivility seems to be a common characteristic of you civility warriors Robert. Why is that do you think? Eric Corbett 03:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to policy (no escalating block lengths)

Yes, this is in part motivated by recent events, but it is something I've been thinking about for quite some time (See User:Adjwilley/CERFC#Appropriate sanctions). At issue is the tendency for administrators to exponentially increase the block length for repeat offenders (24 hours, 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, etc.). This practice is supported by some broad guidelines given in WP:Blocking policy which state, "incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hour blocks, longer for successive violations" and "Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur." While these guidelines work fine in general, they don't seem to be working on the Civility front (certain recent events come to mind). In short, if the amount of disruption resulting from application of the Civility policy exceeds the amount of disruption caused by the incivility itself, then the policy should be changed or applied differently. That said, here is my suggestion, in the context of a couple other options. (In all cases, we are assuming a repeat civility offender who otherwise makes positive contributions to the project.)

Extended content (table showing options)

Available options Option A Apply policy as written (i.e. no change) Option B Do not apply policy, don't block for incivility Option C Modify Civility policy to eliminate escalating blocks Event: Long term content contributor makes their nth civility violation, lashing out and calling somebody a name. Administrator blocks contributor for a month, causing an immediate outcry in the community followed by hundreds or thousands of man-hours of discussion at administrator noticeboards, talk pages, Arbcom, etc. Productive editors get mad and leave the project in protest, admins turn in their tools, the project is consumed in the drama for days. Eventually the block is shortened to "time served" whether it be 12 hours or a few days, unless a sympathetic admin unblocks prematurely, causing even more drama. Nobody does anything about the incivility. The offender is free to lash out at anyone and gets off free with few consequences. Wikipedia becomes an uncivil place, and the project looses the thinner-skinned editors. Administrator blocks contributor for 24 hours. There may be a small outcry, accompanied perhaps by an unblock request, but because the block duration is short, it's a low-importance problem for the community, and any resulting drama has a time limit, because after 24 hours it doesn't matter anymore. How the offending editor feels Stunned by the block length; "oh crap!"; I hate administrators! Why do I give my time to this stupid website? What am I going to do for the next month? Fight tooth an nail to get unblocked, cause drama. Great, no worries. "Crap, I did it again." I hate administrators! This is getting annoying. How the community feels Community polarized: Some sympathize with the editor (we shouldn't block at all for incivility), many feel the block is overkill/too long, many are glad the perpetrator got punished Editors who are ok with incivility are fine, those who aren't are sad. Some will still sympathize with the editor, those who think incivility should be punished will see their punishment, few if any will complain about the block length. Pros *Blocking policy is applied more uniformly across Wikipedia. *Editors with chronic incivility will eventually be banned from Wikipedia (whether or not this is a pro or con is debatable.) Editors will be "Uncensored" and can say whatever they like. *Civility policy is enforced enough that most editors will get the point after a single block. *Repeat offenders can be kept as editors, while minimizing the disruption caused by jaw-dropping-length blocks. *The punishment will better "fit the crime". *Net drama is reduced, more editors are retained. Cons *Lots of drama, lots of wasted time. *Often ends in an early unblock (similar to Option C, only with extra bitterness and acrimony). *Cycle repeats itself. *Editors lost as a result (does not contribute to goal of "Building an Encyclopedia"). *Incivility runs rampant. *A majority of editors would never agree to ignoring the Civility policy. *Editors would be lost. *Cycle repeats itself. *Blocking policy wouldn't be as uniform. *Long-term offenders would be less-motivated to "get the point".

Proposal and discussion; not much support for proposal; withdrawn by proposer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Specifically: I suggest the following be added to the #Blocking for incivility section: Typically block lengths for incivility should be less than 24 hours, even for repeat offenders. A 24 hour block length is long enough for most editors to understand that incivility is not acceptable. For repeat civility offenders who otherwise make positive contributions to the project, benefits from dramatically escalated block lengths are outweighed by the time dealing with block reviews, unblock requests, and drama in the community. (If an offender is not making positive contributions to the project, they should be blocked indefinitely as a troll.) Please let me know of any suggestions you have for this. If there is a hint of consensus for this, I would like to eventually start an RfC and get it added to the policy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Excellent, thanks, although I would replace "as a troll" with "as not here to build an encyclopedia". The tricky part will be getting others to see that some kind of compromise would benefit the encyclopedia. Those emphasizing civility fail to notice the poking which leads to the outbursts, or claim that it is ok to poke someone so long as no bad words are used. All that is needed to deal with the problem would be a small number of untruncated 24-hour blocks with community support. Month-long blocks are guaranteed to be unhelpful, as are comments like "it's your problem if you think a few words are offensive" from the other side. Due to the enormous history of the recent case, I'm not sure tweaking a policy will be sufficient—I think it may also be necessary to encourage supporters to delete unhelpful posts from the editor's talk page. That would need community support to avoid drama from the misguided, but my sampling suggests that a large number of problems would be avoided if the misguided were directed elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose does not work in practice. --Rschen7754 04:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Could you please be more specific about what doesn't work in practice? What part doesn't work and why? (I'm just trying to understand.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Some people are not deterred by 24 hour blocks. --Rschen7754 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I see. I believe that you are correct that there will be a few who won't be deterred... but is that really so bad? The question I'm asking is, with the community so deeply divided over the civility issue, what is the path of least disruption? Is stamping out the few uncivil editors who refuse to reform so important to the project that we're willing to spend spend hundreds of man-hours at WP:AN and then sacrifice people like User:Drmies to do it? Anyway, I'm not trying to change your views here, I'm just trying to take a pragmatic compromise approach to a hard problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Really troublesome editors will not respond to a slap on the wrist. And by advocating a non-escalating system of reward (reward = the ability to edit) I think we would be creating more and more really troublesome editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC) conditional support. Though this proposal needs to be worked out for consensus to be reached, I strongly believe in a statute of limitations on indefinite blocks and bans. There are far too many cases where a block gets issued without warning, and the editor who blocked gets backlash. There are too many cases where editors rely too much on circumstancial evidence and block the wrong person. I therefore believe there should be a system of due process for all editors, given the openness of the site.Just another IP editor (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Support Blocking policy is that blocks are not punitive. Admins on both sides of this have already made their arguments, in my opinion they are clearly punitive. On top of that, even if they aren't punitive, longer blocks are meant to deter high level disruption from the wikipedia, this obviously doesn't apply in the case of incivility. Also, the 11th commandment that god bade moses carve on the stones said "Does this need to be spelled out in wikipedia policy 3 times? Really? Would 4 do it? I'm god, I can do it 4 times, but you still probably wouldn't get it.". Finally, the "good" outcome of a long incivility block 90% of the time is just making the user wash their hands of wikipedia and leave forever. Why anyone would think that's a "good" outcome I don't know, but it is easy and it does have the illusion of being productive.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Conditional Support and comment I could support this with the condition that a policy similar to the California 3 felony rule were added. (AKA 3 strikes and your out--life sentence automatically). The number wouldn't have to be three. The problem we have, I believe, is an untenable definition of what civility is. I am not saying that is an easy fix either, but therein is the problem. With a ever-moving line that you cannot cross, how do you know when you cross it? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC) know that many admins who spend more time on WP:SPI may oppose this, but they must know they'Re not immune from being disciplined by the community at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.112.7 (talk • contribs) This proposal wouldn't affect WP:SPI, as far as I can tell...This isn't about eliminating escalating blocks altogether; it's only for civility violations. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Increased block length rarely seems to make uncivil users any more civil, but it does protect the community and the project from disruptive behavior for longer periods. Limiting block lengths to negligible ones neither eliminates the controversy over "civility", nor protects the project from disruptive behavior the way a longer block would, nor avoids angering the blocked user the way no block at all might; it just perpetuates the same block-unblock-anger cycle we struggle with now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Granted, the cycle still repeats itself (that was one of the cons I listed in the table above). This isn't the fix-all solution. I basically agree with everything you're saying. The main point of this proposal, though, is to minimize the overall disruption/drama, weighing the disruption caused by an editor occasionally calling people names against the disruption of a highly controversial long-block. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Support. Increasing block lengths for incivility are little more than a stick for some admins to badger other editors with. They obviously don't work, though the civility policie might disagree, never mind that one person's incivility is another person's usual rhetoric. Besides there's slippage--one asshole's "asshole" is another asshole's "you're making an assholish comment". Mindy Dirt (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Nope. There is a problem with capricious enforcement, but mandatory sentencing isn't the answer; better judgment and better guidance is. Per Fluffernutter, blocks are preventative; a month-long block guarantees Etic won't be calling well-meaning volunteers assholes for a month. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC) With all due respect, a month long block also guarantees a huge amount of controversy, a long thread at AN or AN/I, a long, drawn-out unblock request with lots of uninvited parties, and hundreds of well-meaning volunteers wasting hundreds of hours of their time. In my view, that is more disruptive to the encyclopedia than Eric calling people names. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I agree with you that better judgement and guidance is needed..I was trying to go for the guidance part with this proposal. Actually, if Fram had followed the advice already in this policy, things might have gone differently. Point 3 of the "Blocking for incivility" section says, "Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, before any admin action is taken." Fram obviously knew the 30-day block would be controversial, judging by the fact that they took it to WP:AN for review immediately after making it. If they had been following this policy they either would have taken it to AN first, or they would have chosen a shorter block length so that it wouldn't be controversial. Anyway, that's in the past now, and I don't want to derail this thread talking about Eric and Fram, but it is something to think about. The point of this proposal is to try and avoid future disruptions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC) strong support please see the latest Rfa's edit history. Two admins blocked IPs without warning seemingly to keep IPs away. This is abuse of privileges no doubt. 174.236.70.155 (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose Perfection is not expected of editors and many editors have an occasional lapse in judgment. But repeat offenders, by nature of their repeat offenses, need to be dealt with accordingly. If a 24 hour block (for example), fails to address a serious problem then there is no reason that another 24 hour block will solve the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC) i believe in AGF but the activity shows a sort of retaliation. The admin tools are not toys. 174.236.70.155 (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose: I'm not a big fan of fixed-interval blocks at all, and the idea of basically implementing a fixed 24-hour cost for any level of insult just asks for trouble. With the number of people that don't edit on weekends, Fridays would become a free-for-all.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Whether or not escalated extended blocks "work" depend on what you are judging their efficacy based on. They are typically ineffective at changing people's behavior, but they do give other editors a degree of relief from abusive or harassing behavior. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Strong Oppose Incivility is probably the number one reason why we lose editors. If anything the civility polisy should be more strongly enforced, to keep bad tempered editors from driving others away. This proposal will just reinforce the attitude of some that, "because I make lots of good edits I am entitled to be rude to the peons". It will be detrimental to the project. FurrySings (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose Yes, bad, excessive / unwarranted blocks (typically due to poor or emotional decision-making by admins) are a problem, as is bias in self-reviewing of admin actions by members of their own (admin) club. But to start talking specific block lengths for specific policies is not the way to fix it. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Oppose. I see the effort here to make an improvement, and thank you for the thoughtfulness of the proposal, but two things bother me; One, per North above, and as well, I oppose identifying editors per their contributions. Incivility is an incivility, Experienced users should if anything be more capable of being civil, of having the experience to behave well and of knowing what the repercussions are are if they don't behave.(olive (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)) Note: I abandoned this proposal two weeks ago based on the early feedback, and proposed an alternate wording without the limits to block length. (Please see the "Break" section immediately below.) The edit I made to the page (which was reverted) made no reference to block length limits, and had received no opposition. If this is an RfC, could we please consider this section closed, and perhaps move on to the revised proposal below? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Break (New proposal without limits on block length)

Thank you all for your comments. It seems clear that the 24-hour limit isn't going to fly... In the spirit of compromise, how does this look? Instead of imposing a 24-hour limit, it advises to carefully weigh the benefits from long or controversial civility blocks against the disruption and drama caused by block reviews and unblock requests. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody have any objections to this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

At a glance I might replace "drama" with a term less prone to being deprecating, and I would add "potential for" instead of suggesting that it must occur in all cases. DonIago (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Another at a glance reading, I would replace "uncontentious" with "unambiguous". No opinion as yet on whether to support or oppose.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit, slightly modified based on the feedback here. I added the sentence: "Benefits derived from long or controversial civility blocks should be weighed carefully against the potential for disruption caused by block reviews, and unblock requests." I figure Amadscientists's suggesting can be implemented in a separate edit, since it doesn't affect the sentence I added. If anybody disagrees feel free to revert or discuss... ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I reinstated the edit today. It seems to have been reverted the last time under the assumption that it was an implementation of the failed proposal above (with a 24-hour limit on civility block lengths). It isn't. It's just a statement that admins should weigh the potential benefits of blocks against the disruption, which they should be doing anyway. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sample in-person "Friendly space policy"

"Could we please have a civil discussion in the online space also, without non-medical references to reproductive anatomy?"

-- Djembayz (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how that policy is enforced in practice, but by my reading, most of the prohibited conduct would get you blocked pretty quickly on-wiki. The discussion here usually revolves around less extreme incivility. Monty₈₄₅ 01:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

heh

This should just be amended to note that it doesn't apply to people who are popular, well-known, or otherwise have a reputation as "good contributors". Because, in practice, that's how it actually works. WP:CIVIL only applies to people no one cares about, and anyone else will have any potential action against them shouted down by their supporters on WP:ANI except in the most blatant of cases. Jtrainor (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't cynical at all. :P DonIago (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean The Unblockables? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Try reading WP/ANI and Arbcom cases for a couple of years, and you'll soon come to the exact same conclusion as me. Because the policies, including particularly WP:CIVIL, are not applied evenly, no amount of screwing around with the policy itself will help. The only way to get rid of established "contributors" who also happen to be raging dicks anyone who isn't one of their buddies is years of effort and multiple arbcom cases. Jtrainor (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ahem! The gender-specific description of a "jerk" above is exactly the sort of incivility that deters women from editing. *Dodges tomatoes and returns to her lovely world of "Hello Kitty", pink iPad cases, and equal justice under law * Djembayz (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Implying that females are incapable of handling frank discussion (cockiness and all), and males are, is, quite frankly, sexist, because I view the trait of handling "garbage information" (assuming for the sake of your argument it is) as a superior trait in people (and software and algorithms for that matter, e.g., RFC 1122). If there is no difference between male and female capabilities in handling such discussions, your mention of women is irrelevant. Int21h (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking to someone who isn't just a reader of ANI but has been the occasional participant...on both sides of the aisle, as it were. "Just because you're cynical doesn't mean you're wrong". DonIago (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I wonder how disparate the treatment is. Who do we compare it to? If we exclude the very new, and very low in edit counts, and we exclude those with a strong battleground mentality in particular areas, for whom the incivility is but a symptom, how much differently is the treatment for a given level of incivility? Finally, when blocked and then unblocked, how do we factor in their increased visibility? (IE that civility blocks of less visible editors may have been likewise overturned if anyone had brought them to the communities attention) Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know...not sure anyone does...but I just recently saw with regards to an admin-related civility filing on ANI (paraphrased) "when you work as an admin regularly you're bound to blow your top at some point" as though that was a valid reason.

I'm of the opinion that admins should be held to at least the same standards and possibly higher ones...editors need to be able to trust the admins to exercise good judgment, and incivility is a prime indicator that they're not doing so, precisely because it's so easy to avoid. DonIago (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm right with you on that DonIago. And I'll take it all the way to saying that Admins must never knowingly break the rules without consequence. (And if they don't know the rules, we have a bigger problem, don't we?) They ARE role models, and must set the right example. Many don't. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's bad when an admin chooses to violate the policies. It's worse when their violation is brought to the attention of other admins and willfully ignored. It's much, much worse if the violation the admin committed would have brought sanction upon any other editor. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1. On the topic on which this section started, there is no doubt about it at all. I can think of arrogant and contemptuous editors who are grossly uncivil to anyone they happen to disagree with, far more so than others who have been indefinitely blocked, but who are allowed to go on getting away with it because they are "good content contributors". Whenever there is any suggestion that one of these disruptive editors would be dealt with, the posse of editors who think that anyone who writes loads of stuff should be allowed to get away with anything comes out in force. Any report at an admin noticeboard becomes a ridiculously long drama fest, with endless pointless quarrelling, and the massive number of "content contributors are immune from sanctions" people means that there is never any consensus to take effective action, so no administrator can do anything about it. I can assure you that there are many administrators who would dearly like to take action, but any administrator who takes action which is clearly not supported by consensus in a case which has been discussed at enormous length by innumerable editors is putting his/her head on the block, and can you blame any admin who is unwilling to do that? I can't.
2. On the different topic which this section has digressed to, yes of course "it's bad when an admin chooses to violate the policies". Sometimes it happens, and on occasion I have personally blocked administrators for doing so, and I have seen administrators desysopped, blocked, and banned for doing so. It doesn't happen often, because most administrators don't choose to violate policies. The myth that all (or, in the more moderate version of the myth, most) administrators are wicked people who wantonly abuse their power is perpetrated by a small minority of editors, many of whom can't or won't see the difference between "I disagree with your decision" and "your decision is objectively wrong, and, since nobody could possibly sincerely have a different view of what is right and what is wrong than I have, you must be deliberately doing wrong, and as likely as not you are part of an evil conspiracy to do wrong." I have never seen these cases where wrong doing by an administrator is "willfully ignored" by other administrators, but I have frequently seen cases where certain people who disagree with decisions made by administrators attribute them to such an evil conspiracy. Far from it being common to see that, when a mistake is made by an editor who happens to be an administrator, action is ignored which "would have brought sanction upon any other editor", in my experience very often the mob of people who have nothing better to do with their time than rant endlessly on the drama-boards pounce on the person who has made the mistake, demanding every sanction from blocking to hanging drawing and quartering, and then get really annoyed when the person who has made the mistake is treated no worse than any other editor would be. For some reason these people seem to think that when one becomes an administrator one should somehow immediately become superhuman, and that if one doesn't then one should be made to suffer. (And I am not even going to start on what happens when an administrator has not made a mistake, but the rabble thinks that he/she has...) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth I do think most admins probably mean and act well. Like anything else, it's likely to some degree a case where the few bad apples are "ruining" it for the many good ones. Unfortunately it sometimes seems that the bad apples are also much easier to notice. DonIago (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely that makes it easier to do something about them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a small minority of administrators who do seem to think they are above the law. in my experience they are mostly people who became administrators back in the early days of Wikipedia, when anyone who had not done anything grossly unreasonable could easily become an admin if they wanted to. I remember one occasion when I blocked one of those admins. He had been in an edit war, and had repeatedly blocked the other participator in the edit war for edit warring, so that the admin's edits would stay. I cannot imagine any situation when doing that would be acceptable. His response to the block was to say something to the effect of "What's the point of having the administrator's tools if you can't use them to make sure that what you believe is right prevails?" (Not in quite those words, but that is what it amounted to.) I kept an eye on his edits for a few months. Fortunately, being, as I said, an old admin from the early days, he was no longer very active, and I didn't see anything similar from him again, but I would have been willing to block him indefinitely if I had done so. This was a clear case of an admin who did things which were totally unacceptable, but no, it was not ignored by another admin who saw what was going on (me), and I really honestly don't think that it would have been ignored by almost any other admin. I really do think that cases of admins "willfully ignoring" unacceptable behaviour because it comes from another admin are very rare. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

To your credit that handled it. Regarding other admins doing so, that case is so brazen that even under the double standard that exists it would be hard to ignore. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

1. On the topic on which this section started, there is no doubt about it at all. I can think of good, well-to-do editors who are mildly uncivil to someone they happen to disagree with. Then there is a suggestion that one of these well-to-do editors should be dealt with, by a posse of editors who think that anyone who opposes them should be dealt with using using WP:AN and WP:ANI, in force. Any report at an admin noticeboard becomes a ridiculously long drama fest, over something ridiculous, with endless pointless quarrelling, and the massive number of "incivility should not be accepted" people means that there is never any consensus to take effective action, so no administrator can just dismiss the complaint off-hand. I can assure you that there are many administrators who would dearly like to take action, but any administrator who takes action which is clearly not supported by consensus in a case which has been discussed at enormous length by innumerable editors is putting his/her head on the block, and can you blame any admin who is unwilling to do that? I can't.
2. The myth that a great many (or, in the more moderate version of the myth, many) editors are wicked people who wantonly abuse their power is perpetrated by a small minority of editors. (Those editors "just happen" to become administrators. What are the odds?) I have never seen these cases where wrong doing by an editor "are often ignored" by administrators, but I have frequently seen cases where certain administrators who disagree with decisions made by editors attribute them to such an evil conspiracy. (But hey, maybe its just because I am being ignorant.) Far from it being common to see that, when a mistake is made by an editor who happens to not be a politically connected administrator, action is not ignored which "would have not brought sanction upon any other editor", in my experience very often the mob of people who have nothing better to do with their time than rant endlessly on the drama-boards pounce on the person who has made no real mistake, demanding every sanction from blocking to hanging drawing and quartering, and then get really annoyed when the person who has made no mistake is treated no worse than any other editor would be. For some reason these people seem to think that when one becomes an administrator one somehow immediately become superhuman, and their word counts more than others.
3. What is worse, accidentally letting bad editors in, or accidentally keeping good editors out? For me, that's simple: you can revert bad edits and remove bad information from Wikipedia, while you cannot do the opposite and revert good non-edits from non-existent good editors and add good information to Wikipedia. It is much harder to build than destroy, so we should place the benefit of the doubt on the side of building. That is the asymmetry that drives my disparate treatment between bad editors and bad administrators, because one makes it harder to build while the other destroys. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• The central goal of the admin system should be facilitating content building, not pandering to civility warmongers who want everyone else to conform to their fantasies of correct behaviour. At the heart of the dysfunction we call our "admin system" is a group of admins who have been inappropriately given the power to jerk about and block, not just vandals, but also the committed content builders. This might work if there were fewer admins, if the admins themselves were all committed and able content builders, if there was some sort of centralised control which ensured that individual admins didn't behave like loose cannons, and if standards of admin behaviour were sanctioned when appropriate. But that doesn't happen on Wikipedia. No admin on Wikipedia has ever been sanctioned for abusing a content builder. Instead we have an absurd Alice in Wonderland fantasy production, a tiresome procession of machinations by the often underqualified users who are our legacy admins for life. Admins are aided by retinues of social networking users who seem to resent the editors who have come here to build the encyclopedia. They track down content builders they can provoke and bludgeon into responding immoderately. They then run to like-minded admins with their charges of incivility and demands for blocks and bans. Content builders should be protected from these users. Referring to aggrieved content builders as "these people" who are a "rabble", as an admin has done above, may in the current climate help tighten the admin choke on content builders, but it doesn't further building the encyclopedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• But it it keeps the precious naughty word police happy....

• Excellent piece Epipelagic. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is truly unfortunate that some carrying the mop have occasionally chosen to wield it as a sword, but the fact is, as a community we have no other route in dealing with civilty issues. We, as a community (as well as arbcom) have placed this burden on their shoulders and are doing absolutely nothing to change that. Who can we blame but ourselves?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's twaddle Mark. There are many other routes for dealing with civility issues. The workable ones involve a rationalisation of admin privileges, a rationalisation which the admin corps flatly refuses to allow. No burden has been placed on the shoulders of admins. A few good admins assume burdens in the process of administrating well, just as many content builders assume equally onerous burdens in building content well. One of the main problems is that there are far too many admins who shouldn't be admins. We have an absurd position where hundreds of underqualified and poorly performing users have been unjustly placed in positions of power and privilege over productive and able content developers. It is simply wrong, and I cannot understand why self respecting and capable admins are not keener to distance themselves from the unseemly mess. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Twaddle LOL! Very original way to say nonsense, but I notice in that entire post you just made you actually do not counter what I claimed. You went straight back to referring to admin. If you can point to all of these "many" routes to deal with civility I would very much appreciate it. it would indeed be useful.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the core problem. The fact that the good Admins don't do anything about the bad Admins. (Maybe that means that they're being bad Admins too.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but think about it, one admin doing something about another admin? Maybe we need some better oversight to administration. Remember they are not authority, they just have more tools-one of which is a block tool.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 01:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I know as an admin, I try to act as the community directs, and I think almost all admins do as well, new or old. Now its true some of us are more reluctant to block content builders then others, its often a matter of discretion. It is possible that newer admins exercise that discretion differently, but it probably isn't the place to fix things. Just relying on admins to fix whats broke in this regard isn't really productive. If the community provided clear guidance on how it wants admins to deal with an issue like civility, then we wouldn't rely so much on broad admin discretion, and you would see more consistent application of sanctions. If the community clearly arrives at a consensus that everyone who does X should be blocked, then admins will endeavor to carry it out, whether it means blocking other admins or not. The reason the civility issue is such a big problem, is no one can agree.

I personally am against civility blocks unless it gets to the point of pretty severe personal attacks, whether its an admin, a long term contributor, or frankly anyone who has demonstrated a clear intent to improve the encyclopedia. Other admins are much quicker to block for civility, but again, as long as the community can't agree on how the issue should be dealt with, it's not reasonable to expect consistency from admins. Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That was a very well worded and well thought out reply. I wish I could bronze it.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 02:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So Monty, if an Admin with a much itchier trigger than you issued what you believed was an unreasonable block, what would you do? HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Its hard to speak in absolutes, it depends on a lot of things, most times it is going to start of with asking the blocking admin to reconsider. After that, it gets into the arcanery of our block bureaucracy; beyond saying there are a number of options depending on how wrong I think the block is, I don't really want to get in to that. It can be a fine line between correcting a perceived injustice, and being WP:Pointy, and I try very hard to avoid the later. Monty₈₄₅ 01:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as "how can we make this better" I think that Monty's points in their Aug 11th post are the most useful/usable. If we do a better job with this policy, it will certainly make a difference. Let's start. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this actually policy?

As can be seen from the above debate, WP:CIVIL is held in poor regard by the community. Admins rarely block except in the most egregious cases, and usually only when the incivility is combined with another offense (e.g. tendentious editing). Should we call this a policy when it is enforced so weakly and so inconsistently? To quote from WP:PG:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. All policy pages are in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Category:Wikipedia policies. For summaries of key policies, see also List of policies.

Shortcut: WP:GUIDES

Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Guideline pages can be found in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines and Category:Wikipedia guidelines. For summaries of key guidelines, see also List of guidelines.

It appears that our approach to civility more closely resembles the second statement, where there are frequently exceptions made. Some have suggested that strict adherence to WP:CIVIL is impossible given the vague nature of the standard and the cultural differences among editors that act as language barriers even between people who are nominally speaking the same language. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Even guidelines need clear definitions. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying to remove the policy tag would probably create more controversy then it is worth. Better to just leave it a policy, tell people how we would prefer they act, and then not enforce it. Monty₈₄₅ 18:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Two-Part RFC to Improve Policy

The purpose of this Request for Comments is to request consensus on two expansions to the policy on the pillar of Wikipedia requiring civility. The second will probably be more controversial than the first. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Immediacy and Permanence

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.

---

Electronic media differ from conversation and from traditional writing in that, on the one hand, they have the immediacy of speech, but, on the other hand, they have the permanence of writing. They also have no non-verbal cues, like writing but unlike speech. (For instance, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic.) It has been known since 1985 (http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283.html) that this combination of characteristics not true of older media makes it particularly important to use judgment in replying in electronic media, especially if the previous communication makes the poster angry.

Should the policy be expanded to refer to the 1985 Rand Report with a reminder that judgment is especially important in electronic media? In the survey, please !vote on whether to support expanding the policy or oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - The policy should state that the combination of immediacy and permanency is specific to electronic media and requires judgment, even if, or especially if, the poster is angry. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I think this is beneficial supporting evidence of this policy. On the Internet, no one knows that you're not being sarcastic and are actually trying to be nice, especially in the context of contentious debate. I personally think this policy should be expanded more, in line with the interpersonal communication and related articles. This is an academic field of study with practical applications to Wikipedia operations, and we should take advantage of the information contained herein. Int21h (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• Expanded how? I have no idea what this proposal really aims to do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• I fail to understand what this is about. Expand the proposal, please. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• What I am proposing is, first, to include in the policy a statement that electronic communication combines immediacy and permanency. Once a statement is posted, it cannot be taken back. Therefore, although "talk" pages may seem conversational, judgment is required before hitting the Save button. It is a good idea to avoid posting hastily when angry, in particular, because angry exchanges cascade and escalate. Also, because there are no non-verbal cues of the sort that are present in conversation, there is no way to know whether a comment is made in jest, in sarcasm, or in earnest, so that a comment that is meant to be humorous or sarcastic may easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Another reason for the need for judgment is that the English Wikipedia has editors from multiple Anglophone cultures, as well as editors for whom English is a second language. Standard written English is mostly standard throughout the Anglophone world, except for spelling differences, but comments that may be considered acceptable humor in one culture may be unacceptable in another, so that editors should avoid comments that could be misunderstood. That is what I am proposing to include in the policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you need to stick to describing the problems but hold back a little on the solutions. Telling editors what they SHOULD do isn't likely to achieve anything in a lot of cases. In asking editors to avoid making "comments that could be misunderstood", you're asking that they know all about the other cultures' possible ways of misunderstanding something. That's an ability a lot of our editors don't have, nor can they comprehend the issue even when it's explained to them. More than once, when explaining such an issue, I've had responses like "Well, most of our readers are American. What others think hardly matters". That usually embodies the fact that they didn't realise that what they had said was offensive in other cultures, and can't quickly change their perspective. We're dealing with humans here, not robots. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In my comment above at "02:16, 27 July 2013", I said "Wikipedia does not need more text on being nice—instead, two things are required: a mechanism for cutting off nonsense that passes the CIVIL test, and a reasonable way to handle the case referred to above (hint: over-the-top blocks that are known to upset many good editors are not helpful)". In response, you recommended WP:DR. I explained that "DR will do nothing except swallow another large slab of time and energy", and I now invite you to spend some time monitoring the standard noticeboards and run a thought experiment—how would the proposed wording have helped in this situation?. In a few weeks, please present a couple of examples showing how some "be nice" text would have helped. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems that at least four things are being proposed, so here is a sentence on each: The policy already mentions the lack of nonverbal cues: "Faceless written words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not fully transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments", so I don't think more is needed there. I don't know if it's necessary to specifically reference the Rand report. Reminding people that there is a permanent record of everything said that anyone can access might be OK. That different cultures might interpret things differently might be worth mentioning in the Assume good faith section. is already mentioned (slightly differently) in the Incivility section: "Bear in mind that the editor may not have considered it uncivil; Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary."--Wikimedes (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2013 (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.

Adjudication

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.

---

Violations of civility are commonly referred to the noticeboards, WP:AN and WP:ANI. There have been many complaints that, while violations of the first part of the civility policy (profanity and direct personal attacks) are dealt with, violations of the second part of the policy (less obvious breaches of civility, such as baiting or lying) are often ignored. One reason may be that the noticeboards, which usually close issues within a few days after they are opened, are not the best forum for resolution of complex issues, such as non-obvious but serious civility violations, or issues resulting from on-going issues between editors who may dislike each other. Because on-going civility issues, especially those involving conflict between two (or three or four) editors cannot always be decided quickly, it has been proposed that the policy be expanded to state that cases of complex uncivil conduct, such as taunting or baiting, or lying, and on-going conflict between editors, should be referred to Arbitration by the ArbCom rather than decided on the noticeboards.

Should the policy be expanded to state that certain types of civility issues should be sent to the ArbCom, after other dispute resolution mechanisms have failed, rather than being decided by "community consensus" of administrators at the noticeboards? In the survey, please !vote on whether to expand the policy to include advice about adjudication of certain civility disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - Enforcement of long-term civility issues at the noticeboards does not work, and "community consensus" is elusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Noticeboards are inherently short-term oriented, and the a number of deeper editor civility issues would be more appropriately handled at ArbCom. N2e (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What you really want is for Arbcom to make civility policy, where the community has repeatedly failed to agree it needs to be more strictly enforced. If the case is serious enough, Arbcom can already take it, and sending them lots of minor cases is a bad idea. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Scope creep at its worst, combined with even more ambiguous wording. Why not just make "doing something bad" against policy, and end it there? Why not ban evil while we're at it? Because we will get into questions like "what is truth" and "what is not truth" (aka a lie), and "what is baiting". Wikipedia has to ask itself: are witch trials worth it? I don't think so. And ArbCom is definitely not the place to hold witch trials, because if a politically-connected accuser is involved, you're going to burn, your puny attempts at reason notwithstanding. For people who punish others on a regular basis (e.g. administrators, ArbCom, police, judges) there is weird psychology and influences at play that is blunted by having a wide cross section of the community involved. No one goes to court and demands a bench trial except the accuser for a reason. Int21h (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ArbCom should not be dealing with that unless it gets too disruptive. WP:WQA was an unsuccessful attempt to resolve these problems but did not work well, eventually being closed. I do not think that it's WP:AN and subpages that is the problem, but the users. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - a necessary and immediately needed antidote to the highly destructive phenomenon of WP:CPUSH. A marginally civil, sufficiently dogged editor ready to run to the noticeboard whenever the editorial decisions don't go her way can introduce bucket after bucket of WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia has no remedy for the onslaught. If you have a better idea for how to kill WP:CPUSH let's hear it, but if not, then this is the best opportunity. Frizzmaz (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as badly worded and vague.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Before adding this statement, I'd like to hear from ARBCOM that they are willing to expand the number of cases they accept and will consider ruling on more cases that are solely violations of civility. In what I've seen, ARBCOM usually has no more than 3 or 4 cases in process at any one time. RfC and ANI, on the other hand, might have a dozen or more on any one day. It's foolish to direct editors to ARBCOM for resolution of conflicts in the arbitrators aren't willing to undertake a larger dispute role and accept more dispute cases. Without confirmation from ARBCOM that they welcome this expansion on their role, I can't support this statement because what editors will find is that their requests will be rejected, just furthering their frustration. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. If a party is unsatisfied with noticeboard resolution, they can ask for an ArbCom anyway, so what would this change? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Anything would be better than the present process, which allows any and all sorts of bullshit to be written about the accused, without consequence, and no real opportunity for the accused to respond to all that crap. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. AN/I or other low-level discussions don't necessarily resolve an issue. Especially where there is a history of behaviour. An offender knows what he can get away with and keeps on doing it, especially if he has an admin mate or two. This is disruptive. OTOH, ArbCom could easily become bogged down if we automatically escalated such issues into their laps. For some users, this would simply be a reward for bad behaviour, giving them a loftier platform to spread themselves. --Pete (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Set thresholds - Admins don't know when to pull the trigger, and the arguments go on and on and on until someone finally decides to be bold about it. Setting thresholds, even vague ones, will also establish situations where the policy is being inconsistently applied. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Vague thresholds? LOL. That's just a recipe for permanent, ongoing debate. Oh, and whose culture will you base your threshold on? Yours? HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the arbcom item Arbcom has degenerated into just another mindless random violence place. But better written policies will certainly help, and we should do that with this one. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I don't necessarily have an issue with this in principle, but in practice I think there's a feeling that the noticeboards are (or should be) the place to go when quick action is needed, whereas arbitration becomes a lengthy and complicated, not to mention intimidating process.

I suppose, bluntly, I'm just not sure that many editors who feel that they're currently the subject of incivility are going to be thrilled to be told, if they go to ANI, "take it to arbitration". I would hope that in such cases admins will make an effort to be as understanding as possible when essentially deferring issues.

This kind of makes me wish there was a way to impose a, for lack of a better term, "temporary injunction" when there are potential incivility problems. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I know of any cases where the do not pass ANI, go directly to ArbCom has been followed, much less that this is policy. Could someone point to some cases? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just been through a situation at AN/I where the issue brought there was simply ignored. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Soccer in Australia - chemical weapons deployed. It's actually quite a complicated, ongoing issue, with a small group of editors in Australia repeatedly (and that word is important) trying to have soccer called football in Australia. There have now been two massive Move request discussions at Soccer in Australia, with the final decision clearly ruling against that view. There are also quite frequent "sneaky" edits made across the board by these editors at other Australian soccer pages, to try by stealth to bring in the change they want. The editors I'm concerned about persistently make claims that have been repeatedly demonstrated to be just plain wrong. They attack other editors very frequently as being simply "stooges" or similar for other football codes. There is always a lot of heat in the discussions. Now, I have been no angel on this front. I find this behaviour incredibly bad, annoying, and time wasting, as do other editors in this area. I have been a bit rude back to the unethical, dishonest, lying, probably at least semi-incompetent, POV pushers. But I have tried to present the facts. It's when the real facts are repeatedly denied that I get pissed off. Unfortunately, the thread I've mentioned above was closed by an Admin with the following comment "We have more than enough drama occuring up above to hold us over for the next thousand years, so as the original issue here is now moot, I'm going to close this before heat:light exceeds unity by more than it already has." It seems that Chelsea/Bradley Manning is all the Admins are interested in right now, and a boring (to them) issue in little old Australia is of no interest to them. Sorry, but this approach solves nothing. The dramas will go on, forever, unless something is done. Should this now go straight to Arbcom? Or where? What is the point of AN/I if not to solve problems? HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The real question isn't whether the case should go "straight to ArbCom" but whether the case should go to ArbCom. It already went to WP:ANI. In this case, as is sometimes the case, "community consensus" at the noticeboards is elusive. If ArbCom agrees to take the case, consensus is not required, because the ArbCom votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Without looking at the page in question, what HiLo48 describes is a dispute over article content, with some user conduct issues as well. Neither ANI or Arbcom is supposed to deal with content disputes, and ANI just declined to deal with any conduct issues. You can try arbcom, but they may decline as well. It seems to me that an RfC is the next step, and if anyone refuses to abide by the results of the RfC, craft a narrowly focused ANI report about the failure to follow the consensus demonstrated by the RfC. Do not add-on any other complaints; let them deal with the one issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's a content issue (and I'm not saying it is) then the other pertinent question would be whether it was raised at DRN. Having gone through this myself, it's (burdensome but) helpful to go through DRN first so that any determination there (or lack of one) is available as a precedent if and when the issue is escalated to ANI. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No. this isn't a content issue. It's ALL about behaviour. Every time the content aspects of this issue are raised in any formal way, consensus or Admin ruling is the same. That's part of my point. Attempts to change the content, and the complaining, and the attacks go on, despite content being sound and agreed upon in all the places it can be agreed upon, except with this small group of editors. My immediate frustration here too was effectively being told at AN/I to "Go way. We're too busy with Chelsea/Bradley Manning." Excuse me if I say "obsessed", for both the editors I'm concerned about, AND the folk at AN/I. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't speak to this specific issue, but I will say that twice I've been the "victim" of scenarios where I brought conduct issues to ANI and they were ultimately dismissed (not necessarily unsympathetically) as content disputes and failed to be resolved at ANI (once I was encouraged to go to DRN, the other time there was an open RFC that I felt was being derailed by incivility). So yes, I do feel to some degree that it sometimes seems the admins will put a surprising amount of effort into interpreting an ANI case as a content dispute even when the original filer has specifically tried to emphasize that their concerns are not regarding the content but the civility of the dissenting editors. I dunno, maybe we need a more focused forum for dealing with civility concerns that can be overseen by admins who are willing to make those tough calls. I don't envy their situation, but it's my experience that uncivil editors who aren't called on their behavior only grow more brazen over time. DonIago (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. In fact, the original issue back at Talk:Soccer in Australia has just been re-opened by one of the editors I'm concerned about. These folk are completely unwilling (or psychologically unable?) to accept the umpire's ruling. EVER!!!! So, they experience no consequences. No independent advice is given to them to accept the umpire's decision. Bad behaviour continues. FOREVER. As for envying the situation of Admnins, or not, nobody is forced to be an Admin. Many seem to wallow in the "glory". they get little sympathy from me. Much arrogance is frequently on display from many. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If WP was a standard BBS/forum in my experience, there'd be moderators who you could report troubling posts to, and who had the authorization (not that they'd need to be authorized here...currently anyone can do what I'm discussing) to review posts and issue either friendly or not-necessarily-so-friendly warnings independently. Maybe WP needs an analog to that... It's my experience that very few non-admins are willing to speak up in defense of a third party being treated in an uncivil manner (or there simply isn't anyone actively following the discussion when/where the incivility occurs), and I suspect that in most cases people aren't necessarily looking for an uncivil editor to be blocked/banned/anything else requiring admin powers...they just want the incivility to stop. Sure if I'm the victim of personal attacks I can fire off an NPA warning to my attacker...and it will likely go over like a lead balloon. What may be needed is a pool of editors who are willing to be alerted to incivility, review the situations and issue the warnings if appropriate (note that this includes warning editors who have responded to incivility with incivility of their own (i.e. flaming a flamer is still flaming). They wouldn't need to be responsible for initiating higher-level actions (ANI, etc.) but should be reasonably expected to speak up if cases are escalated there. I dunno, just some late-night ruminating... DonIago (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's your own responsibility to to that. Everyone should be reasonably expected to speak up if there are personal attacks, against themselves or against others, and to act in a way that prevents things from escalating. We don't need an escalation or civilty police. Every one of us is responsible for what goes on on this site. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In theory and principle I agree. In my experience the reality is that Joe Editor often does not involve themselves in such matters, for reasons ranging from "I'm new here" to "I don't care about this" to "It doesn't seem incivil to me" to "I agree with what they said even if I don't agree with how they said it" to "I don't want to get involved in this drama". Perhaps editors should be encouraged to speak up in such instances, but I don't know whether it would be likely to make a difference. I'd call the phrase "civility police" an overstatement of what I was ruminating about. There are already apparently "admins willing to make difficult blocks". "Editors willing to issue civility warnings" doesn't seem like a such a stretch, as a possible approach to this. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AMDB is actually about something quite different, it is about being willing to make a block, even when there is a reasonable chance the person being blocked will make real-life retaliations. If the equivalent would come up in dealing with editors, taking it to ANI should be your first step, not issuing a warning. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the reservations that some editors have regarding ANI and civility concerns have already been verbalized upthread though, hence the interest in alternate approaches. DonIago (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The issue I raised above went to AN/I, and was closed with no action, nor even any attention really, allegedly because Bradley/Chelsea Manning was keeping too many Admins busy. I haven't comprehended that reason yet. That all available Admins felt it necessary to involve themselves on the Manning issue highlights some sort of major problem anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving the article Soccer in Australia to Football in Australia (or some variant thereof) is a content matter. You seem to be complaining that some editors are repeatedly trying to make the change, despite not having the facts or consensus on their side. That's not going to work, so long as we keep an eye on it. I dare say you have it on your watchlist? As do I.

The reason I raised the matter at AN/I was that discussion was getting heated, and that is a conduct issue revolving around civility. When I see a talk page containing eight "bullshit"s and two "crap"s, some of them in ALL CAPS, some of them in ALL CAPS BOLDED, all the product of a single editor, I know that discussion is going off the wikirails. --Pete (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that was your "I hate HiLo48 because he's exposed my bias and incompetence here too many times, and I will do anything to get him into trouble" gland misfiring again. Repeated defiance of consensus, as we have been getting from the Sydney soccer fans here for years, is the real problem. It's NOT a content issue. The content HAS been decided. It's an issue regarding those who won't accept the umpire's decision, are proudly ignorant, accuse others of lying, tell lies themselves, accuse others of bias, misinterpret sources, misunderstand simple explanatory posts (a competence matter), and generally waste everybody's time. You, Pete, are failing to comprehend that there are far more serious ways to be uncivil than simply saying "bullshit". HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hilo, I appreciate the point you have made about a hundred times. Repeatedly pushing against consensus is uncivil. Does anybody have a problem with this? I don't think so. However, here's a piece of advice that you could take to heart. Responding to incivility with more incivility is not something a wise person would do. Pause for a moment when composing a response, think to yourself, "Well, what would a wise person do?" and do that instead. --Pete (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Pete - will you please, please, please, as I have asked many times, and you have been instructed many times by others, stop stalking me and looking for parts of my personality that you think could be improved by your pointless platitudes. It won't ever improve a discussion here. And it won't change me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat amazed that pointing out that a page in WP space deals with making blocks in the light of possible real-world harassment, and that that is not what this proposal is about can so quickly devolve into a shouting contest that the other is stupid. Will you knock it all off already? You obviously don't like each other. That's a shame, but if it takes too much effort to assume good faith to be a reasonably effective wikipedian, could you just agree to stay away from each other? Please? And preferably make that deal somewhere it doesn't overwhelm an ongoing discussion on something overarching, which effectively asks the entire community to consider any potential problem from the perspective of your mutual animosity. And anyone replying to this post with "no, he is being stupid" deserves a slap with a trout. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A very one-sided animosity. HiLo is entitled to his opinion, and more often than not, I agree with him. I do not hate him - I do not hate anybody - and if I dislike anything, it is behaviour rather than individuals. The behaviour here is incivility. I hadn't intended or imagined that a useful rhetorical question would be seen as saying that someone is stupid. For the record, I do not regard HiLo48 as stupid. He makes a very good point. The issue here is subtle incivility and how it should be dealt with. I'm of the opinion that we have tried and true procedures for dealing with attempts to insert nonsense into an article, and repeated attempts merely raise a team of volunteers to stamp out each next try. We plainly do not have a good procedure for dealing with certain types of incivility. As per my !vote above, I'm at a loss on how to proceed. It would be fantastic if ArbCom could deliberate in their immense time and wisdom on each subtle case, but we'd be misusing and mistreating our most senior magistrates if we fed them great draughts of subtle poison. But subtle cases are not best dealt with on AN/I. We've tried one formal approach after another and the problem persists. --Pete (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty simple—just stop following what HiLo does. If there really is a problem, someone else will notice and eventually action will occur. What is a guaranteed fail is when it's always the same person who raises the same issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

On that note, ITN, China, Pregnancy, Trayvon Martin, and others. All of those instigated by different editors, none of them me. When there's a long pattern of behaviour and no sign of redemption, what do we do? Arbcom, AN/I or ignore? --Pete (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There must be a reason for your particular interest in HiLo, but whatever it is, such interests should not be pursued at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly cannot think of a better page and thread in all of the Internet. I have no other beef with this editor than his civility on Wikipedia. Discussing the policy to deal with problems is right here, right now. --Pete (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2013 (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.

Preparing to close

This RFC has been open for nearly two months. Unless anyone objects, I will close it as consensus to add a statement on immediacy and permanency and no consensus on enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The "no consensus on enforcement" is really an inability to define incivility. Many think they have clear definitions in their heads, and hence know precisely who needs to be banned for life, but others have demonstrated that such a position is untenable. There is no universally agreed definition of incivility, and that's why there is no agreement on enforcement. I would like that to be a clear and very public part of the outcome, otherwise those who are certain "they know civility when they see it" will continue to waste everyone's time trying to enforce it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How can anyone NOT define civility? It's pretty easily broken down RIGHT HERE ES&L 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Goodness. ES&L refers to a somewhat incoherent essay advocating editors should be blocked on the basis that incivility is "a vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known would would cause offence". The essay he refers to, which alas is written by himself, is an essay I personally find vexatious and offensive, and is one that I think would be reasonably known would cause offence to many editors, particularly serious editors who actually build Wikipedia. According to his own criteria, ES&L should be blocked. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The mistaken idea that because we can't define a concept we can't use it is closely related to what Geach called "the Socratic fallacy", and the idea that because we don't all agree exactly about a concept means that we can't make constructive use of it is not far removed. We do not all agree on what the word "tree" means: there is considerable variation of opinion as to where the borderline between "tree" and "shrub" lies, not to mention banana plants, which many people regard as unambiguously trees, not even close to any borderline, while others insist that they are not trees at all. That does not mean that we can never make useful application of the concept of a "tree". Likewise, "there is no universally agreed definition of incivility" does not mean that there can be no enforcement. There are times when there is sufficient consensus in a particular case for enforcement, even if there is not consensus on an overall definition or rule about enforcement in general. While sometimes people do indeed "continue to waste everyone's time trying to enforce" this, it is by no means always true that such attempts are a waste of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think User:HiLo48 is stating a Socratic fallacy. He or she isn't stating that we can't act against incivility, which is sometimes recognized. He or she is stating that, because there is no consensus as to what is incivility, there is no consensus on how to enforce the rule. As a result, sometimes it will be dealt with by an immediate block by an admin. Sometimes it will be taken to a noticeboard, and a community ban imposed. Sometimes it will be taken to a noticeboard, and there will be no consensus. Occasionally it will be taken to the ArbCom, and it may result in a ban, or in a topic ban. The concept of civility is useful but amorphous, and so the enforcement is inconsistent. I don't think that statement is a Socratic fallacy. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see all that in HiLo48's post above. Are you sure you are not reading into it what you want to see there? Also, it seems to me that HiLo48's response below confirms my reading: he/she thinks that enforcement of the civility policy takes place "only because a false certainty" exists. Is there any way of reading that which is consistent with thinking that HiLo48 believes should that it should be enforced? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, you missed the key point of my post. Yes, "we" do at times enforce incivility "breaches", but only because a false certainty about what it is exists among conservative editors and admins. Often the worst breaches are committed by those who claim to know with certainty what incivility is. Their narrow mindedness and arrogance is one of the worst forms of incivility and one of the worst features of this GLOBAL encyclopaedia. If you're one who is so certain about things... HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Poppycock. It doesn't take "a false certainty" to take action, it just takes sufficient consensus that on the whole the action is justified. If we never did anything without waiting until we had certainty that what we were doing was right, Wikipedia wouldn't last a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. I've seen badly behaved admins acting unilaterally take action against someone they don't like. Even if there is some form of "consensus", it often means a majority bullying someone in a minority with different views. Without certainty, sometimes innocent mistakes but just as often blatant miscarriages of justice occur. Unless we can prevent such happenings from ever happening, you cannot convince me that any action is ever justified. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:HiLo48. You seemed to be to be taking a nuanced position, but you then clarified that User:JamesBWatson was right in saying that you were saying that all civility enforcement is based on a false certainty. I agree with Watson. There is no consensus on what is civility, but sometimes Potter Stewart's rule is right. There still is no consensus as to how enforcement should be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck. I think that there about 10 questions knitted into this RFC, and no clear reading on any one of them. I think that there is a general consensus that some type of change is needed. And the item that you mentioned is also pretty safe. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus that some change is needed, because it appears that some editors think that the current situation is the least undesirable, and a few unblockables are actually satisfied that the current situation permits them to insult and bully other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not repeat misguided rumors. No one is permitted to insult and bully other editors. I see no response to the substantive issues that have been raised (by myself in addition to others) as explanations for why some proposals presented here and elsewhere are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No one is permitted to insult and bully other editors. However, a few editors do insult and bully other editors, and the current system does not deal with them effectively. A few editors think that "excellent content creators" should not be blocked. There does appear to be consensus that the current situation is less than satisfactory. I don't see consensus that change is needed, but, even if there is consensus, it is an empty consensus because there is no consensus as to what the change should be. My own thought is that an enforcement mechanism below the ArbCom, possibly consisting of panels of three admins, should be set up, with appeals to the ArbCom, and that the idea of community consensus at the noticeboards should be largely retired, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have got to support Robert McClenon, the whole thing seems to be a colosal waste of time. In my experience Civility proceedings are used by some policy geeks as a weapon to bully other editors (usually prolific content providers) that they goad into a in-temperate response. What ever happens- the victim is distracted from constructive editing, and the geek bathes in attention and publicity. I would add the panels of three admins should not have been involved themselves in this sort of edit warring, and should retire after a finite number cases. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any rationale to persuade me that a panel of three admins would be any more trustworthy than a single admin, as they're all (mostly anyway) cut from the same cloth. And I'd really like to know who these mythological "unblockables" are, who keep being introduced to cloud the self-evident truth. Eric Corbett 17:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'd really like to know what the self-evident truth is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing mythological about "the unblockables". Admins are largely immune from sanctions if they are uncivil to non admins, in short they are the unblockables. And no admin ever, in the history of Wikipedia, been desopped for incivility towards a content builder. (Please correct me, anyone, if that statement is not entirely correct.) Admins are only desopped if they upset the stability of the admin system. There are attempts by certain admins and admin wannabes to misrepresent dedicated and able content builders, such as Eric, as "unblockable". Those views are bizarre as the most casual glance at Eric's block log will show. The self-evident truth is that the longer a content editor has been here, and the better their contributions, the more likely a bad admin will find some excuse for blocking them. "Civility" is the most convenient excuse, since that is a concept you can shape in many ways. Wikipedia operates a negative reward system. Content builders are here to be punished and admins get the free passes. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that admins are by and large the only unblockables, but Clem Rutter referred specifically to "prolific content providers", which very few admins are. Eric Corbett 23:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)