Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Civility. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Wikipedia:How to be civil

Some 3 sections recently removed from WP:CIVIL went to a new essay, Wikipedia:How to be civil which now appears in the See also section. This material is not gone, but it needs work. --NewbyG (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to have it as an essay, but I have a feeling I've been thinking enough of policies for today. :) Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The sections spun out to the essay have been restored to the project page. [1] Either way could work still. --NewbyG (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a different arrangement of sections

The current article seems to be a patchwork of ideas. The sections are:

Co-operation and civility: a discussion about some of the reasons incivility may occur
Engaging in incivility: list of examples
Why is incivility inappropriate?: a discussion about why incivility is not good
Harassment and disclosing personal information (Outing): a special form of incivility
Arbitration: if all else fails
No legal threats: one no-no
Removing uncivil comments: last resort treatment of uncivil comments

I would suggest a more organized story something like:

The definition of incivility

Dictionary-style definition: Discourteous; rude; any comment that attacks the person and not the issue.

As used in Wikipedia: Statements intended to disparage another editor, individual outside of Wikipedia or groups of people. Any statement that intentionally places an individual in a defensive role as an editor.

Common circumstances of incivility

Disparaging remark that characterizes a belief, viewpoint, argument, group of people and/or attitude in an unpopular light; may be a colloquialism in poor taste such as a reference to people of a different culture or system of belief.

Disparaging remark intended to characterize a belief, viewpoint, argument, group of people and/or attitude in order to gain editorial control of an article; the inference that an idea or people can be ignored or freely insulted because the majority view should dominate.

The inability of an editor to dominate a content dispute may result in escalating characterizations of the opposing editors.

Harassment against a person with an opposing viewpoint.

How Wikipedia is harmed by incivility

Obstruction of the business of Wikipedia

Drives away editors

Hurts the image of Wikipedia as a community experiment

Creates a "poisoned" atmosphere conducive of more rapid escalation in future disputes

Responses to incivility

Avoid provocation

Ignore if possible

Ask the person to stop or restate in a more appropriate manner.

Removal of offending remarks

Things to avoid when dealing with incivility

Responding in kind: Incivility is not acceptable whether provoked or not.

Threatening retaliation--legal or editorial

The examples should be embedded in the section they apply to. Please feel free to edit this. It is only a suggestion. Tom Butler (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[2] I swapped these two for now. This approach looks reasonable, User:Tom Butler it isn't policy changing. Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the policy is a moving target, but perhaps you could create a page like Wikipedia:Civility/New draft and do the actual rearrangement, trying not to add or delete or change the wording in the first version. That way, editors could check that it's really just a rearrangement. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

John, if it seems like a good idea to try a new layout, then Wikipedia:Civility/New draft sounds like a good place to begin. It certainly would be better than the confusion we must be causing with the current article. Would other editors say if they agree or disagree before we unnecessarily create a new page? Tom Butler (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably a better idea to do a page in user space, such as User:Tom Butler/Civility/New draft. Other editors can edit as well, without necessarily linking to the WP:CIVIL page until it's ready. --NewbyG (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - user space is better. If you do create it there, please drop me a note - I'd be happy to do some copyediting/cleanup to help it read smoothly, while trying not to change the intent (and since I've not been involved in any discussions about changes, above, perhaps I'd been seen as somewhat neutral.) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a good idea to create a new "working" space. Recent changes have been extensive but also hard to keep up with. It may be easier to follow changes if they are completed in a working space and put up on the Civility page all at once ... although appreciative of the large amount of attention given to this article in the last weeks.(olive (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

I think it would be best if I did not host an article on wiki policy. I believe that one of the editors most vocally opposed to the civility article counts me amongst "certain people" whom he seems to believe live only to torment him.[3]

Many of you have complained about content disputes spilling over to this article. Moving a rewrite to one of my pages would only aggravate the situation. Thus you see the effect of "poisoned atmosphere" and driving away editors. It is time for me to concentrate on a new research project. We are funded now, you see [4]. Tom Butler (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A workshop page has been created using the above material. Wikipedia:Civility/Workshop. --NewbyG (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

New section

New section. [5] DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User pages

[6] (Restoring April 28 version)

[7] restoring 'User pages'. --NewbyG (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Racism

Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs.
Using derogatory language towards other contributors or in general referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, or others in a derogatory manner.

While I agree Racism, sexism, and the like is a biggie, aren't these two statements approximately the same, except that the first is directed racism/sexism/etc, and the second directed or general racism/sexism/etc? Seems like they should be combined. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Combining those two ought to work. And making the list a bit clearer, that seems to be going well. --NewbyG (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, civility really does mean that we shouldn't be rude

Is there some argument in favor of rudeness that I missed? We already have enough problems with editors pretending they don't understand what civility is. Let's not make it easier for them. Editors at Wikipedia should not be rude. Dlabtot (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is tendentious editing uncivil? I happen to think so, and that's not covered in this policy. However, instead of listing every behavior by name that could possibly be considered uncivil, this policy will more likely be read if we keep it simple. Antelan ^talk 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your comment has to do with mine. Are you arguing in favor of rudeness? Dlabtot (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it more obvious, then. Like rudeness, tendentious editing is uncivil. However, tendentious editing is not described in this policy. So, one thought is that we could add it. Another is that, since there are so many uncivil behaviors that we could name, such as tendentious editing and rudeness, we could make this article into a list of behaviors that are uncivil. However, if we want people to read this document and learn from it, we should actually name very few of them. Instead, we should project the general idea of civil behavior. Thus, it is unnecessary to specify "rudeness" in this document. Antelan ^talk 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is tedious filing such duckish RfCs. Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that you still don't know what my comment has to do with yours? For the record, I take offense at the assertion embedded within your question (are you arguing in favor of rudeness?). From my prior statement, that was very clearly not my point. Antelan ^talk 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it means we should not be rude. However, I think "rudeness" is yet another word which should be defined closely. So why use it if we don't need it? "atmosphere of conflict and stress" is enough, and includes rudeness and more than rudeness, including tendentious editing. I don't see a need for another word in there.

The word "rudeness" is a fairly recent addition. I don't think it's needed. However, "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." is longstanding [8] and I think it makes things clearer and should be kept. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia's Civility Policy urge editors to avoid rudeness?

Should Wikipedia's Civility Policy urge editors to avoid rudeness? Dlabtot (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather pointy RfC, given your rude question to me, above. This entire RfC is based off of an incorrect belief. Not a single person, to my knowledge, has advocated that the WP:CIV policy remove all reference to rudeness. One of these many mentions of rudeness is being contested as superlative, since it is mentioned several other times on the page. Antelan ^talk 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as I use the language, "rudeness" and "incivility" are synonymous. Most of the behaviors described as examples are rude. The policy as a whole urges readers to avoid such behavior, so I'm not sure what specific change is being proposed here. MastCell ^Talk 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What is being proposed is that the policy not be changed to one that does not discourage rude behavior, edits that I objected to, and then attempted to discuss, above. I object to the idea, expressed in edit summaries, that rudeness is just a 'minor' incivility that should not be actively discouraged. I believe just the opposite, that editors should actually be polite and not rude; that's just simple sense and the essence of this policy. The edit was made by someone who does not actually believe that civility should be a policy. I welcome the wider input that an RfC will bring to the question. Dlabtot (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history to the WP:CIV mainpage, I think you'll see where this stems from. Basically, disagreement about one word in one place on the page. Why it merits an RfC, I don't know. Antelan ^talk 02:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it seems unnecessary. Raymond Arritt (talk)

I do object, though, to coupling "rudeness" with other, stronger behaviour like racism or indecent suggestions. Rudeness implies minor incivility, and so coupling it with things like that seems to imply that they are less minor than they are. Also, characterising my opinion that Civility should be a behavioural guideline, with WP:NPA and WP:HARASS as the policy parts, because it seems to fit into behavioural guidelines (must be followed generally, but there are commonsense exceptions - I mean, we do say "reasonable degree of civility towards others", not "best behaviour at all times") better than policy (Things where there are almost never appropriate exceptions - such as WP:NPA and WP:HARASS) as "thinking civility shouldn't be policy" is degrading and I ask Dlabtot for an apology.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor incivility, medium incivility, major incivility? What are these but subjective value judgments about which there will always be debates? We ask our users to behave civilly, and we say that it is not an option but an expected behavior, period. Bust the line and you will get dinged. Is that simple. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

...Oh, come on. WP:NPA and WP:HARASS are the blocking policies (or near enough) related to WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA lists the things that are never acceptable. in this section. Hence these distinctions are policy-sanctioned Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is, IMO, a stronger form of rudeness implying negative intent. Rudeness, OTOH, is subjectively determined, where one might think something rude when it was not intended to be rude. For example, ignorance of words considered rude in certain cultures does not point to negative intent. For example, in Australian "root" is a synonym for sex, but in the States, it simply means "to cheer"; therefore, a person using root in the "to cheer" sense illustrates no intent to be rude to Australians. However, it would show intent to incivility to tell an Aussie to go root themselves. Faith (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should urge editors to avoid Rudenes. Removing one example of the word "rudeness", poorly placed, is not the same as removing all examples. Particularly, in the phrase "personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress" the words "and rudeness" coupled with the specific "personally-targeted, belligerent behaviour" seems bathetic - it's an imprecise word shoved in next to a precise definition, and, because of the vagueness of the word, it removes all intent from the definition. Rudeness can be entirely unintentional; given enough cultures pushed together, there's going to be unintended slights. It has no place in a policy-level definition; leave it with the precise definition that includes all aspects of rudeness that we desire to include within it. The word is not of long-standing. It was added in just over two weeks ago: [9] This is not the reversion of a long-standing phrasing, it is the return to the long-standing phrasing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Being civil essentially equals not being rude, and anyone with any common sense will avoid being rude. It's in the spirit of the policy, and you could also say it's in hte word.--Serviam (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another."

I think this is rather repetitive, and the second paragraph almost immediately says "After that, we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and is a reasonable way to distinguish acceptable conduct from unacceptable conduct." - which seems to me a much plainer statement of the matter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bunch of bad writing. Why not take the current lead and sandbox it and we can make the writing better without changing the POV at all? Then put that in the article with consensus, and afterward talk about changing the POV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A little bit of repitition in this lead section is good. The sentences quoted just above are worth saying. --NewbyG (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoudln't we say " A reasonable amount of civility towards one another"? If we're going to use must, we should include some qualifier as to amount, as academic debate is not going to proceed with perfect civility. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this is actually a policy intended to promote civility, so why would we use it to say anything otherwise? What exactly is the argument in favor of telling people, in the civility policy, that they are not actually expected to be civil? Dlabtot (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is a policy page. Not an essay. It's supposed to have precise language, setting out exactly what is expected of users. It is not supposed to contradict itself, and should delineate suggestions from enforcable policy clearly. At the moment, none of that is true. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we could repeat "reasonable amount of civility" there, I don't think it needs it. Reasonable, civil, acceptable, those good words are all in use in the lead section. It's good if the meaning comes across. --NewbyG (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some extremely rude users are reasonably civil. Indeed, I've never seen a case of incivility that wasn't reasonable. That's because civility and incivility are emotional evaluations. How about just changing it to "don't cause so much offense that some admin who likes the other guy better will come in and have an excuse to block yo ass?" How about "Make sure that you're telling the truth before you call someone something which you know is going to cause them to report you" and then we can set up a jury to decide if the insult was true or not. Or maybe we should first define "reasonable," and then define civil around it. You know, have a Vulcan Civility Standard. Or maybe, just maybe, we should just stick with "be civil." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case mentioned

An interesting way to win a content dispute is to try to take out an editor with an opposing view via wiki-legal action. This is an important form of ~~incivility~~ harassment in that it is one editor threatening another by, in essence saying, "If you don't agree with me I'm going to tell the teacher."

You all should know that Shoemaker's Holiday is in the process of "telling the teacher" on Martinphi [10]. He has also accused Olive of being Martin's meat puppet--without offering evidence. Tom Butler (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forum-shop specific interpersonal disputes on this policy talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Butler, Martinphi has specifically said he's editing this page in order to get at ScienceApologist:

For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility

Anyone who knows a thing about the Martinphi/ScienceApologist arbcom case knows who he's referring to. That is a gross abuse of editing policy pages.

As for Littleolive oil, I apologise for mentioning the observation, since I honestly don't know how to check for mesatpuppetry, so should not have made it publicly known. I was concerned by her joining in an edit war to get additions of highly-biased "actionable example words" added to the article, that seem to be chosen because people MArtinphi didn't like used them (per above quote). However, she also edits other articles which Martinphi does not, and since I've never looked into meatpuppetry before, I don't know how much of such types of edits show meatpuppetry, as opposed to simply agreeing with the editor on points. So I withdraw the accusation and apologise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. This can be pursued further in the appropriate venues; let's save this page to discuss specific changes to WP:CIV. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reducing the impact

I have restored (and edited and trimmed) this section from the original version of this page. I didn't bother to dig through difs and find out when it was removed. IMO the civility policy has been steadily creeping in the wrong direction - rather than applying it to thwir own actions and trying to be civil, and attempting to calm, rather than escalate, uncivil situations, people have been using CIVIL as a stick to attack others with. This is the Wrong Direction. I welcome suggestions for getting this moving in a more productive direction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good move Killer - diff was here. I don't think 'how to be civil' is an essay and looking at the history, that section was in for years. Consensus may change - but are we now saying the guidance regarding how to be civil has changed? I support it's restoration and any attempts to making this policy more robust and not a charter for the faux-injured. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a policy page, then we shouldn't include a huge section on suggestions which could not and should not be enforced. Do any other policy pages have anything at all similar? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Where was the consensus for your removal of the guidance? It stood in this policy for yonks before it was removed. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It was part of a WP:BOLD move, to see if it stuck =) I guess it didn't, so let's just say at the top that it's suggestions and then I can be happy =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure we do - right off the top of my head, NPA - instructs editors to comment on the content, not the contributor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And has an entire section for Responding to personal attacks. Perhaps we should try to edit Civil to be more like that - more about how to respond and less about what is against the rules - thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Standards of civility are subjective and whether one may take offence to a particular comment will always remain so. We should acknowledge that people of different ages, cultures and (frankly), class respond differently, and the opportunity for misinterpretation and consequent 'taking offence' is acute on wikipedia where face to face contact is not possible. The presumption should be to AGF and assume misinterpretation in all but the most obvious of cases. 'Gaming' WP:CIVIL - taking offence for the purpose of advantage, rather than actually being offended - should invoke disciplinary sanction as much as violation of WP:CIVIL - but I can't see how that would be proven. My thoughts anyway. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think gaming tends to be fairly obvious - trying to get someone punished over something trivial or accurate is going to be met with great skepticism by all but the most irrational admins. The problem really comes about when someone genuinely is incivil, but is not generally so, and his or her opponents try to get him punished and warned for that. Perhaps something along the lines of "Except in the most excessive cases (see WP:NPA and WP:HARASS), incivility should not be judged from a single post - editors are, after all, human, and it is when incivility is part of a pattern of behaviour that it becomes most troublesome. However, a pattern of taking offense over very small perceived insults, or insisting that someone immediately revoke and take back justified criticism is also highly disruptive, and is also detrimental to the project." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and added a little bit to the lead about scope. Let's see how it holds up against other editors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes "justified criticism" is "you're a complete ass and you should leave the project and go through a few years of intense psychotherapy." So I don't think the accuracy of the post should be relevant. But I do have a question for everyone here: does "personally targeted behavior" include insults which are obviously about people present, or groups who will see the article "Those idiot evil AIDS denial people," or is it always about direct insults? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's be pragmatic and say it would depend on how good of a case could be made against the group. For instance, you could make a good case that AIDS denialists are dangerous, but you couldn't make a similar one about, say, blacks or Jews or women. There's not going to be a bright line rule on this one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We simply can't have "justification" as a good reason for incivility. The fact is, that it is 100% justified to call some people morons, idiots, asses, anything you can think of. With perfect, provable justification. The way you have phrased it "treating justified criticism as an attack is also disruptive" means that if I call an AIDS denial person a dangerous true-believing idiot who ought to be shot so they don't endanger society, and they go and report me, then they are disruptive. Because that's perfectly justified what I said. At least from a lot of points of view. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it ought to read "constructive criticism". Telling someone that one of their actions or comments was counterproductive for reasons X, Y, and Z is constructive criticism. Calling someone an idiot, regardless of whether they are in fact of subnormal intelligence or sophistication, is not constructive. Is that the distinction you're getting at? MastCell ^Talk 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that was covered in the fact that it was said to be "criticism", not "insults", but, fair enough change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I put that in before seeing your post (; Cool. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of lies

I removed the new "accusations of lies" bullet point. This sort of rule would prevent speaking plainly about real problems, and simply would promote camouflaged speech. Accusations of lies, especially when well-founded and fact-supported, are not uncivil. They are, invariably, a reflection of undesirable behavior: either that of the accuser, or that of the accused. But this edit here makes an awfully incorrect prejudgment. Hence my removal of it. Antelan ^talk 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, the act of bringing an accusation is not in itself in any way uncivil. Dlabtot (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

End of lead

I think the addition of "taken out of context" to "Insisting that an editor be sanctioned for a single minor offense... is also disruptive, and may result in you being warned or blocked." has the effect of implying that in context, it must not be an offense at all. I don't think that's true - any behaviour that insists on a punishment far out of line with the offense is disruptive. I've tried a compromise by changing "single" to "isolated", since I think "isolated" gets the intent of the "taken out of context" bit without going further. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The context of uncivil behavior certainly should, and in reality is, examined by administrators when examining charges of uncivil behavior. What is the argument against examining the context of charges of uncivil behavior? BTW, the implication that you assert, does not exist, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the least, it's not necessary for an isolated, minor offense to be taken out of context for someone insisting on the editor being reprimanded over it to be turning a minor incident into a major one. I don't really see the need, if we're only offering two examples, to limit the scope of the examples more than necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I find your response to be incomprehensible. The question put to you is, why not examine context? Your rather novel and totally wrong-headed view that 'minor' incivility is allowed seems irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to argue in favor of allowing 'minor' incivility, you should do so explicitly. Dlabtot (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if I clarify: Examining context is good, but saying it's an "isolated, minor" offense already sets up such constraints on the context that talking about it further is confusing. We could add words along the lines of "or taking another editor's words out of context in order to mislead", but that seems like something that would normally go beyond using WP:CIVIL as a weapon, and into the realm of outright incivility, which would be more of a main-article thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, your viewpoint that minor incivility should be allowed is not actually a part of this policy, so attempting to use it as the basis of your argument is not very productive. What would be more useful is if you would address the question of why you think actions such as a single breach of civility in response to a disruptive, tendentious editor, unresponsive to rational discourse, should not be examined in context. Dlabtot (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also false to suggest that a full examination of the context of a dispute, rather than the isolated examination of individual diffs, is in some way a constraint; in fact it is the opposite. Dlabtot (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the dividing line between 'minor' and 'major' incivility? Dlabtot (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no bright-line division. But, obviously mild rudeness is much more minor than a threat of violence, and if you cannot see the difference, that's a problem =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you are unwilling to make an argument to support your position? If you wish to do so, the floor is yours. Dlabtot (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had: I fail to see what "taken out of context" means in the context of that sentence. Perhaps you could explain what you intend it to mean, if something more than isolated? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

List to prose

I've converted the section on Wikipedia:Civility#The_community.27s_role_in_reducing_incivility (Well, that's what it's called now...) into prose, and expanded it a little bit. I think it's a lot clearer now. We are writing here for users, not admins, right? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly object...

.. to massive changes to a policy page. If editors want to change consensus, go slow and request abundant feedback. jossi - 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, it was just a rearrangement for clarity. No real policy changes happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to support Jossi's revert here. This is a rather major policy. And quite a few changes. Let's at least discuss the sections. - jc37 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. let me try to detail the only real sections:

Preventing incivility within Wikipedia

Prevent edit wars and conflict between individuals (the project sets editing constraints — essentially a community answer)
Force delays between answers to give time to editors to calm down, and to avoid further escalation of a conflict (protecting pages)
Use positive feedback (praising those who do not respond to incivility with incivility)
Apply peer pressure (voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens)
Solve the root of the conflict between the offender and the other editor(s) or the community — or find a compromise.
Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in Wikipedia). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict.
Have certain users refrain from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility.

This becomes

Several policies and guidelines seek to lessen the disruption and drama caused by incivility and problems with editors not listening to each other. Policies such as our No Personal Attack policy, and Harassment policy set firm lines in the sand, which anyone crossing cannot expect to escape retribution for. The three-revert rule seeks to place firm limits on edit-warring. Blocks allow disruptive editors to be prevented from editing, and topic bans allow otherwise productive editors to be prevented from editing the few pages or topics which regularly incite them to disruptive behaviour.

For broader issues, page protection allows admins to stop editing on an article in heated and unproductive dispute (to allow editors time to calm down), and the the mediation cabal and other forms of dispute resolution exist to step in and attempt to solve the root of problems between editors, or suggest compromises.

Reasoning Surely this policy is not meant to be written solely for admins. By presenting it this way, we provide the same information in a more user-friendly way. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of uncivil comments

The following is added to the start of the section

Where the incivil comment is yours, any of these options will help to reduce the impact:

Where someone is taking offense at your comment where none was intended, calmly explain what you meant.
Strike them out (using <s>~~HTML strikeout tags~~</s>), to show, publicly, that you withdraw the comment.
Quietly remove it, or rewrite the comment to be more civil - Usually only a good idea if you think better of it before anyone took offense to it. If someone has taken offense already, you should acknowledge the change in a quick comment after the changed text, for instance, Comment removed by author.

Simply apologise. This option never hurts, and can be combined well with any of the others. Even if you feel the thrust of your words is true, or that they are misunderstanding what you meant, you can still apologise for the offense caused.

Reasoning Thre rest of the section is on removing others' comments. We surely want people tro deal with their own comments as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The other changes were purely rearrangement of sections. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sentence for now

I couldn't really make sense of this sentence, so have removed it for now until someone can either explain it re add it with a context for meaning.(olive (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

oops ... just in case you're wondering what the sentence actually is:(olive (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

"it is not appropriate to make another editor appear to be more courteous than he truly is."