Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 18

Responding to threats of violence
I have [ updated the "dispute resolution" section of this page] to say that (per WP:VIOLENCE) threats of violence should be reported immediately to the WMF rather than at WP:ANI. I believe what I did here was proper and necessary in order to bring this page into compliance with current Foundation policy, but if others feel I misspoke, I would certainly be in favour of a discussion. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible WP:Child Protection Issues?
Possible WP:Child Protection Issues?: The Civility article is liable to be one of the first that many new editors read,quite likely including child editors, because new editors are seemingly automatically asked to read Five pillars - the fourth of these pillars is Editors should treat each other with respect and civility which links to Civility when you click on it. Civility links to Don't be a Dick' which in turn openly admits (here) to being in effect WP:Don't be a Fuckhead, and which effectively includes that in our Civility Guidelines, which is in effect WP:Civility requires that editors you declare anti-social be also declared Fuckheads and be shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted. This state of affairs has already lasted for months and probably years, with all attempts so far to change the matter getting reverted (for the latest attempt, see here). And we've now in effect also just acquired WP:Don't be an Asshole, which can be found here. I'm not a parent, but I suspect many parents may view these current Civility guidelines as deeply inappropriate to be shown to their children, so it seems to me there may well be Child Protection issues here, and as I am not qualified to decide such matters, I intend to try to bring this to the attention of Wikipedia's Child Protection officers. Indeed, I'm no lawyer, but I suspect I might well be in trouble with my country's civil and/or criminal Child Protection laws if I did not try to do so. However as I'm not quite sure how to do this, I thought I'd mention it here so that more knowledgeable editors can also try to bring it to the attention of Wikipedia's Child Protection officers.

Meanwhile, should the disputed links be temporarily removed until Wikipedia's Child Protection officers rule on the matter, or would that just make it harder for them to see what's actually going on? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's this sort of over-the-top commentary that makes any enforcement of CIVIL impossible. Have you looked around Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When it comes to Child Protection, it's not up to you or me to decide what is and is not 'over-the-top' - we simply raise our concerns, try to report them to the appropriate Child Protection people and let them decide.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a child protection issue, but it is oafish language and not appropriate for a mixed company website. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...in some places. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Anthony, but bullying and cyberbullying (see below) ARE child protection issues.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be a very perspicacious and determined child who found his way to those redlinks from the five pillars. I do remember, when I was perhaps eight years old, looking up all the dirty words I could think of in a dictionary to see if they were there. I think today's child would just google them. Jonathunder (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, all these "Won't somebody think of the children?" arguments depend on some ideological, puritan view that children are somehow damaged by being exposed to naughty words. Almost everybody here heard naughty words as children. Most of them turned out to be OK adults. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about 'naughty' or 'dirty' words, it's about bullying and cyberbullying (see below). No red links need be followed (red links can't be followed - they are links to places that don't exist, and are only here for purposes of illustration and irony). Some kids will find the 'dick' and 'fuckhead' articles as quickly as we did, presumably by the same easy route that we did, and once one kid finds it, half of his school and of every neighbouring school may quickly be told where to find it too, and so on.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

After further reflection, and in the light of all the negative reaction here, including claims that it's just about naughty words when it's actually mainly about teaching children (and incidentally also adults) to be bullies, I think that maybe I need to spell out more clearly what I see as the possible Child Protection and Child Abuse issues here.
 * Because of the 'Don't be a dick' link (from here to here) and its 'fuckhead' link (from here to here), and (more debatably) perhaps now also the de facto 'Don't be an asshole' link here, I see our current guidelines as liable to teach children (and adults too, but that's a separate issue) that some people should be bullied and cyberbullied. Thanks to these links, children are in danger of learning from these Civility guidelines that Civility requires that some people should be thought of as 'dicks' (and now also 'assholes'), who are 'fuckheads' who should be 'shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted' (in other words, bullied at school, etc), and who should also be subjected to 'flaming' on the internet (in other words, cyberbullied). It also gives chldren who are already bullies useful ammunition to persuade their friends to become bullies too ('If parents or teachers want to punish us, we have the defence that we were just following Wikipedia's Civility guidelines, so they should punish Wikipedia, not us', etc...). We know that bullying and cyberbullying can have very traumatic consequences for its child victims, up to and including child suicide. I find it disturbing that so many editors seem unable to see any of this.
 * If a headmaster had such Civility guidelines in a single school there would rightly be an outcry, but Wikipedia's Civility guidelines are read by many times more children, from all over the world, so the danger of our current bad guidelines is many.times greater.
 * If one turns children into bullies that is Child Abuse, both of the children who are thus corrupted, and of the children who then get bullied by them.
 * Regardless of what the precise wording of WP:Child Protection may be, it is clear that Wikipedia believes we should be protecting children from abuse.And even if it didn't think that, we all have a moral (and probably also legal) duty to protect chidren from abuse, and to report possible sources of abuse to the relevant authorities (presumably starting with Wikipedia's child protection officers - I am currently still trying (and so far failing) to do this, and I would appreciate assistance from anybody here who knows how to go about it).
 * Editors are presumably also entitled to know that they personally (along with Wikipedia itself) may well also be liable to being sued by victims of such abuse if they unreasonably neglect that duty. I have no reliable way of knowing how small such a risk might be. (On the other hand, I expect that the risk that at least some children will get bullied as a result of our current guidelines is very real indeed, and some may well already have been bullied)
 * Also, where their country has laws making reporting of possible child abuse mandatory editors may not just have to worry about being sued. I have no reliable way of knowing whether any of us are subject to such a law, but if we are then it is a legal precept that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 * Incidentally, for whatever this may or may not be worth, such neglect may also have other consequences for them (bad karma, purgatory, hell, etc) if some religions are at least partly right (I'm not religious myself but neither can I prove that such religions are entirely wrong). For instance in the King James Bible Jesus is reported as saying about those who harm Christian children "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:5-6 (KJV)) Being non-religious, I don't personally see this point as of any major importance, but many religious people might.
 * We have the perfectly simple option of replacing the link to 'Don't be a dick' by a link to WP:Don't be obnoxious.
 * The link to 'Don't be a dick' in WP:Don't be inconsiderate presumably also needs to be removed. (After that our civility guidelines can probably safely link to it, as our Civilty Template already does - it's basically 'Don't be a Dick' without the word 'Dick' and, more importantly, without the link to the dreadful 'Fuckhead' article, and given those origins I'm no great fan of it, but on the other hand I only have rather minor gripes with it).
 * The 'Don't be an Asshole' link should arguably also be removed, though I accept that this may well be a less serious problem because it doesn't seem to carry anything like the same risk of encouraging bullying (though I can't be sure of that, as I haven't read the book). Still it does seem to teach that Civility requires thinking of some people as Assholes, and I doubt if it would be acceptable in any school Civility guidelines, and I think it's up to Child Protection officers, not me, to decide that it's safe for children to see it in our Civility guidelines.
 * I have been told by some critics that there is plenty of stuff as bad or worse all over Wikpedia. If that were true that would be shocking, but in fact I don't know where else on Wikipedia children are placed in danger of being taught to be bullies and cyberbullies, especially not by guidelines which they and we are all supposed to read. If anybody else does know somewhere else this happens, they should of course report the matter to the relevant authorities.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Foul language is not a WP:Child Protection issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And Tlhslobus' knowledge and understanding of child psychology and development issues is astounding. His certainty even more so. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about that Hilo, but Child protection has a very specific purpose and Tlhslobus has missed it completely. As someone who fought a few months to get an editor banned over the actual purpose of that page (and they were finally found to be a true threat and permanently banned from the site) I find the above to be a threat to that protection, not a help.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's certainly not meant to be a catch-all prohibiting, among other things, naughty words. That would weaken that policy terribly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the umpteenth time that I have said my main concern is about bullying and cyberbullying of children (and also of adults, but not in this section), not foul language, while others repeat that I'm just complaining about foul language. Anyway, I've now e-mailed my concerns to what seem to be the most appropriate addresses at Wikimedia, and we'll see what, if anything, results. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, Mark Miller, in a sense you are of course right that WP:Child Protection currently (and probably regretably) makes no explicit mention of protecting children from bullying and cyberbullying, even though that is clearly a Child Protection issue. I was aware of this (either from the start or eventually), and that is why I wrote above "Regardless of what the precise wording of WP:Child Protection may be, it is clear that Wikipedia believes we should be protecting children from abuse" (I had already specified that the abuse I was talking about in this instance was bullying and cyberbullying of children). I do not accept that by mentioning WP:Child Protection in the context of expressing my concerns about the risk of bullying and cyberbullying of children, I have somehow threatened Child Protection, but if you don't agree we will probably just have to agree to differ.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullying and cyberbullying often occur in words that would never offend anyone individually. Maybe you need to attack the former without attacking the latter. Then the credibility of your claim that it's not the naughty words that bother you might improve. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, bullying and cyber bullying are not children's issues, they are people issues. It isn't about protecting children of any specific age from being bullied, it's about such behavior against any member of Wikipedia of any age.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that up to a point. There is no place on Wikipedia for bullying of anyone, of any age. That being said, there should be especially little tolerance for the misuse of Wikipedia as a place to bully minors. That means not just in inter-editor disputes, but also in article space. There have been instances in which, for example, schoolchildren have created mainspace pages to target fellow students who are unpopular or with whom they are quarreling. Such attack pages are deleted on sight and their creators blocked indefinitely, the same as should be an adult editor who engages in a similar practice. All of us have read of horrible incidents of cyberbullying of young teenagers on social media sites, sometimes with tragic consequences. There is no place of such behavior on Wikipedia and any instance of such would need to be addressed immediately.
 * All of this is remote from the issue raised in this thread, however. I personally find some of the links that the original poster is questioning to be ill-chosen and unhelpful, but I do not perceive them as promoting bullying of editors in general or of minors in particular. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Father
My Father served on the Willie Be through out WWII, he passed away a few years ago. Reading this article brings home all the hard=ships he and his fellow ship mated endured for our country. Thank You for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.34.208 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC on a redirect used for hidden personal attacks
An RfC has been made regarding a redirect misused to attack editors without clear notice to them. Please feel free to participate. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for removing the link to "Don't be a Dick" under WP:Bold
The short answer is that the 'Don't be a dick' article seems to be both uncivil (if only because many people will be offended by its use of the word dick, and/or the characterisation of people it dislikes as dicks, especially in an article intended to give civility guidelines) and disturbing, a subtle form of incitement to bullying, a 'velvet glove' hiding the 'mailed fist' of the more overtly bullying and hate-inciting 'What makes a Fuckhead' article on which the 'Don't be a dick' article currently openly admits to being based. The longer explanation can be found here, this being the detailed objections I and others wrote on the Talk Page of the 'Don't be a Dick' article about the apparent dangers of that article and of the 'What makes a Fuckhead' article. Nobody has disagreed with any of these objections in the 7 to 10 months that they have been there, yet as long as the link to it is not removed, in practice it remains here as a de facto part of Wikipedia's civility guidelines.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've read the link you removed at all. I have restored it accordingly, as it is a key message surrounding civility as a whole.  You will find extensive discussions as to why it's on this page in the archives of this talkpage  ES  &#38;L  13:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Civility is a good message but when it is couched in tones and terms that are sexist, obscene and degrading it does the opposite of its intended purpose.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So write a competing essay that can replace it. Writing a replacement and then redirecting the old essay is a lot better than removing the essay entirely (leaving no word on mean spirited actions in the Civility arena)Hasteur (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When I look in the talk history I see other editors also objecting to this essay being in the Civility Template.
 * I think WP:CIVIL should focus on good behavior, and not confuse the issue with a possible suggestion that it's ok to tell the other editor don't be a dick.--User:Johnuniq
 * Agree on not adding Meta:Don't be a dick to this wp:policy page. The danger is its being used as a tool of intimidation in its being so placed and exacerbating the problem it seeks to correct....... User:Thomasmeeks
 * One candidate has certainly got to be Don't be a dick. Why is it acceptable to use a demeaning and highly offensive sexual reference to characterize someone's overall editing style? User:Exucmember
 * I'd be happy to write a replacement/mirror essay. Would that be agreeable to everyone? -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes those who need the advice most do not heed it. I like WP:DICK as a reminder that sometimes we go against the community norms that have evolved here. Putting yourself ahead of the community is a recipe for stress and unhappiness. It's good to have an article like WP:DICK that we can direct editors towards when they thoughtlessly create disharmony. --Pete (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So I ask again, why don't we have a corresponding page on "Don't be a cunt", because there are also a lot of those on here. Eric   Corbett  17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could always set up a redirect... DonIago (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, here it is: WP:CUNT. --Pete (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts, Eric. Maybe you should suggest it be replaced by a link to WP:Don't be a Fuckhead - after all WP:DICK doesn't mention 'cunt', but it does say that 'dick' was a originally a euphemism for 'fuckhead' in the essay 'What makes a fuckhead?', an essay to which it links and which it never criticizes or disavows, so that essay is now also a de facto part of our Civility guidelines. According to that essay, Fuckheads seem to be anybody accused of being anti-social by any group or its leaders, and the article seems to delight in them being "shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted". So maybe we also need a link to WP:Civility requires that editors you declare anti-social be also declared Fuckheads and be shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted Tlhslobus (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I forgot to mention that since yesterday our Civility reading list now includes this link to what is in effect WP:Don't be an Asshole Tlhslobus (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the name but it does hint at the missing guideline. Wikipedia is a vicious place because it's perfectly OK to put a knife into somebody as long as you do it cleverly and don't violate wp:civility by not calling them bad words. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Don't abuse editors". North8000 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Hasteur for your response :-) I've created my own essay on the topic called WP:Don't be obnoxious. For those that like the exact wording of the WP:DICK essay there is already a mirror essay called WP:Don't be inconsiderate which was created in 2009. Given that the content and sentiment contained in WP:DICK is more than adequately covered by at least two to other essays why does an in-civil, sexist and offensive term need to be listed in the civility template? NOTE: The essay has a right to exist per WP's non-censorship policy, as would possible future essays called: Don't be a twat, Don't be a nigger, Don't be a gay fag etc. However, those types of essays do not belong in the civility template as their terminology is, in and of itself, offensive, inciting and in-civil.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Eric   Corbett  18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Keithbob, excellent essay. I personally would slightly prefer a milder term such as 'unpleasant' or 'unkind' or 'uncivil' (or 'inconsiderate', except that it's already taken) instead of 'obnoxious', but I'm not sure I'm right about that, as there's clearly also a case for not being so mild that people may fail to get the message.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about the dick link. In my corner of the world, "don't be a dick" is at the mild end of the spectrum of rebukes, while "don't be a cunt" is at the high end, and anyone uttering the latter should be prepared for a possibly physical fight. The etymology (and whether it involves sexism) would be interesting but is not relevant to the fact that "don't be a dick" has a meaning that is remote from sexual references. The essay at Don't be a dick is quite reasonable and is relevant here because the essay tells people that being right is not the full story—a collaborative project requires that editors are also not dicks. I haven't got time to fully check the new WP:DBO (don't be obnoxious), although it looks good. I still agree with my quoted words above, but would like some assertion that "being right (and passing CIVIL) is not sufficient". Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, Johnuniq. As regards "being right (and passing CIVIL) is not sufficient", I note that WP:DBO says "Even though we may feel that we are right about our position in a discussion, that does not give us the right to be obnoxious, rude, inconsiderate, uncooperative or offensive. We should be aware that an editor can behave civilly and still appear to be obnoxious, abrasive and uncooperative to others." Is that adequate for you, and if not how would you like to see it improved? Also I've commented on the 'dick' and 'reasonable' issues in Clarification below, but I would add here that the use of 'dick' seems clearly unnecessary in the sense that WP:Don't be obnoxious and WP:Don't be inconsiderate seem to manage fine without it. Also what seems mild to you and me may not necessarily seem mild to people from other cultures or religions or to many women (it has been claimed that only 10% of Wikipedia editors are female, arguably because the atmosphere is so unpleasant, and 'dick' hardly makes it more pleasant, perhaps especially not when in Civility guidelines). And I might add that I don't think 'fuckhead' (which is also in that article) is either particularly mild or reasonable or helpful in making a more pleasant atmosphere, though that is only a small part of my objection to it (see Clarification below). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion gives a classic opportunity to some self appointed civility police to find offence in a single word, misinterpreting it as they do so. There are far worse uncivil behaviours on Wikipedia, and it's time the word police grew up and looked wider. Concentrating on a single word is giving free reign to the bigots and POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarification: As far as I'm concerned, the problem is not primarily about the word 'Dick', although I think it's a bad idea to have as a de facto part of our civility guidelines a document that in practice encourages people to think of many other editors as penises rather than as people who are entitled to be treated with civility. And also, given that civility is meant to be about showing consideration for the feelings of others, we are also being somewhat inconsiderate towards the feelings of those who rightly or wrongly find the use of 'dick' in such a context uncomfortable and/or unhelpful and/or inappropriate and/or sexist and/or offensive and/or uncivil (etc). I also have some other relatively minor objections to the article.


 * But my main objection (detailed here) is that the 'Don't be a dick' article effectivly wittingly or unwittingly implies that it's a toned-down version of the hate-inciting 'What makes a Fuckhead?' article, which implicitly delights in huge numbers of people being "shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted" throughout history for allegedly being what its author chooses to deem 'fuckheads' for reasons whose nature is unclear other than that they seem to have incurred the hatred of some group and/or its leaders. Thus we are currently de facto including the hate-inciting 'What makes a Fuckhead?' along with 'Don't be a dick' as part of our civility guidelines.
 * 'Don't be a dick' wittingly or unwittingly implies that it basically means 'Don't be a Fuckhead' (quote: "External links What makes a Fuckhead? (David R. Kendrick) ("dick" in the context of this article having originally been a euphemism for "fuckhead")."). ('Don't be a Dick' never disavows or condemns this admitted origin). This in practice also encourages people to think of many other editors, not just as dicks/penises, which is bad enough, but as 'Fuckheads' who deserve to be "shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted", rather than as people who are entitled to be treated with civility. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Thanks to many other editors, but perhaps especially User:Keithbob and User:Hasteur for their helpful contributions. Might I suggest that the link to 'don't be a dick' be replaced by links to WP:Don't be obnoxious and/or WP:Don't be inconsiderate (Either or both is OK by me; I slightly prefer the latter's milder title, but I slightly prefer the former's content because the latter links to 'Don't be a Dick', but at least the link would be one step further down the line from our main civility guideline). In an ideal world this change would actually be made by one of those who has being defending the current position, but if none of them make it, then it might be made by somebody like User:Keithbob or User:Hasteur. If none of them make it, I will then probably consider making it myself. If the proposed change is made and gets reverted, I think it will then be time to at least consider whether to move up to the next rung of the dispute resolution procedure.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ever noticed how the niceness police often demand that those whose language offends their precious sensibilities must swear less, but those who are their targets never demand that the civility police swear more? HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As already pointed out above, there's a lot more wrong with the 'Don't be a Dick' article (or 'Don't be a Fuckhead', as it tells us 'Dick' is just a euphemism for 'fuckhead') than simply swearing. Meanwhile you seem to be implying that Wikipedia is far too nice and that the Civility guidelines should be changed to allow swearing, or that we should get rid of the Civility guidelines altogether on grounds that they are the evil and oppressive work of some evil and oppressive Civility police. If so, it might be an interesting proposal, but unfortunately it would seem to require you to start a separate discussion somewhere else :) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No. As is common, you have made a shallow interpretation of what I have said here. Those who are obsessed with what they see as naughty words tend to overlook far worse forms of incivility in Wikipedia. They may take the form of repeatedly ignoring fair and rational points made by others, pushing a personal POV and ideology, and many others. No swearing is a nice goal, but it's not as important as many others we must have here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, HiLo48, on reflection and with hindsight I now think I should have replied to you in some other fashion. And, by the way, thanks again for correcting me on Henrik Stenson primary sources. And I agree with you when you say that there are many other incivility problems in Wikipedia besides swearing. But we can't fix everything at once (and there's much that we can't fix at all, such as human nature). So this discussion cannot be about all the other things that are wrong with Wikipedia, and has to confine itself to the question of whether removing or replacing the link to WP:DICK would help to make Wikipedia a slightly more or slightly less uncivil place. And as I mentioned above, this is neither solely nor primarily about swearing. It actually has quite a lot to do with idealogy (about which you also complain) in the sense that, in the guise of Wikipedia Civility guidelines, we appear to be currently promoting the kind of quasi-fascistic ideology that views people one disagrees with as 'Fuckheads' who deserve to be "shunned, excommunicated, pressed into exile, and even hunted" (in a milder version, editors are also portrayed as opponents to be 'subdued' and made subject to your 'mastery' by the techniques of some ancient Chinese general, etc). I may just be foolish, but I happen to think that promoting that kind of ideology and/or attitude among thousands of editors is actually a lot more of a threat to civility in Wikipedia than simply calling somebody a dick (though I don't think calling somebody a dick helps civility, still less encouraging thousands of people to think of other editors as dicks). And I even think that, as somebody who has been in favour of keeping 'WP:DICK' (and is thus less likely to get reverted), you might be in a good position to make Wikipedia a marginally less uncivil place if you yourself choose to be the person who replaces the link to WP:DICK with one to 'WP:Don't be obnoxious' and/or 'WP:Don't be inconsiderate' (neither of which are perfect, but both of which seem to me to be much better than WP:DICK). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Thslobus, Both the WP:Don't be obnoxious and WP:Don't be inconsiderate essays are already listed in the Civility template. In WP:Don't be obnoxious I used my own words to convey the main message of WP:DICK without resorting to offensive language. The WP:Don't be inconsiderate essay, is a mirror of WP:DICK and word for word the same essay (as far as I can tell) except for the derogatory term. At this point the only reason we would maintain WP:DICK in the template would be to preserve that particular term which seems to violate WP:POINT. If wider community input is needed we can have an RfC but why waste the community's time on such an obvious issue?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 01:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Keithbob. I'm a bit confused: First, I can't find WP:Don't be obnoxious and WP:Don't be inconsiderate in the current article (WP:Civility) - am I missing something? Second, I suggested replacing the link to WP:DICK by a link to WP:Don't be obnoxious and/or WP:Don't be inconsiderate, because of the recent history of attmpts to remove the link to WP:DICK, as shown here:


 * (cur | prev) 11:48, 21 November 2013‎ Colonel Warden (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,612 bytes) (+261)‎ . . (→‎Further reading: + citation) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 16:33, 19 November 2013‎ Hasteur (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,351 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (Undid revision 582372249 by Eric Corbett (talk) Before wildly undoing things, please review the talk page as a consensus is being worked out.) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 13:41, 19 November 2013‎ Eric Corbett (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,325 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (Undid revision 582368796 by EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk) I'll believe that when I see the "Don't be a cunt essay") (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 13:13, 19 November 2013‎ EatsShootsAndLeaves (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,351 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (Undid revision 582362973 by Tlhslobus (talk) Consensus has been for it to remain, and you might not have actually read that essay if you think it's uncivil) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 12:12, 19 November 2013‎ Tlhslobus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,325 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (→‎See also: WP:BOLD Removing link to "Don't be a Dick" - reasons to be given in Talk) (undo)


 * Basically, I removed the link under WP:BOLD, and got reverted by EatsShootsAndLeaves who claimed I had violated some consensus, and that I can't have read WP:DICK as there is nothing uncivil in it. Eric Corbett removed it again, but got undone by Hasteur on grounds that we should do nothing while a consensus is being worked out. Hasteur then sensibly suggested that if the link was to be removed then something should replace it, and you then wrote 'WP:Don't be obnoxious' to replace it (thanks again), and also mentioned 'WP:Don't be inconsiderate'. Meanwhile the WP:DICK link was and is still there. So I just suggested that it should now be replaced by links to one or both essays (and I have suggested that ideally it should not be me who makes the change, if only because I have already been reverted once, and am thus probably more likely than others to get reverted again). So I'm a bit confused as to why you now appear to be suggesting the link should be removed without such a replacement, which seems to ignore your own and Hasteur's constructive contributions. Have I misunderstood you?


 * Meanwhile, confusing things further, User: Colonel Warden has just added a link to a book called 'The No Asshole Rule:...', about which I know little except that its author justifies the use of 'Asshole' on the basis that he allegedly has to choose between being offensive or being ignored. I suspect that link is also a bad idea, but I am reluctant to revert him, because I have not read the book (and have neither the time nor the desire to read it), so I don't know whether it has similar hate-inciting origins as 'WP:DICK' (which derives from the hate-inciting 'What makes a Fuckhead?'). So it may well be that trying to get rid of the 'Don't be a dick' link will simply result in us keeping the link and getting a 'Don't be an Asshole' link in our Civility guidelines as well (and adding quite a bit to the bank balances of its author and publisher), and that I will just have learnt another exhausting and probably-not-worth-the-price lesson concerning the reality of life in Wikipedia. But maybe just mentioning such a possibility is itself some kind of dreadtfully uncivil violation of something like WP:AGF (or at least that was the rule that got thrown at me the last time I got criticized in vaguely similar circumstances). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much convinced that too many of those wanting this removal are just seeking censorship. They don't like the word. I live in a demographic where anything weaker than "Don't be a dick" would be seen as a weak and lily-livered request, and have virtually no effect. It's all very well pandering to the conservatives, but if you ignore those who are used to a more robust form of dialogue, you have lost that audience. As I said earlier, there are far worse forms of incivility here. This obsession with one word tells me that the obsessed don't actually care about those bigger issues. Drop the stick on what YOU think is a naughty word, and look to the bigger problems here. Convince me you actually care about Wikipedia, and not just about a word. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * *AHEM*, SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, HERE IS THE SORT OF THING IT TAKES TO GET THROUGH TO PEOPLE IN MY WORLD. HALF THE POPULATION CAN IGNORE THE GUIDELINE DISCUSSED HERE AND BE AS RUDE AS WE WANT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE ANATOMY REFERRED TO HERE AND SO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO US. ESSENTIALLY THE FOLKS WHO INSIST ON KEEPING THE PAGE IN ITS CURRENT FORM ARE GIVING US A FREE PASS TO IGNORE THE GUIDELINE. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO US, AND WE MIGHT JUST AS WELL BE A TOTAL *JERK* ABOUT THIS. PERHAPS WE NEED TO START TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS UNTIL THE SEXIST PIGS GET A CLUE.

'''I WANT WOMEN, EVEN TIMID YOUNG WOMEN, TO FEEL SAFE AND WELCOME AT OUR REAL LIFE WIKIPEDIA EVENTS, AND ONLINE. IT IS EXTREMELY UNSETTLING WHEN PEOPLE WHO APPEAR PERFECTLY FRIENDLY IN REAL LIFE ARE PERMITTED TO TURN INTO AGGRESSIVE, FOUL MOUTHED, MISOGYNIST MONSTERS AS SOON AS THEY GET BACK ONLINE. IT REALLY GIVES PAUSE WHEN YOU ASK YOURSELF, IS THIS ANOTHER DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE SITUATION? FULL OF INDIVIDUALS WHO BELIEVE WE ARE TOO WEAK TO RESTRAIN THEIR AGGRESSION? ...'''
 * OINK OINK OINK!
 * OINK OINK OINK!
 *  OINK OINK OINK!
 * HOW ABOUT REWRITING THIS GUIDELINE AS WP:JERK INSTEAD? Djembayz (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I wrote the article about that book when it seemed that I myself was being harassed. It seemed good to address the issue in an encyclopedic way by referring to independent authorities on the topic of civility.  By studying the topic in a scholarly way, one may consider it more dispassionately, as we are encouraged to do by WP:NPOV.  There is much material out there because people have been unpleasant to each other throughout human history and so have tried many ways of getting along with each other better.  As Santayana said, "...when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Warden (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake....is this really a god damn discussion again? It isn't a Wikipedia article. Why link it unless you want to see more foul mouthed essays about cunts, assholes, cocks, dicks and so fourth. We seem to have too many editors willing to make this shit official. Cool... then do it and place this back onto a Wikipedia essay so the world can view it as our way of thinking. And yes...I purposely used the same disgusting prose as those that seem to think this is appropriate. So censor me.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

For possible Child Protection Issues of all this, see next section. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (Note: The Child Protection Issues section referred to above has been archived to here)Tlhslobus (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This debate seems to me to be stuck on the horns of a dichotomy, and as such to be in danger of turning into a wild goose chase, red herring etc. Civility does not seem to me to be a binary quality but rather a spectrum that forecasts the likelihood of a behaviour to incense those around.  As I think Tlhslobus is saying, we do not have an option of choosing to make things "civil" vs. the option of allowing things to be "uncivil", but rather to engage in ways that have a higher likelihood of helping things improve, through cooperation.  For me the critical thing here is to determine what "civil"/"civility" means.  I don't think it is as soggy as the edict: "Don't fight boys, play nice", nor as crass as eliminating a word or two from the language being used.  I feel that it is about respect (a challenging and overused word in our society).  Of course it is possible to insinuate or infer an insult, but in the same way as our society considers a verbal argument to be distinct to one comprising physical violence, so overt verbal insults of the form: "You are a f*****g c**t!", may be considered different to insults such as: "You must be stupid to think that", are to insults such as: "I believe if you had read chapter 7 you would understand".   Form has significance.   We cannot eliminate conflict but we can mediate it and one of the key tools for mediation is the language that is used.  This has to be done as a conscious effort, to choose the path of least offence in communicating our truth, rather than to assume that the mere fact that we are communicating our truth justifies any language.  I imagine we would agree that swear words are those words which are designed to overtly insult.  This insult is achieved by reducing the subject to the level of object, to something part human or sub-human, and thereby to something we can feel justified in abusing.  We feel pardoned of our abuse, freed from guilt to vent our own frustration through our abusing of others.  The greatest issue for me here is in the assumption that because we hold the higher ground  we may adopt any behaviour we like towards outsiders/unbelievers, however violent, on the basis that we are acting merely as servants of the higher good.  "Do as you would be done by.". LookingGlass (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This debate seems to me to be stuck on the horns of a dichotomy, and as such to be in danger of turning into a wild goose chase, red herring etc. Civility does not seem to me to be a binary quality but rather a spectrum that forecasts the likelihood of a behaviour to incense those around.  As I think Tlhslobus is saying, we do not have an option of choosing to make things "civil" vs. the option of allowing things to be "uncivil", but rather to engage in ways that have a higher likelihood of helping things improve, through cooperation.  For me the critical thing here is to determine what "civil"/"civility" means.  I don't think it is as soggy as the edict: "Don't fight boys, play nice", nor as crass as eliminating a word or two from the language being used.  I feel that it is about respect (a challenging and overused word in our society).  Of course it is possible to insinuate or infer an insult, but in the same way as our society considers a verbal argument to be distinct to one comprising physical violence, so overt verbal insults of the form: "You are a f*****g c**t!", may be considered different to insults such as: "You must be stupid to think that", are to insults such as: "I believe if you had read chapter 7 you would understand".   Form has significance.   We cannot eliminate conflict but we can mediate it and one of the key tools for mediation is the language that is used.  This has to be done as a conscious effort, to choose the path of least offence in communicating our truth, rather than to assume that the mere fact that we are communicating our truth justifies any language.  I imagine we would agree that swear words are those words which are designed to overtly insult.  This insult is achieved by reducing the subject to the level of object, to something part human or sub-human, and thereby to something we can feel justified in abusing.  We feel pardoned of our abuse, freed from guilt to vent our own frustration through our abusing of others.  The greatest issue for me here is in the assumption that because we hold the higher ground  we may adopt any behaviour we like towards outsiders/unbelievers, however violent, on the basis that we are acting merely as servants of the higher good.  "Do as you would be done by.". LookingGlass (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I just gotta ask --- where are the deletionists? I've seen good articles chopped to pieces by people who call every special interest "cruft", but here you guys have got an official policy decorated with a classification of the kinds of civility, how to apologize, how to avoid losing your temper ... are you kidding me?  I remembered this thing was bad but I must have forgot how bad, or maybe it's gotten worse.  You shouldn't be asking why this essay is linked here - you should be asking why any of this stuff is in here.  Get out the axe and go on a spree, or if you absolutely can't stand the thought of someone murdering your darlings, at the very least split off a good two-thirds of this into one or more vapid illuminating essays (see, I'm learning civility right now).  Then think about repealing the rest, because the harder you try to enforce civility the more furious people get at each other. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

adding a little advice
I would like to add the following, as a bullet point in the section on how to be civil. I have followed this policy myself for years and found it helpful.


 * Avoid if possible using the word "you". Saying "the article"; "the edit;" "the argument;"  "the source," rather than "your article;" "your edit;" "your argument;" or "your source," focuses on the text and not the editor.  Though it is human nature to feel possessive and protective of what one has worked on, nobody owns an article, or even their own edits.  A "you" comes across as one dog staring directly at another, which causes fights. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC).
 * I partly agree and partly disagree. It never is "your article", in spite of how many complaints there are about unwanted edits to "our article".  It never is "your article" or "my article" or "our article", because no one owns a Wikipedia article.  It really is "the article" (whose talk page the discussion is on, or that is being discussed on a user talk page).  Likewise, a source doesn't belong to an editor.  It is out there in the world, and either is or is not reliable.  It really is "your edit", because any editor is responsible for their own edit.  It really may be someone's argument.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Agreed that avoid does not mean "you" is prohibited altogether since "you" is often unavoidable. Merely this would recommend thinking twice about using "you." As in the difference between "you make no sense to me" --and-- "this edit makes no sense to me"; "you have no support for this" versus "this text seems to have no citation support." Its a simple change in language, that I think would have beneficial consequences in reducing intemperance. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up--if I delete the part about "your argument" (since as Robert McClenon points out "your argument" may be accurate, and I think, sometimes unavoidable) is there objection to adding the remainder as a bullet point? ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  21:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection, the motion carries by consensus. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  15:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A few points.


 * 1) There are situations where it is undesirable to say "you" or "yours". One of them is in the expression "your article". That expression is likely to be a shorthand for "the article that you created", but it runs the danger of encouraging any feeling of ownership which some editors, particularly inexperienced editors, exhibit. However, there are may more situations where the use of "you" or "your" is perfectly natural, and to exhort people to avoid those words whenever possible is a gross exaggeration. In contexts such as "I see that you have added a link to WP:whatever to the article", or "I thought I would let you know that there is a discussion on a subject you have expressed an interest in", or "I wonder if you can help me", or any one of thousands of other situations, there is nothing in the world wrong with saying "you", and to tell people "Avoid if possible using the word 'you'" just because there are some situations where it may be better to avoid it, is absurd.
 * 2) One editor makes a suggestion. Another shows some degree of sympathy with the idea behind it, but fundamentally disagrees with the suggestion. The first editor makes an offer to slightly amend the suggestion. The second editor does not come back and reiterate his disagreement. Why? I know not: maybe he thinks he has said all he has to say, sees no reason to repeat it, and does not see any substantial enough change to require anything new to be said. Maybe he just hasn't looked back at this page. In any case, we are still in the situation where two editors have commented, and only one has expressed support for the suggestion. That is not consensus in support of the suggestion.
 * 3) For some reason your whole thesis seems to be based on a presumption of opposition between editors. As far as I am concerned, a large proportion of my comments to other editors are friendly comments, in a spirit of collaboration. Why on earth should I stop being friendly, and addressing people, and prefer to be impersonal and indirect? Why single out examples such as "you make no sense to me", rather than "you have been very helpful"? Is "you" objectionable in the latter example? If it isn't, then what is objectionable about the former one can't be the mere fact that it uses the word "you", and must be something else.
 * 4) Frankly, your notion that use of the word "you" is in itself aggressive is totally idiosyncratic: I have no memory of ever encountering anyone else who holds that view. "A 'you' comes across as one dog staring directly at another, which causes fights"? Really? Seriously? JamesBWatson (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the use or non-use of "you" has anything to do with civility. I agree that there are situations in which an editor who is trying to start a dog-fight may use the pronoun "you" provocatively, the real issue is provocative behavior, not the use of a pronoun.  I don't see any need to deprecate the use of the second-person singular pronoun.  The misuse of the first-person singular and plural possessive pronouns, in "my article" and "our article", is much more of a problem, and I don't see the need to deprecate the use of those pronouns either, only of claims of ownership, and that is also outside the scope of this policy talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't see a consensus to add a bullet point to a fundamental policy about deprecating a pronoun. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the views--I see I should have waited longer, for editors to weigh in. Though maybe the problem was suggesting the change first here on the talk page, where it got little notice. Had I first changed the main page, and then *sigh* been reverted, it would have perhaps sparked the discussion that is only now occurring. Here is what I suggest. Let's get some data. Why don't we editors go over to the RfC board, look at the text of adjudicated edit wars, and simply count how many times an edit war starts with "the edit" versus-- "your edit;" how many times "the citation" sparks a confrontation versus-- "your citation." No need for a formal survey, just do a quick informal count. It is my view that the data will confirm the word "you" comes across as ""J'accuse ...!" while the occasions of an edit war over "the text" or "the source" are relatively few.  But if I am wrong, I will certainly defer to --um--y'all. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  23:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS--while we are doing that, I need to respond to the word deprecate, which is stronger than "avoid if possible." Deprecated in WWW consortium language means software no longer supported, stop using it; in the literary world it means "abhor, deplore," etc. Merely to suggest one think twice about phrasing is different from "never say it." As to its being idiosyncratic, I must say this is pretty much standard procedure with professional arguers: lawyers.  Lawyers (I am a retired one) are familiar with devices to keep the pot from boiling over. The most obvious one is the judge's stern instruction "address your remarks to me"--thus breaking the eye contact between two antagonists.   But the device most often used in briefs and in oral argument, is the standard phrasing "the argument  x  is spurious/nonsense/without foundation because . . ."  Not "your" argument (although sometimes a"his argument" does squeeze though).  Always preferable, to keep it objective and nonpersonal: "the" argument.  It is about the argument, not the other lawyer.  Here is another source on the subject, from a different field, an article on "using positive language," to avoid confrontations.  The hostility inducing phrases sounding like accusations (called here "negative phrases") are all  "you did this" or "you failed to do that;" "you claim;" etc.  The "positive phrases" are all neutral: "the information suggests," etc.  This is found here. To return to where I started, the purpose is to focus on the text, not on the editor. To break eye contact if you will. It certainly seems like more immediately effective and sound advice than the "don't edit in a bad mood" further down the list. Now I will go over to the RfC's and see what data-diamonds glitter in what seems like a lot of mud. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  23:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is "standard procedure" for lawyers and what is advisable for Wikipeida editors are tow very different questions, for several reasons. Not least of these is the fact that lawyers work within an adversarial system, whereas Wikipedia is not based on an adversarial model. Of course, there is a small minority of editors who take a battleground approach in dealing with other editors, but that is not the norm, and there is no good reason for shaping policy on the basis of that model. Learning that what you are trying to do is to transfer your experience from working as a lawyer to Wikipedia explains the oddity which I referred to above, when I wrote "For some reason your whole thesis seems to be based on a presumption of opposition between editors": if your have spent most of your life working in an environment in which everything is shaped around opposition between parties, you are likely to see things in those terms. My experience is that people who work in marketing/PR/advertising/whatever often find it difficult to adjust to the standards required for Wikipedia, because after spending most of their waking hours over the course of many years working in an environment where promotional language is the norm, they are so used to promotional language that they are blind to it, and sincerely cannot see why their articles keep getting deleted as blatant promotion. It seems to me likely that you are suffering from a similar blindness: your whole approach to how to deal with other people is coloured by you experience over several decades (presumably, since you say you are retired) of working in an environment where there are good reasons for avoiding direct address to the person you are talking to, and cultivating an indirect, impersonal approach, so that you are heavily conditioned to thinking in those terms. I see no reason at all to think that a model which is constructed to work in the contest of legal disputes is the best model to use for Wikipedia editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Advice on Pronouns
I have a few follow-up comments. First, I strongly disagree with Elijah Bosely's comment that maybe he should have been bold and edited the policy itself rather than the talk page. He was right in commenting on the talk page rather than arbitrarily making a bold change to a well-established policy. If he had edited the policy, and it is a core policy, he might have been given a warning template not to change policies without consensus. Second, however, neither a comment on a talk page nor an undiscussed change to a policy is the optimal way to propose a change to a well-established policy. The Requests for Comments mechanism is. An RFC is still a better way to get significant community input than just to rely on those posters who have this page watchlisted. Second, he mentions "the RFC board". What board is he talking about? At first I thought that maybe he was proposing an RFC on this policy (as mentioned above). Apparently not. So what board is he saying we should review to conclude that the second person singular pronoun is toxic? Third, when I referred to deprecating a pronoun, I was using the general computing sense, as discussed in the linked article, not a specific computing sense. I have not read the WWW standard. However, he did appear to be saying that we should deprecate the second person singular pronoun, in the sense of cautioning editors to avoid it when possible. Maybe his proposed statement was stronger than he intended, or maybe his idea is more idiosyncratic than is likely to get consensus. Fourth, I am a little puzzled about what Elijah is saying comes across as "J'accuse", which isn't a second person usage at all. Zola was writing in the first person singular, and had third person direct objects. He wasn't addressing those who were responsible for the injustice, but the people of France. Fifth, I agree that hostile use of the second person singular pronoun should be avoided, but the real issue that hostile language should be avoided. A hostile editor can still be very hostile using a stilted delivery that avoids the second person singular. I am skeptical that advice to change the person of a pronoun will avoid conflicts. However, I am willing to read and comment on an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the idea of telling people to avoid saying 'you' and 'your' as far as possible because it's somehow uncivil would quite likely be the last straw for some of those who already think most of these rules are crazy, and may thus cause the pointless loss of some good editors. Wnt's January 13th 2014 comment at the end of the above argument about "Don't be a dick" is just one example of an editor who already thinks most of these rules are crazy. In George Orwell's 1984 the tyrant Big Brother was creating a language called Newspeak in which words were removed from the English language to make it impossible for people to think certain kinds of thought, but even Orwell's dystopian satire never envisioned the outlawing of 'you' and 'your'. The effect of the proposal would probably simply be to allow people to take offence where none is intended, and to be punished for allegedly giving offence where none was intended, and the proposal would be a source of yet more double standards that favor the unreasonable (as many of these rules arguably already are) by giving license for unreasonable people to rebuke reasonable people for saying 'you' while knowing perfectly well that they themselves never have to worry about being on the receiving end of such rebukes from reasonable people. And it would be a wonderful propaganda gift to enemies of Wikipedia. And so on ad infinitum. In other words, I expect the proposal would make Wikipedia an even more unpleasant place than it already is, as well as possibly making us a laughing stock in the eyes of most people on this planet, including most Wikipedians. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe somebody should give me a Barnstar for Civility on the basis that I never used the words 'you' and 'your' in the above paragraph (except when between quotes, which probably doesn't count as uncivil) :) Plus a second Barnstar for the current paragraph :) Tlhslobus (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't wholly agree with the proposed wording ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACivility&action=historysubmit&diff=592336937&oldid=591571513 diff]), but the advice to avoid "you" is extremely useful. The stuff about "your article" is a red herring and is not relevant to the issue. I suggest people experiment next time a tense discussion is encountered—consider how a sentence sprinkled with "you" might be recast. Most discussions need to resolve an issue, and do not need to establish who is right and who is wrong, and I find that avoiding "you" is helpful for that. It could be argued that such advice is not the role of the CIVIL policy, but the idea is sound. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the data are in. In view of what I learned, and the comments above, I would like to revise the proposal. As it is new language, I'll start a new section just below this one. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree that "the advice to avoid 'you' is extremely useful". We are invited to think about "next time a tense discussion is encountered", but what about when "a tense discussion" (whatever that means) is not encountered? 99% of communication between Wikipedia editors is not "tense", and there is absolutely no reason at all to avoid use of the word "you" in most situations because there is a small minority of situations where it may be unhelpful. And even when "a tense discussion" is encountered, how often is the use of "you" a problem? If someone has been making personal attacks, is it somehow better if I pussyfoot around and say something stupid like "personal attacks have been made, and an editor may be heading for a block", rather than "you have been making personal attacks, and if you continue you may be blocked"? If there is, then it would be helpful to spell out why it is better, rather than just stating it as though it were self-explanatory. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When a warning is needed, clarity is essential and you is required. There is no CIVIL problem from saying "you", and there are lots of occasions where "you" is perfect, but when a disagreement is encountered, avoiding "you" can be helpful. Anyone interested who finds themselves in a dispute might think about using phrases like "that suggestion is wrong because..." instead of "your suggestion is wrong because...". Further, "you are wrong because..." will never lead to a productive discussion on an article talk page, although such plain talking may be fine at WP:ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral language bullet point
''* Try to use neutral language  when reverting, opposing, being critical, or adding negative comments. Consider as a drafting tool "the article"; "the edit;" "the argument;" "the source," rather than "your article;" "your edit;" "your argument;" or "your source." That focuses on the text and not the editor. A "you" coupled with a critical comment puts an editor on the defensive. The personal "you" or "your" is better reserved for agreement, compliments, Barnstars, and the like, where personalizing the remark is appropriate. ''

Reason: The Wikipedia Civility Warning policy says "[t]he word you in warnings can often trigger defensive feelings and feelings of accusation." Likewise the No Personal attacks policy says "[i]n disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible." If avoiding "you" makes sense for an incivility warning after the fact, if it makes sense in avoiding personal attacks, it makes even more sense for this page which is an attempt to reduce incivility before it starts. In accord with editor Johnuniq's point that redrafting a sentence full of 'you's' can be a telling exercise, I have also added that this is a drafting idea, not a prohibition of the word.

The editor JamesBWatson above quite rightly points out that most of his own remarks are civil, and it makes no sense to require him to avoid "you" in civil discourse. The revised language takes this into account. If one is going to pay a compliment, of course say "you." Makes sense to personalize a pat on the back. This policy is about avoiding incivility, not civility. Also I took out the dog behavioral analogy, this having not met with much approval.

In the previous section I noted that courtroom advocates, and workplace conflict avoidance counsellors strive for neutral language: "the argument, the facts, the information," never "your argument," "your facts." I will add teachers: their conflict avoidance training also says focus on the topic, not the student.

As to Wikipedia itself, here's the data: I looked at ten RfC's involving incivility, and as controls looking for examples of civility (or at least kindness), ten Civility Barnstar awards, and ten Original Barnstar awards. The results: every edit war was personalized (100%). All the edit warriors hurled accusations, and all used the word "you" or "your" in doing so. No real surprise. But in the Barnstar conferrals there was this revelation: editors are perfectly happy to accept a compliment for "your page," or "your article" despite that Wikipedia policy is nobody owns a page. About half the Civility Barnstar awards used neutral language "the resolution of the dispute;" the other half used "you" or "your." So the preliminary data would suggest "you" or the possessive "your" is fighting words on Wikipedia in a negative context, though acceptable in a positive one. Not much of a study to be sure, and like most of these studies it confirms what common sense already told you--but it is an empirical result.

So, in accord with the view that we are really talking about negative comments, which become more toxic (good word) when spiked with "you" and "your" --I have redrafted the proposal accordingly. I hope this meets with approval. In view of editor Robert McClenon's point that I did not wait long enough for a consensus to develop, I will revisit this page in a week or so and see what the accumulated wisdom is. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  19:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am willing to offer my opinion at this time, in advance of "letting a consensus develop". No consensus will develop at this talk page without an RFC.  Don't just "let a consensus develop".  Post an RFC to attract the views of other editors than those who have this page watchlisted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstand, but the RfC page says "[b]efore using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page." Likewise I see nothing in Consensus that requires an RfC to reach a consensus. If--following the discussion on this page--some editor disagrees with the outcome, then I suppose that editor could resort to the dispute resolution process which is what the RfC is for. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Elijah, your new wording definitely represents a huge improvement. 'You' and 'Your' are no longer being outlawed, and Big Brother can rest easy in the knowledge that Wikipedia will no longer be a dangerous rival to him, and thus we probably no longer need to fear ridicule on those grounds. Also the point that it's basically already policy under No Personal Attacks seems very relevant. But I do still have some reservations:
 * -It does nothing to address Wnt's objection that we have too many rules already. Obviously no wording can address that objection, and I'm not sure how valid it is, but I would prefer if he were here arguing his case, as I'm not sure it will be a valid consensus if he isn't, given his previously expressed reservations (admittedly on a different topic, but they clearly apply equally well here, or equally poorly).
 * -I think there should be more specified instances of when you/your is permissible or recommended, such as neutral situations where there is neither praise nor criticism, and even in conflict situations whenever 'you' is needed to avoid the risk of confusion (for instance where it may otherwise be unclear whose edit is being talked about), or in those portions of a conflict where it is unlikely to cause offense (e.g."I won't be happy if you do Y, but if you want to do X, that's fine by me").
 * -I have found times when using 'you' in a despute seemingly shames a previously seemingly unreasonable person into becoming reasonable with little or no risk of escalating the dispute, as when I've said something like 'I don't have time for any more of this, so unfortunately for our readers, I give up. You win. Congratulations.' That has seemingly worked twice to improve an article, and has never escalated a dispute, possibly because I'm walking away from the dispute, or possibly because I can't remember any third time when I've used it.

Some perhaps less important points:
 * -I mentioned that the point that it's basically already policy under No Personal Attacks seems very relevant. But by contrast, the Wikipedia Civility Warning Policy seems rather less relevant, as that's about how the powerful should treat the powerless, and thus doesn't apply to most of us ordinary mortals. Much the same can be said regarding guidelines for courtroom advocates, workplace conflict avoidance counsellors, and teachers - they are all in positions of relative power.
 * -I still fear that it may be a weapon for the unreasonable to brandish against the reasonable, as mentioned in my previous post, and that it will allow people to take offence where none is intended, and to be punished for allegedly giving offence where none was intended. But as the policy already exists anyway, that fear may already be known from experience to be groundless, or it may be that some of these risks are increased by having it spelled out elsewhere but not mentioned in Civility.
 * -I fear it may in practice unnecessarily increase the extent to which people are forbidden to say what they really mean, which makes it much harder to trust what people say - but arguably that's already an unavoidable problem and this will do little to increase it especially as it's already policy anyway (though this would make it a more widely known policy)

That said, having made those points in the hope that some of them may be addressed, I have to say that I am now a great deal less worried about the proposal, so I don't expect to be contributing much more to the debate, and unless I come back and say otherwise, you can count me as currently neither for nor against the proposal, and thus don't count me as somebody holding out against a consensus whenever it emerges.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I'm now switching from the above abstention back to outright rejection. More detailed reasons will be briefly given further down. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This came up in my notifications just now. I think we do have too many rules already, but that wasn't really the point of my comment before: the problem is that there's no distinction at all in this "policy" between what is a rule and what someone thinks is just a good idea for how to live life.  Are you going to consistently block or at least warn (backed up by block) everyone who uses "you" in an edit summary?  If not (hope not) then it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia policy.  Start an etiquette essay somewhere. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough in theory, Wnt, but Elijah has already implicitly pointed out that we can already be warned and blocked because arguably all he's doing is bringing WP:Civil into line with what's already policy, as No Personal attacks policy already says "[i]n disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible.", though his proposed wording is currently slightly different from that. I'd be interested to hear what you think should be done, given all that. (I guess I'm allowed use 'you' there because I'm asking your opinion, not disputing it).  Tlhslobus (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh... why the hell do we have one policy on "personal attacks" and another on "civility" anyway? And another on "disruptive editing"... (that isn't as bad, but I feel like these two could be lumped into one section of it)  the result of all these goofy you-ought-to-do-this-and-that-but-there-are-no-clear-boundaries-and-it-probably-doesn't-matter policies is that none of the problem editors (or the regular editors, for that matter) really read these TL;DR treatises, and there's no telling what the admins will take from them. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tlhslobus: Thanks for pointing out that WP:NPA has the avoid you advice—I was wondering where I picked up the suggestion and that might be it. I'm not ready to offer an opinion about the proposed addition to CIVIL, but to answer Wnt, NPA is needed to make it clear that repeated personal attacks will lead to blocks, with some guidance as to what a personal attack involves. However, more than avoiding personal attacks is required, and that's the point of CIVIL. Breaching CIVIL can lead to blocks, but it is much harder to demonstrate that CIVIL problems have reached that level (or weren't an understandable reaction to provocation), so CIVIL blocks are very rare. However, the policy is still important because it justifies taking a serial offender to WP:ANI where the problem can be examined. A block may result from such a report if the editor concerned demonstrates a persistent problem without redeeming features, and particularly if they breach WP:NOTHERE as often occurs with persistent and unprovoked incivility problems. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Civil blocks are very rare"? I almost fell out of seat laughing at that. Eric   Corbett  00:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hoped you wouldn't mind if I omitted outliers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, shock horror: things must be even worse than previously feared. Not only are we not allowed say 'you' and 'your', but it seems we're not even allowed say 'my', at least judging by what Eric just wrote :) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems best to wait a little longer. Proliferating policies: certainly a concern, one I share. At another time, another place, we might discuss merging all civility related policies into one page. But the firestorm that will erupt among those who are used to those pages and have over the years posted thousands of notices linking to one or another. . . Anyway, on this one bullet point, I'll wait longer to see what consensus develops. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I'm now switching from my earlier abstention back to outright rejection.
 * Reasons:


 * Basically my earlier abstention now seems to me like an unwarranted reward for a switch from a very bad suggestion to a less bad but still bad suggestion.
 * Some of the reasons for saying it's bad have already been spelled out by me and others earlier. Other reasons include:
 * I suspect that quite likely it's a bad idea even when applied by people in authority such as teachers, etc - I suspect it's the kind of thing that you'd expect from conflict resolution professionals who have to appear to be preventing conflict but whose job security requires that conflict be ongoing, so they come up with proposals that visibly solve some conflicts at the cost of invisibly creating others.
 * Painful experience has taught me that our consensus system (instead of some kind of democratic 'majority rule' quasi-parliamentary lawmaking) means that our laws once created are in practice usually unamendable and irreversible, rather like the laws of the Persians and the Medes and the conflicting commandments in ancient allegedly divinely revealed sacred texts so beloved of religious fundamentalists. So there's no point in my trying to remove this bad rule from our conflict guidelines, but that's no reason to facilitate this effectively unamendable and irreversible extention of what Edmund Burke called the worst tyranny (the tyranny of bad laws) into our Civility guidelines.
 * In my experience elsewhere, and in common sense, this 'no you' rule only avoids conflict where serious criticism is not being made or when the criticised person doesn't realize s/he is being criticized - in other words where the conflict remains unaddressed and unresolved and thus gets repeated elsewhere, etc. Meanwhile one now inevitably has to suspect that many statements that are not actually criticisms are really criticisms by people who are not allowed openly criticize (and under our wonderful unamendable Civility guidelines one even has to suspect that one is implicitly being called a Dick, an Asshole, and a Fuckhead, because our unamendable guidelines say that the whole of civility is 'don't be a Dick', and that a Dick is also an Asshole and a Fuckhead, etc, but there's no point in wasting time re-fighting that lost war, especially when one knows that the Dick article must be close to Jimbo Wales's heart since he has personally edited it 9 times, etc). And one has every reason to expect all that creates conflicts where none need have been created if people were not selectively and unclearly banned from saying what they think in reasonable language (such as by using the word 'you'), etc.
 * My experience of the 'tu-vous' etiquette in French (which in practice is one kind of unclear selective ban on 'you'), tells me that it can be very awkward where one has to think about whether or not to say 'you' in French, and this is especially awkward for people who are not French natives. I expect our own unclear selective ban on 'you' is similarly heavily discriminatory against those who are not native speakers of English, or who are otherwise not very articulate. I suspect the 'tu-vous' business (and its German and Spanish equivalents) was probably created by articulate elites as yet another way of disempowering, intimidating, silencing, marginalizing, controlling, and exploiting less articulate ordinary people, and I expect our unclear selective 'you' ban has rather similar effects even if those effects are unintentional. And our ban seems much worse, as it selectively bans using 'you' rather than merely the 'wrong' form of 'you'.
 * I suppose I should perhaps add that it is quite likely that my experience of my own country's recent (2009) laws against so-called blasphemy (as discussed here) are influencing my attitude. In other words, I now see this as yet another case in which the ability of reasonable people to use freedom of speech, truth and reason to defend themselves, their ideas and values, and the values of freedom, truth and reason, is being undermined by those who claim that this may cause provocative offense to their opponents (who themselves are in practice usually never taken to task for their own prior and much greater offensiveness). A proposal to selectively outlaw the use of the word 'you' as supposedly dangerously offensive and provocative seems to me to be an example of this so extreme that it would be funny if it weren't already so sad. In this case it's a proposal that sadly has clearly already succeeded elsewhere in our rules, probably irreversibly so, which seems all the more reason for trying to resist its further irreversible spread here. And of course the surreal thing is that 'you' is deemed offensive by our guidelines, but Dick, Asshole and Fuckhead are effectively an irreversible part of the same guidelines. I also remember that the proposal was originally seemingly even more extreme as it originally proposed to outlaw 'you' entirely - though in some ways that would arguably at least have had the merit of giving the powers that be less freedom to capriciously choose whose use of 'you' was to be deemed offensive. It says something about how bad this proposal is, and how surreally crazy Wikipedia rules have already become, when one has to seriously argue that a proposal to ban 'you' entirely, a proposal so crazy that, as already mentioned, it goes beyond George Orwell's Big Brother, might actually be less crazy than the current proposal (which in turn is a proposal that is basically already irreversibly in force elsewhere in our surreal rules). Indeed I increasingly find the whole thing so surreal that I can't help half-wondering whether it isn't all just some weird kafkaesque nightmare from which I haven't yet awoken. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If the truth be told, the more I think about it, the more I feel insulted and offended by the implication that I or anybody else has been offensive or uncivil or provocative or whatever simply because I or they have used the word 'you' in circumstances which some people with a professional vested interest in creating conflict once declared inappropriate (or offensive/ uncivil/ provocative, etc) . The fact that the implication has not been directed at me personally (because nobody has said 'you') just means that the offense doesn't just insult me, but also everybody I know and love and billions of other people who have done nothing to deserve the insult. The fact that the insult is probably usually unintentional is obviously a mitigating factor, but that merely reduces the offense without actually eliminating it. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And so on, ad infinitum. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "I have little to recommend my opinions but long observation and much impartiality.'--Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (which, written as a letter to a friend, is rife with "you's.") My thanks for the reminder of Burke. My impression is Burke prefers the ancient English customs and laws, the civilities if you will, that grew like an ancient oak in the woods--to the new, untried liberties of the French Revolutionaries who he describes as "warm and inexperienced enthusiasts;" "every wild, litigious spirit." "Laws," says Burke "are the preservation of our liberties." Not that this is a law. Just a drafting tool. My thanks for your thoughts. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  15:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My thanks for your thanks, Elijah. "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." - Edmund Burke, speech at Bristol prior to the election of 1780 (quoted here). Technically Wikipedia's rules may not be laws, but in practice they are Wikipedia's equivalent of laws, being the instructions we are advised to follow if we wish to avoid various kinds of sanctions. And as such Burke's warning in relation to bad laws is in practice relevant in relation to our bad rules, all the more so when they seem in practice to be irreversible and unamendable once adopted due to the present requirement for consensus to amend or reverse them (a problem which, incidentally, Burke presumably didn't have to worry about, as the British Parliament very wisely didn't and doesn't operate by consensus, just like almost all democratic Parliaments today, and an example which Wikipedia is very foolishly failing to follow).Tlhslobus (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought resulting from your above mention of Burke's fondness for ancient English customs, I should perhaps add that the right to use ordinary English words like 'you' and 'your' without fear of punishment for so doing is an ancient English (and not just English) custom which would probably have been defended by Burke and every other Enlightenment thinker, and part of my objection to the proposed wording is that it violates that ancient and wise custom without adequate justification. I also very much doubt that Burke would have seen the ancient right to say 'you' and 'your' without fear of punishment as some kind of new untried liberty promoted by inexperienced enthusiastic French Revolutionaries. If anything, the sort of 'Political Correctness gone mad' that leads to demands to ban 'you' and 'your' as 'offensive' is something that most of us tend to associate with Marxists who ultimately trace their political lineage back to the most radical of the French Revolutionaries and/or to that Revolution's most radical heirs. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Foul language
What about foul language? Is it permissible? I would have thought this article would have made mention to it, but apparently not, so I'd like to see, is foul language permitted on talk pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuse809 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 February 2014
 * If you want to be a potty-mouth I don't see how it's a civility issue as long as you're not using said language to address other editors. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Foul language isn't a litmus test for incivility. That said, it can certainly contribute to incivility depending on how it is used and what the context is. I don't think it would be inappropriate to mention foul language in the civility policy, but the wording would have to be carefully crafted to avoid gaming. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and to also allow for the massive differences in the cultural and social backgrounds of our editors all around the world. Can you define "foul language" in a way that everyone will agree with? Wikipedia is not censored is also relevant here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not correct—NOTCENSORED is a commentary on article content and has nothing to say about talk pages.
 * There is no good answer to the question as it all depends. Essentially there is no rule prohibiting people from using expletives, but people who spend their time talking about (say) apple pie are going to be pointed to WP:NOTFORUM, and people who focus on using expletives may be regarded as WP:NOTHERE. In other words, editors are supposed to be contributing towards the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The short answer is yes, it is (theoretically) permissible. You might have thought that swearing at another user would automatically be considered a violation the civility policy (and arguably, Wikipedia would be a friendlier community if it was), but previous discussion of this issue has reached no consensus. That doesn't give you a licence to throw around f-bombs, though - it may not necessarily be incivil, but it certainly can be, and using gratuitous profanity is unlikely to earn you a favourable reception in the eyes of admins and other users. Robofish (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Voting Ethics;
Wake up people; stop listening to the silver tongue devils who claim their concern about the people. Those people who have gone above and beyond common sense to discredit a Mayor; who has a 14 year running track of taking care of the tax payers. Who would vote for a politician who has more money than they know what to do. Please those who would vote for a politician who stands in front of their constituents and promises to donate their pension is buying you and blind folding you. What an insult to our intelligence.

Robert Ford put the rain on spending for the government. now they want him out even if it means dragging him through the mud until they achieve their madness. The other side always looks greener, until to get there. If Rob gets voted out by discretion do not cry over split milk...Rob is the best thing that ever happened to this City.

Pauline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.95.226.31 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixing redirect to ICA
I was checking redirects for the page, and saw that WP:Civility was marked as "invalid", meaning it is a broken redirect.

was created a minute before, as a link to the phrase "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)". The anchor that matched "#ICA" was removed in, but the text remained.

So I restored it so as to not break the links to WP:ICA. Feel free to revert  edits that restore the anchor. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

vechel nomber compalen
यह ट्रक नयम्बर RJ25GA3657 गव MASS ले JARA H DIRVER को देख ते ही रियासत में ले को  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.5.101 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Language and cross-cultural sensitivity discussion at TalkPageGuidlines
An RFC/!Poll is underway on questions of potentially offensive language, standard written English, etc. Input and any new ideas requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in preserving civility, this may be one of your few practical chances to do anything in that direction. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: let's shorten this thing. A *lot*.
In a series of edits at Wikipedia talk:Civility/sandbox I've reduced this policy from 24k of general advice to 8k of moderately clear instruction. In the process I have noticed a few curiosities, such as that there is no reference to interaction bans; offensive usernames are mentioned only in the nutshell summary; one of the sections sent users almost directly to RFC/U. Also, WP:Harassment does not reference sexual harassment. Anyway, the present version is what a coder would call "not maintainable" - it is full of partial copies of old versions of stuff, rather than having one single place where criteria are set. It is also what they would surely call "bloatware"! There's no use having a policy if people never finish reading it.

I find it so strange that so many people will step up to trim down articles to the quick, whether they need it or not, even though the naive person would think the more stuff in an article the better, yet for Wikipedia policy, which everyone admits is excessively long, it is like pulling teeth to redact a single sentence. Anyway, I present this version and all the diffs in its history as proposals to break that trend. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disability and other legally protected characteristics not protected here
According to the Foundation's Non-discrimination Policy set in Jan. 2006 disability and "any other legally protected characteristics" must be protected on all projects for all current or prospective users and employees. This is non-negotiable. There was an attempt to write a policy called WP:DISCRIMINATION that unf. failed. One way or another these principles need to be clarified. ~Technophant (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, but is that an issue to spend a lot of time here? This is about being civil to all and I find it hard to specify that further for any special cases; other than listing it among an existing listing (like Technophant just did). So I support the brief addition and would leave it at that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added this edit as a suggestion as to how this policy can more clearly protect people with disabilities. I also added a link to the policy in the See Also section. ~Technophant (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"
There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process
Civility says:

But Requests for comment says: "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Third opinion, a quick, simple way to get an outside view. In severe cases of misconduct, you may try Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If none of those steps resolve the dispute, then arbitration may be warranted as a last resort."

Should this section therefore be amended along the following lines?

—sroc &#x1F4AC; 08:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that PhilKnight has without substituting the AN/I option.  Does this imply that AN/I is no longer an appropriate avenue (despite still being listed at WP:RFC) and failure to resolve the issue with the first two options warrants going to arbitration?


 * Also, the last point still says "only when other avenues, including RfC, have been tried and failed", which doesn't make sense since RfC is no longer given as an option. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 15:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi sroc, I think your suggested edit is perfectly ok. I suggest you should be bold, and go ahead, and make the edit. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I didn't want to overstep the mark by making a substantive change to a policy document, but since it is bringing this in line with processes which have been revised and has now been discussed above, .  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, AN/I is already mentioned under Civility, so now it's mentioned twice in two consecutive sections. Is AN/I really part of the DRN process? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I used it yesterday after following this guidance.  "Dealing with incivility" refers to AN/I for "'emergency' situations" which I was not sure applied, but contact through the user's talk page failed, third opinion says it's for content disputes (not conduct disputes, as in this case), and ArbCom would be too severe.  AN/I needs to be part of this process for escalating complaints about user conduct.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 17:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I ask because, as of now, there is no mention of AN/I at per Dispute resolution: "The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct." Rationalobserver (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it is wrong. AN and ANI are not appropriate places to raise disputes over content.  They are sometimes where conduct disputes should be raised.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You must have a different Wikipedia than me. Dispute resolution:  "If the problem is with the editor's conduct, not their position on some matter of article content, then you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). ...". —sroc &#x1F4AC; 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope; same one, but some of the language at that page is contradictory; e.g., "The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)." Rationalobserver (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, so I see. I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution.  There seems to be a fair bit of inconsistency arising once goal posts have moved.  I'm new to these dispute resolution processes and they seem to be all over the place.  I pity the newb who doesn't know their way around trying to report an experienced user harassing them.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 18:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom's position on expletives
I recently added a quote regarding expletives from ArbCom's recent decision. That addition has been reverted as "point of view ... [and] out of context." Though I'm not sure how quoting an entire subsection of their findings is out-of-context. Also, I'm not sure what "you appear to be an interested party" has to do with anything. Does anyone else think that this should be included here:

"Regarding expletives, in December 2014 the Arbitration Committee unanimously agreed to the following language: "Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance.""

I know that Arbcom does not necessarily write policy, but they certainly rule on matters regarding policy. I think this at least states their position, and I think that position is relevant to this policy. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, your comment didn't appeared worthy to the ArbCom. The previous post was talking about behavior, not about language barriers. I hope that helps. --Mishae (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the time length for this Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey.
Should the statement by the ArbCom be added to the policy as reflecting a valid interpretation of the policy? Support addition of the statement or Oppose addition of the statement, with reasoning. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - It clarifies that the ArbCom agrees that the use of expletives is discouraged, and further deprecates that argument that 'cultural differences' should excuse the use of words that are offensive in many varieties of English. It is much better to have a general rule strongly discouraging the use of words that are known to be bad words than a list of bad words.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * People should stop creating RFCs on every little thing—just make a normal talk page comment. Arbcom is a wonderful thing, but CIVIL is a policy set by the community, not by Arbcom. We don't need a pronouncement from arbs that using offensive language is offensive. The arbs are laying down their interpretation of CIVIL in order to set the stage for any further cases or clarifications. We do not decorate each policy with the many findings-of-fact that apply. If someone has a proposal for wording that would improve this policy, it should be made. However, it should not be a copy/paste with Arbcom as the authority. A "see also" might fly. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnuniq who put that pretty darn well.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a useful clarification on a difficult issue. As ArbCom is the final arbiter on policy enforcement, it is useful to have a record of their judgement here for future reference. ArbCom aside, the statement added should be self-evident to anyone interpreting the Civility Policy in good faith. When someone has been informed that they are offending someone with 'certain expletives' (such as 'cunt'), the civil way to respond is to desist from using those expletives. Kaldari (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Johnuniq has it right. Additionally, I'm now finding all these proposals from Robert, across numerous pages, pretty irritating. Are there no articles that need improvement? - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Civil language? Check. Putdown? Check. No obvious incivility? Check. pablo 20:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, it wasn't Robert McClenon who proposed this matter; Rationalobserver did. Robert McClenon simply formatted the proposal by creating a Survey section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is it really ought to have been left to the proposer to decide if he did want to pursue the point with the community or not as he was after all the user proposing the change to begin with. There are a number of ways this matter could have been discussed in advance, so it may very well have been he approached it differently (and may have ultimately proposed something different which may have resulted in a different outcome). It was premature for anyone else to put it to the community at this point, and was pretty unnecessary; as this has happened several times recently, I'm not at all surprised that this concern has been expressed in the way that it has. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Arbcom is criticizing the use of the word "cunt" without explicitly specifying it. Don't try to make this into some overarching principle that needs codification in The Official Rules™. It's common sense. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's common sense, why is it so routinely ignored? Powers T 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so frequently ignored. The entire GGTF Arbcom case never would have happened if the fire hadn't been restarted and fanned three times by a few people who love drama. Even this proposal is yet another fanning of the drama flame, if you think about it. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It simply says that if editors are telling you that your language is offensive then you should consider it offensive regardless of what one personally thinks. Existing policy covers this, this is an interpretation of existing policy not a dictate. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">Chillum</b> 19:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Conditional support with the understanding that an editor can be equally uncivil without using expletives. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that
 * 1) I do not see clear evidence that the quote being produced was necessarily written with the idea of it being considered policy. Even the ArbCom members might consider using alternate phrasing if they knew that the language they used was being considered as a statement of policy.
 * 2) There is already an implicit statement in the page indicating this, and adding what might be considered by some excessive detail to cover every possible permutation would quickly make the page bloated and less immediately and easily useful. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If we're at the point where ArbCom needs to spell this out to editors, then this interpretation of civility is probably not already covered by policy even if a few editors see it that way. If it was obvious, then cases of incivility should have been fairly straightforward to resolve.  They have not been.  It's also worth noting that this whole notion that we need to do something about foul language has been proposed in many previous discussions, perhaps because this whole issue has blown up in our faces one too many times:
 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 91
 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 102
 * Village pump (policy)/Archive 92
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive731
 * Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Phase one
 * I'm sure there are plenty more ANI discussions, RFCs, and other discussions (not to mention the ArbCom cases) that have gone into this as well. For these reasons, yeah, I think this language is pretty desperately needed.  I'm not down with a bad words list, but I will support efforts that encourage thoughtful evaluation of language in context, which this addition to our civility policy facilitates.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 23:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: ArbCom doesn't make policy, period. Also per Sitush. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't want ArbCom making policy, especially not with such a haphazard decision as that one.  They promulgated that principle, but they came down much harder on Carolmooredc for her complaints than they did on Corbett for the epithets, which proves....?  This is just one of those situations like Iraq where no matter how many policies you make and no matter how many bombs you drop, all you can manage to do is make things worse and worse. Wnt (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Arb com does not make policy, but it interprets policy. Their statement is how it decided to interpret our policy, and it belongs in our policy statement just as their rulings about the interpretation of BLP and NPOV with respect to fringe science. I think that all three of these represented the general view of the community at the time, but needed to be dealt with by arb com because of the difficulty of reaching agreement in any other manner. That's exactly their role.   How they dealt with individuals under that policy is a completely separate question, and disagreement about that part -- and there can be disagreement in different directions -- is no reason to reject their more important general statement.   DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose ArbCom does not create policy and interpretations of policy in an arbitration case as a means of making judgment calls does not mean the community as a whole supports either that interpretation and/or especially adding that interpretation to the policy so that it impacts the entire community. Think about it. Arbitrators come and go; their judgments are not always correct or accurate, and they are always the product of a few people's thinking. Yet, we are suggesting a policy should be adjusted based on  those few people. Further, I do  not support setting a precedent in terms of the extended impact of arbitration decisions which this will almost certainly do.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Is there something about the actual proposed change that you do not support, or is this RfC going to be all about ArbCom instead of the actual proposal? I, JethroBT  drop me a line 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal is about process. Arbitration is not the process we use to make policy changes. If we want to make a change in a policy open an RFC on that change and get community input. It doesn't matter if the outcome is the same as might be here, the process here is wrong. Right now we are circumventing that process, and I for one do  not want to set a precedent where policy changes come out of arbitration, The arbs have enough on their plates with out the awareness and responsibility that an arbitration may impact policy in such a concrete way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC))
 * No, the proposal is about civility, and this is already an RfC that invites community input. Turning this into an RfC about ArbCom as policy-makers is a distraction to discussing the actual language.  It matters very little that it came from ArbCom.  It could have come from anybody.  It's an idea and one that we should consider discussing meaningfully without getting completely tied up on where the idea came from.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this quote means little to anyone but ArbCom. Seriously: "Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance."  Now I understand that this policy is already rife with judgment calls, but consider the number of compound judgments being made here.  I mean, (1 to 2) to the sixth power might be 1, might be 64, and that's the situation with this text.  In the specific decision they made, you know that by "certain expletives" they meant "cunt", but as part of policy this phrase gets reverse interpreted back to a whole new list (hence the thread above).  In this specific situation, we know what they wanted to do to one editor for a few different reasons, but who knows what they suggest to do here to a fresh editor for this one reason?  Is "should" meant in the sense of all the "avoiding incivility" blather in the present policy text, as useful life advice for avoiding escalation but not actually indicating sanction - or does it mean escalating blocks up to a site ban, in somewhere between 1 and 64 steps depending on an editor's pull?  It's just not a workable text for policy.  If you want to change policy, you should come up with text written for that purpose, at the very least. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you. The change to the civility policy is the outcome but where that change comes from is critical. I would repeat that I think its a grave mistake to set a precedent for changing policy based on what comes out of an arbitration. We muddle our own processes when we do so. Already we have users saying Arbs can interpret policy which it can in an arbitration case but that interpretation should not then proceed to a policy change. I'd respectfully disagree with that position in that it generalizes. We need clarity and clearly delineated processes in my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC))
 * This is a policy page determined by the community, and any additions should be something helpful as established by the community. Policies are not based on Arbcom's findings-of-fact. If someone sees a useful point in the proposed text, please extract it and rephrase the text so it might be part of this policy. Then we can discuss whether the text would in fact be helpful. The whole point of CIVIL is that offensive language should not (or must not) be directed at others. One point in the arbcom case concerned the fact that offensive words were used in a generic observation—they were not directed at a user. This policy does not say much about that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – as stated by many above, ArbCom does not make policy. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 17:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose  per     Hafspajen (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support So sad that this clarification is necessary, but skim reading all the comments above, apparently it is. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Per The Vintage Feminist and others. Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, as Arbcom does in deed make rulings related to guidelines, and their interpretation is notable and helpful in this regard. Why anyone wants to retain a large grey area for things obviously against basic civility is beyond me, but I suppose the more that's left open to individual interpretations the more power those doing the interpreting retain. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, largely per Johnuniq. Additionally, as others have pointed out, ArbCom does not make policy, and I'm sure they prefer it that way. This, however, is essentially telling ArbCom that they do, and without even consulting them about it. What was written and approved by them was written in a specific circumstance to a specific incident and we don't know if, had they known someone planned to shoehorn the exact text into a policy page, they would have still phrased things the same way. (As we all know, this really wasn't about "words", it was about one very particular word.) Adding this could result in two undesirable things, the first almost certainly, and the second highly likely: it would be interpreted against things it was never intended to be about and imply such interpretations were endorsed by ArbCom, and it would lead to statements in future ArbCom decisions being written in overly detailed and labyrinthine language to ensure that they would not be slammed into policy statements that could be taken out of context. Egsan Bacon (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I commented above but did not spell it out, so here is my formal "oppose". The above comment by Egsan Bacon has some excellent points which I recommend be carefully examined. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I won't waste my time voting as there's clearly no consensus, and in any case my instinctive feeling is still "What's the point? This is Wikipedia. We only ever ban really disgusting words such as 'you' and 'your'", even though that feeling is perhaps slightly out-of-date now that during my recent Wikibreak WP:Civility's "Don't be a dick" has been changed to "Don't be a jerk", and the link from there to the truly ghastly bully-inciting "What makes a fuckhead?" has been deleted - thanks everybody. But I still want to express some slight skepticism about the assumption that the ArbCom statement greatly reduces ambiguity. Maybe it does. But the trouble is that last bit of the ArbCom statement "...Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance." In that context I am reminded that one of those 12 unanimous ArbCom votes was presumably from Beeblebrox, who, though his user page no longer greets us with a "Don't be a dick" diagram, has still not deleted his essay User:Beeblebrox/fuck off. He summarizes this as follows: "This page in a nutshell: I am usually a very nice person and I only get mean if I see no other way to get through to someone. If I have told you to fuck off, you deserved it. On the other hand, this is probably bad advice and you shouldn't follow it if you want life to be easy." So it seems to me that some ArbCom members may well have some interesting ideas about what might constitute a 'legitimate reason' for using language known to be offensive.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment same as Tlhslobus + too many 'shoulds' render this addition pointless. ChristopheT (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - User:Egsan Bacon sums up my reasoning nicely in a couple of points above (diff here), and I agree with the comments made by User:Johnuniq towards the start of the RfC. Further, I will also repeat sentiments on another matter for emphasis: some people (particularly the person who created this RfC) really should stop creating premature RfCs on every little thing (and I'd say that applies even more so if the proposals were raised by some other user who has not sought assistance or provided consent for them to do so). It has happened several times recently already without good reason and/or without sufficient thought being put into the content presented for the community to consider. The fact that this is named as a "survey" does not change what this is (and what the community ultimately expects when the RfC tag is being used). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Banned words list?
As there seems to be some disagreement regarding which words are profane or inappropriate, I wonder what the community thinks about setting up a list of agreed upon words that should be considered "banned" in polite conversation, as least when directed at someone, especially in anger. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As there seems to be some disagreement 
 * That's your problem, right there. We've been down this root before. How the f*ck do you set up a list that can't be gamed? --Pete (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think a good start would be to assert that calling someone a "cunt" is inappropriate. We might use the list from the FCC and/or BBC, as they have long identified several words that are never appropriate. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently in some nations it's not considered offensive to call someone (say) a clever cunt. To Australians of my generation, it's always offensive, but younger folk seem to have different rules. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see some sort of "bright line" too, but it's not cut and dried like (say) 3RR. --Pete (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never heard that one before, but I think cultural differences like that can be accounted for on a case by case basis, as in the English language, "cunt" is almost never appropriate, especially when used in anger against another. How about, "whore", "slut", "bitch", or "asshole"? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that those words should never used to describe another editor, but if we had a list, abusive editors would simply select words not in the list, and the list would have to grow all the time, and would then have to include bowdlerized forms of the words. I don't see any way around administrative discretion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, and admin discretion would not be eliminated by identifying a few terms that should never be directed at others. If I called someone a "vagina", admins would use there discretion to determine if I was trying to Wikilawyer the list, which would in no way imply that it was exhaustive and that any words not on the list are expressly approved. You seem to be saying that admin discretion should determine all cases, and I think that's why we do not have a clear consensus on gender specific epithets as always inappropriate. Some admins are apparently fine with editors regularly calling others cunts, other admins seem to be against it. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're looking at "case by case", how about WP:NPA, especially when used in anger? Some editors seem to get away with all sorts of angry abuse. --Pete (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, and speaking of absolutes, WP:NPA says, "some types of comments are never acceptable", including: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets." Well, "cunt" is an epithet, and is therefore "never acceptable" per WP:NPA. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And how often are these things enforced? As I say, some editors have been abusing others for years without any expressions of remorse or indications of shame for the hurt they deliberately cause. --Pete (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that some have gotten a greenlight to abuse others, but if nobody ever stands up to them and their enablers, they will continue to do so ad infinitum. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with such a list. Also, the culture excuse, never held water with me. It's quite simple, really. If enough editors say to you "don't post 'that' word in anger, anymore", then one merely doesn't post 'that' word in anger, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be so keen if it was a completely foreign culture imposing its standards on you? HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fuck no! See WP:CREEP and WP:NOTCENSORED. What's next, official warning templates pointing editors to this list? I can be be perfectly passive-aggressive without using any bad words. I can even insinuate that someone who makes such a suggestion is likely of diminished mental capacity and may have his head in an anatomically hard to reach place without using any word that is likely on such a list. This is not a practically realisable suggestion. And on the other hand, if we can get clear consensus that some words should not be used, what do we need the list for? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NOTCENSORED applies to article space, not discussions amongst editors. 2) It's not really instruction creep, as WP:NPA already forbids some language: "some types of comments are never acceptable", such as "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets". "Cunt" is obviously an epithet, so by logical extension the NPA policy already forbids use of the word when directed at someone else, in anger, and with the intention of insulting them. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you don't need a list. Introducing it is indeed WP:CREEP. "Anger" and "intend" are hard to ascertain. So you make a list that makes the easy part more complex, and does nothing to address the hard part. Note also that the list opens up new ways of lawyering - 1)" Nobody told me about the list", 2) "Yes, I called him a stupid sonofabitch, but that's not on the list", 3) "Yes, I called him a stupid sonofabitch, and it is on the list now, but that was't on the list when I was told about it". Also 4) "He called me Pete, and that's on the list (where I just put it) . To quote one of my favourite actors from one of one of my favourite movies: "I don't swear just for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands." Seven dirty words describes an historic example of the "usefulness" of such lists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignorance of policy is never an excuse to break it, and admins already use their discretion regarding incivility; e.g., if I said, "I'm having a cunt of a day" I probably wouldn't get blocked, but if I said, "this cunt Stephan Schulz is ruining my day" I probably would get blocked, if it was obviously that I was directing it at you with the intention of insulting you. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignorance of policy is routinely accepted as a reason to avoid sanctions - which is a) understandable (we have users from a wide variety of different cultures and backgrounds, and an exceedingly baroque set of policies, guidelines, standing sanctions and precedences), and b) even codified in some cases - see WP:3RR. But to come back to the heart of subject: You seem to be granting admins a lot of discretion anyways. So why codify the trivial part? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As things stand now, there are no offensive words unless an admin decides to enforce this policy. If anything, defining a few examples would decrease admin discretion, not increase it. I.e., I don't think something as tangible as a epithet should fall to the discretion of admins. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see two problems there. One is the setting in concrete of more of Wikipedia's systemic bias. The other is that worst and bullying aspect of democracy, where a majority forces its standards on a minority. HiLo48 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an essay, not a policy. 2) It only applies to article space, not to editor interactions on talk pages. 3) Tyranny of the majority is still better than tyranny of the minority, which is what we have in a de facto manner right now. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias, policy or not, is a huge problem for Wikipedia, wherever it impacts on the project. Describing the use of naughty words as a tyranny is just a little bit over the top, surely. HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your last comment referenced a concern regarding when a "majority forces its standards on a minority". That is known as "tyranny of the majority". Rationalobserver (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Going by the survey, it appears the community is leaning towards rejecting a list. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Inference and Comment
At first, it appears that User:Rationalobserver was concerned about incivility in general and was trying to define it. However, it now appears that he or she is concerned about particular polarizing editors, one of whom habitually uses a particular word that most editors consider offensive, and that Rationalobserver is trying to draw a line around that editor. First, if we were to develop a list of banned words, abusive editors would either bowdlerize the words or use synonyms or other substitutes. There is a real problem, but the solution to it is not policy creep. The problem is that "the community" cannot deal with editors who polarize "the community", who have strong supporters and strong opponents. (In an entirely different context, we see the same problem at Gamergate controversy.) Community enforcement cannot deal with editors who polarize the community. Unfortunately, the only answer is ArbCom, with all of its limitations and slowness. Rationalobserver: If you think that a particular editor should be banned, ask the ArbCom to ban him. If you think that making a set of rules to change the behavior of a particular editor will help, I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a she, BTW. My only intention here is to see if there is any support for a "naughty words" list. There apparently isn't, and I accept that as consensus, assuming that is the consensus. However, I cannot for the life of me imagine why you want the use of epithets to be based on individual admin discretion, but I see that most of this project appears to be set up that way, so as to maximize the power and influence of admins, while minimizing the recourse available to non-admins. There is currently disagreement regarding certain words as epithets, but how can WP:NPA expressly forbid them when they are not even defined anywhere? I.e., how can you forbid epithets, but refuse to define any specific epithets? Are words only epithets when admins decide they are, or are some always epithets even if certain admins don't think they are? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Far from helping civility enforcement, a naughty words list would complicate it, because then some editors would use words that we had forgotten to put on the list, and the number of editors who deprecate civility in general because they think that civility consists of the avoidance of naughty words and nothing else would increase, and some editors are smart enough to realize that civility should be more than the avoidance of naughty words. Rationalobserver:  If you are concerned that particular editors get away with habitual incivility, then at this point the only remedy is to ask the ArbCom to ban then, rather than attempting to legislate a policy intended to hem them in that will not work.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I hear you, but how can you forbid epithets in one breath while saying that there are no words that are off limits in another? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two points. First, all words need context to evaluate. And secondly, having an incomplete, indeed, massively incomplete, list is more than useless, as, as pointed out above, all it does is invite wikilawyering. And thirdly (well, yeah, I cannot count), the list increases workload for admins (who, apparently, must keep up with it) and maintainers (who must keep it up) and editors (who must keep up with it). For the really obvious cases, we need no list. For the marginal cases, deciding which way to go is not trivial. And on the other hand, if some admin failed to sanction an editor for an obvious attack, a list will not fix that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Username policy, usernames that contain profanity are not permitted. So why are usernames censored, but user comments are not? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's because usernames have a greater potential for affecting people on a wide scale. With a comment, it can be struck through, deleted, or even RevDeleted or WP:Suppressed if needed, and will usually be eventually buried in the edit history or talk page archives. But with a username, that editor, if generally or relatively active, is out their "in public" for everyone to see; in other words, the editor's username is repeatedly popping up at articles, projects, or talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and I suppose you're right, but if incivility relies heavily on context, and I agree that it does, I wonder what context could be assumed by . Wouldn't this clearly be used in a playful manner that is not directed at anyone in anger? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Even though the offensiveness of the word cunt can vary depending on the country, I think that a person with a Cuntfan username is very likely trolling or, if not trolling, looking to otherwise provoke, with that username. It would be similar to someone using "Pussyfan" for a username, given how the term pussy can be similar to, or the same as, the term cunt with its offensiveness. And, of course, User:Niggerfan would never be allowed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it's possible to be highly uncivil without using "bad words"; but these words do have an extra shock value. In "real life", those who know how to wound with words generally then walk away with a self-satisfied grin. The less articulate types are more likely to come out with "bad words" then, knowing they can't get the better of anyone that way, may go on to throw punches. So the words become associated with physical threat. OK, this is "only" the internet, but these associations can't easily be set aside. So, while there can be no definite list of banned words here, the use of the "bad words" we nearly all know should be an extra factor in weighing up, and acting upon, incivility Noyster  (talk),  13:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly right, Noyster. These words - and I'm talking discussions on article or project talk pages here, not user josh and spit on the carpet talk pages - pack that extra kick in the guts. It's more than adding colour to a discussion, it's done for the shock and outrage factor. They add nothing to an argument but to send a signal that the fight is getting dirty. Except in rare cases - such as this little discussion about those very words - their use is offensive and that means disruptive. When one editor says to another, "Fuck off, arsehole," then we may be reasonably sure that polite discourse amongst scholars has ceased and it is time for that editor to go sit in the naughty corner for a while. --Pete (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Scholars? LOL. In the vast majority of cases, such words would be in response to something uncivil previously said or done by the aforesaid arsehole, perhaps without words from our hypothetical list, as Noyster mentioned above. Arguing in isolation that the user of those words should be sanctioned, without even wondering why the words were used, will not solve the problem of incivility here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose - In addition to the other reasons listed, if there were a list of banned words, abusive editors would either use words that had been omitted from the list or would bowdlerize the words, and would then wikilawyer in unblock requests. Incivility cannot be defined precisely, but Judge Stewart's rule applies.  We don't need a list.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - An across the board censurship of words thrown towards editors, in anger. The biggest myth on Wikipedia, is that editors have rights (example: freedom of speech). We don't have rights, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I think we could agree on a few words that should never be directed at another user in anger, but to leave the application of this policy completely open-ended gives admins too much discretion. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not because I support editors using cant or incivility or bogan talk, but because such a list would be abused and gamed and ultimately ignored as pointless. I think we know the measure of editors who use such words in an abusive way. They cheapen themselves and the project. Those editors who shine out as exemplars do not use such words. They do not need to.. I could not support sanctions against an editor merely because they were too stupid to find a way around using a word on a particular list. That would indirectly sanction behaviour that was abusive but inventive. "No, Editor A you can't call Editor B a cunt. You do that and we'll ban you. Yes, Editor C, you may call Editor B a vagina, that's quite okay." --Pete (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Your list and my list would be different. In many cases, the behaviour that leads to the use of words that some don't like is a far worse problem for Wikipedia than the the "naughty" words. Persistent POV pushing springs to mind. HiLo48 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Better to deal with the context of 'bad' words and behavior than create a hard list, which will be very difficult if not impossible to do on a global encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Civility is about intent, not the bloody words you use. Rather than a list of naughty words like you would ask a child not to say let the community make it more clear that they expect civility to be enforced. As the policy is worded only the most egregious cases are really actionable. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">Chillum</b> 17:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, civility is about intent, and context. Wikipedia policy says editors should take into account factors such as....context of the language". If I said to User:Hilo "Go fuck yourself ya bloody drongo" he'd maybe grin and respond by whingeing about the kiwis beating Oz in league and union on the weekend.  Yes, some might  be offended by my language, but it wasn't directed at them.  Incidentally, the Wikipedia policy I mentioned lists one of the behaviours that can contribute to an uncivil environment is gross profanity. Not profanity, but gross profanity. Now that's a can of worms. Moriori (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely. NOTCENSORED applies to content, not talk-page conduct. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - unworkable. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 08:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unnecessary. Civility is about intent, not words. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose- overly broad, and not feasible to enforce. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Incivility is an attitude, not use of a bad word. All this anguished civility policing does is perpetuate drama. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Opppose. What Carrite says. And MaxBrowne. Etc. This is not to say that it's OK to call someone one doesn't know, someone from a different English context, a cunt or a fag or whatever (I believe it is not), but I do not see the purpose of a list we can check to see if someone needs a civility block. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this word list would necessarily be incomplete; many uncivil comments don't have any problematic words or phrases; and once such a list is made, users will wikilawer by claiming that their cpmments didn't contain any problematic words. Admin discretion would still be needed, anyway. I can't imagine any admin allowing certain words (including "cunt", "whore") when the target objects to them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not he words that are offensive, it is the ideas behind them. Swearing is not inherently uncivil and you can be plenty uncivil without swearing. <b style="color:DarkTurquoise">Chillum</b> 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No list, but listening
No need to continue with the survey, judging by the responses to this point. However, we can't really let this drop and allow open slather, can we? --Pete (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to define globally what is not civil, and the civility policy has always been plagued by that simple fact. There's far too much emphasis on actual vocabulary; no word is of itself civil or otherwise. So judging a civility level must always depend on context and intent. Can we trust our volunteer admin corps (bearing in mind they are humans with differing ability levels; some never seem to put a foot wrong, others block themselves, delete the main page, have decisions reversed on appeal etc) to judge this on a case-by-case basis? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have to depend on the good sense of the community. There is often outrage expressed against incivil behaviour. As noted above, if we remain silent we condone such poor behaviour. A list of rude words might seem to be a bright line that signals action, but it is trivial to avoid using any particular word while conveying an offensive and abusive message. There must be some way to sanction such people. --Pete (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen one in any of the numerous discussions on this subject so far. As you say, it is possible to be massively rude without using any individual word which might scandalise. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, in some cases, people might miss interpret things that you or someone else says as uncivil. Like, in my case even a simple point on a grammatical error can stir up a civility dispute. My suggestion is to ignore the tiny issues, and focus on bigger ones. It depends on what is civil according to the person to whom you talking, and sometimes is better not to say anything. Sometimes, people get rude not because they don't like you, or project, or current admin or user, but usually because they have a bad day and/or they misunderstand what the other side is saying. In other words misunderstanding + confusion = frustration and frustration + anger = incivility. I hope I explained it clear enough, if not feel free to drop me a not here.--Mishae (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with civility
Could we maybe have a small section outlining standard ways to acknowledge civility, from thanking to the Civility Barnstar? HLHJ (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRIENDLY
I've posted a new essay, Maintaining a friendly space, which is based off of the WMF IdeaLab's friendly space policy. I would consider it a supplement to this policy. I would in time like to see Wikipedia adopt a friendly space policy resembling this, but for now we have the essay. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Harej (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No Wikipedia policy on sexual harassment
Is this indeed the case? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 17 Adar 5775 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an explicitly designated one, in any case. I've asked WMF Community Advocacy what their official position on sexual harassment is, if any. Harej (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted the last edit on "the community not having one" - not having one doesn't mean one can't exist. And, this is the only place here on wiki where something exists about it. So, I think it's fine to have it categorized as such. Besides, a non-discrimination policy should also have a sexual harassment policy, like any good non-profit, organization, community, or business. Thanks everyone and I look forward to a positive and civil conversation about this exciting opportunity to be a leader in online communities. Also, any problems with categories should be discussed on the Categories for discussion page, not here. Missvain (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Missvain, I think you might have misunderstood the edit? It's not a category being disputed here, but a "See also" entry linking to a page that says, essentially, that there is no such policy here. If you want to use that page to develop one, fine, but that's a different discussion, and not one for CfD either. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, thanks User:Nikkimaria - you are always a voice of reason. Thanks :) Missvain (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have locked the page until this issue is resolved. Please do not add or remove links until then. As usual, locking the page at this particular revision is not an endorsement of it. Harej (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the problem was with adding Sexual harassment policy to the See also section. Lightbreather (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that it introduces an unwanted, and potentially inflammatory, element of discrimination. --Boson (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how it's different from other acts of being uncivil and you can't judge someone's gender or attributes from their username (usually), in fact some less-than-civil people would go around making accusations (such as a recent one that rather than giving a reason for reverts just called me "another damned edit warrior") which seems to be an accepted practise here on Wikipedia, so I don't think that changing the rules to be specific will change how edits are handled. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "which seems to be an accepted practise here on Wikipedia" -- not really, no. Some people do it, but it's not acceptable. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to ANI advice essay
justified [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&diff=654626337&oldid=654613343 this revert] with the comment, "Unneccessary warning; for the rest of us it's a good thing if problematic users go to ANI all by themselves."

I'm sure there are some problematic users who will cause trouble, regardless of any advice. The rest of us need all the help we can get in dealing with problematic users. We should assist WP:NEWBIES looking for advice. I do not see any other policies linking to WP:ANI Advice, and this seems as good a place as any. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Pillars
Wikipedia operates on the following fundamental principles, known as the five pillars:


 * 1) Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be repaired.

Wikipedia principles Wikipedia policies and guidelines

Shortcut Five pillars

Discussion of the Five pillars
discussion of the five pillars

Oui Je veux étudier voir plus haut voir haut Sebastien wathlet (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Essays on wikipedia civility
civility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbyguesses (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 February 2012
 * Policies and guidelines ; How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance

When is language in Wikipedia considered ‘offensive’ to a degree that it is considered also ‘uncivil’ (and not allowed)?
The ‘nutshell’ says: ‘avoid offensive language’. That sounds to me too unprecise, too rough — because the word ‘offensive’ has a variety of meanings and is in some of those meanings purely subjective, not 'measurable'. For example: I’m having a discussion with just one other participant, and on a clear question of mine he gives an answer that I don’t understand, because, as I see it, that answer is vague and chaotic and, worst of all: grammatically incorrect. Can I then reply to him that I couldn’t understand his latest posting because it was written in “—to my opinion—rather gibberish ‘sentences’ ”? If saying that is considered forbidden and ‘uncivil’ in Wikipedia, then what would be a ‘civil’ way to get out of such a disputational deadlock? --Corriebertus (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, first, read the guideline against biting new editors. In all likelihood the other editor's post is grammatically incorrect because he or she has difficulty with English.  It is reasonable and not offensive to say that their comments are subjective, or that you have difficulty understanding their comments.  However, to say that their comments are gibberish would probably be considered offensive, if the other editor even knows what gibberish is.  Just say that you don't understand, and ask for a clarification.  Also, if the edits are about the Islamic State, then civility is even more important because that topic area is subject to community general sanctions, which means that uncivil editors can be topic-banned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, McClenon. You unfortunately don’t give a clear answer to my main question: is it allowed or is it forbidden, in the described situation, to say that, possibly, a discussion posting is gibberish, and, if not allowed, why not? If 'offensive', then why, and how do you know? I can stripe off some of your suggestions though: (1) Let's assume: the editor in question is by far not a newcomer. (2) Though that editor has mentioned in the past that he is not a native English speaker (which I am neither), let's assume that he has repeatedly shown a rather high level of ‘language intelligence’ in English and is very well capable to see for himself that his denounced posting is ungrammatical (and vague and chaotic). (3) Let's assume that he will know what ‘gibberish’ is (because he repeatedly has shown to be intelligent, and if he would not know, he would not denounce it as uncivil). (4) Your advise: tell him you don’t understand. Yes-- but how could that help the dispute any further? He could just keep silent, thinking: ‘well, I’ve given my opinion, haven’t I? Tough luck.’ I indeed, in my posting which he denounced as uncivil, told him that I really had no idea what he was getting at, but also, as service, I made that information I gave more specific by giving as cause for my not-understanding that his speech was probably (obviously) gibberish; so he would know how to improve his attempt. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My answer is that describing another editor's post as "gibberish" is insulting, even if it is gibberish. There are certain words that are inherently insulting even if true, such as "gibberish" or "stupid".  "Vague and chaotic" isn't quite there, and you probably can say that, even though the other editor may dislike that also.  You can say that another edit is in bad English (but only say that if it is in bad English).  Those are my thoughts for now.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Robert, but also I find it more effective to ask the person involved whether they actually meant x or y when they said z. Simply describing a sentence as gibberish is in my opinion less effective than a specific query.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm probably the worst person to give advice on civility, but over years of discussion here, there has been nobody able to give a clear definition. Even the most obvious of bright lines, using four-letter-word foul language directly aimed at another editor, seems to be sanctioned. Two things need to be accepted:
 * The victim needs to be offended, and state this, and
 * The offender needs to be offensive and state that this was the purpose.
 * Even then…


 * There are just too many factors in play. Pre-existing relationship, context, culture, intent, wiki-experience. If Wikipedia was tougher on civility, then like a football player rolling around the pitch in apparent agony, more editors would claim to be sorely offended, so as to gain some advantage in whatever game they are playing. Conversely, if we do nothing, then editors will do their best to be as offensive as possible towards others, so as to score game points, maybe offending another editor away from Wikipedia entirely.


 * In the example given here, saying another editor is writing gibberish could be seen as offensive, and in any case can be avoided by rephrasing the criticism, such as by saying, "I don't understand your answer, can you be more clear, please?"


 * Getting more eyes on a discussion is almost always helpful. Where there are just two participants, they may be too close to the subject to see another's point of view. Having others come in with fresh eyes, through an RfC, or an appeal at a particular topic area noticeboard, is likely to bring in some helpful soul who can assist in communication.


 * You should look into your own heart as well. Do you mean to be offensive? Do you get that little thrill of triumph from throwing verbal rocks at your opponent in the hope of seeing an effect?


 * The fact that you have come here seeking advice is a good sign, in my eyes. I think you have really answered your own question - if there is doubt over whether a particular word is offensive, then don't use it. --Pete (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that if you're saying X expecting that the person may/will be offended or hurt by what you're saying, and there's another way to say it that won't, or probably-won't, or less-likely-will do that, then you should say the latter. Sort of like how we tell people to construe topic bans broadly: if you're not sure it's covered, assume it is. So to use your example: if you're sitting here going "well, is 'gibberish' uncivil? Will the other person be upset and I'll get into trouble and this will all turn into a giant mess?" then yeah, "gibberish" is probably not the best word to use in that conversation. Why not say, in that situation, "I can't understand your English", or "Those sentences don't really make sense to me", or "Can you try rephrasing that, because I'm not getting it"? Your point, after all, is essentially that whatever he was communicating wasn't coming through to you because of language issues on one or both your parts. Sure, it's possible that the person will take offense at any implication that they're not Shakespeare, but why stack the deck against yourself by choosing a more inflammatory wording when you have less inflammatory ones available? We don't all have perfect clairvoyance, of course, and sometimes you won't even realize you're saying something offensive or uncivil. Then you have a choice to either fight facts and insist that you have the right to offend even once you know it's offensive, or to learn those facts and have them in reserve in the future. If it turns out in the end that 'rephrase' is a grossly offensive term in some other language that person speaks, and they're upset with you over asking them to 'rephrase', you will be nonplussed and shocked, but then you should add that to your mental lexicon: "Don't use 'rephrase' on international projects unless you are ok with derailing the conversation entirely." And next time you'll know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Make the policy shorter, simpler, (more) consistent
I’ve been glancing at this 'policy' several times, been trying to read parts of it, but it makes on me an unorganised, chaotic, and therefore not understandable impression. It seems rather redundant here and there (and therefore (much) too long), at the same time it seems to neglect essential topics (see for example the previous discussion section, about 'Offensive language'). If people share this type of criticism on this ‘policy’, we perhaps should start working on it, individually or together, to improve it. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Core conduct policies information page
I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Harassment concerning including this policy with others to create a Core behavioral conduct policies information page. It seems like a good idea but I would like comments. Otr500 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed section: 'Offensive language'
The reactions, in the discussion above, from four people seem to have a common tenor. I therefore now suggest to add a new section 2.1 ‘Offensive language’ to the policy page Civility (moving up the present §2.1 into §2.2), with subjoined content, and also change the first sentence of the ‘nutshell’ on top of the page into two sentences: (That changing of: ‘Avoid…’, into: ‘Try to avoid…’, will become clear in my here below proposed new section 2.1. ) If you agree with the idea, but don’t (fully) agree with my hereby proposed text, please give us an improved proposed text:
 * Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
 * Try to avoid language that may offend people.

--Corriebertus (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A good start, but I think it needed some tweaks. My alternate proposal follows:


 * --DonIago (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a little bit wary of the "You should speak directly to the person who offended you" bit, because at times someone may be too hurt or intimidated to do that (for instance, if someone just called me a "stupid bitch" in a discussion, I would see very little potential good, and a lot of probable bad, coming out of approaching them and saying "Hey, you know, that was offensive" and likely triggering them into another rant). We don't want to make it the victim's responsibility to educate in cases where there's been gratuitous/purposeful use of offensive language; I shouldn't have to choose between getting into another fight with the "bitch"-caller and being forced to drop out of the discussion because I can't bring myself to get into another fight with them. However, "let the person know you're hurt or that their language was problematic" is also not bad advice to include, at least for situations in which it's likely to be of help, and/or for people who are comfortable with confrontation. Perhaps we could change it to something along the lines of "...they should speak directly with the offending person or a neutral third party", to allow people to ask for help with situations they're not comfortable with handling on their own. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, actually; I think that was something that I meant to alter in my proposal. Old text struck, new text in italics. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I oppose addition of such a section. This is a policy, not an essay or a guideline. Editors are expected to obey it and therefore be aware of its content at all times. Administrators and arbitrators need to be able to judge whether policy has been violated. The text should be stable, short and to the point. It should not unnecessarily repeat what is stated elewhere. Nobody should need to be told that the person addressed may be unhappy if another editor calls them or their contribution "stupid" or "gibberish", but they are unlikely to refer to this document to see if someone has added some advice on the matter.
 * So can we please try and make the text shorter and simpler, not longer and more complicated? I don't think we should be looking for more ways of repeating
 * "... always treat each other with consideration and respect. Focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably .... some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. "
 * --Boson (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair points. FWIW I was only attempting to "clean up" (IMO) the original proposal; my submission of alternate text shouldn't be construed as a vote either way at this time. DonIago (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Friends: my reaction is based on the postings until 14:08, which took me two hours to write. I give it to you now, but mind you: I haven’t yet read those two later postings. Donlago and ‘fluffer’ both give remarks leading to (great) improvements, but both also give proposals I consider (great) deteriorations. I first cut their combined draft in parts, and then comment on them, and then give my resulting new proposal.

My comment: [A]: perhaps a bit short, but essentially I can agree with its content. [B]: no, no, no: you miss my point here completely. It’s illogical to first say [in A] it is subjective (so we don’t exactly know), and immediately instruct people to make an effort into that unknown. My old sentence B: ‘Certain words, however…’, essentially bridges that gap between ‘unknown’, via ‘well, perhaps you have some intuition’, to: ‘in that case, try to avoid…’. [C] therefore should become now a mixture of your and my old sentence. [D] okay. [E-1] I’ve rewritten your version shorter and better. [E-2] No, you repeat what we’ve already said (‘effort’) in sentence [C]. My old E-2 is doing exactly the opposite: it shows some understanding for the fact that you may happen to hurt someone unintentionally. [F-1] is a great improvement, except that I bring back my phrasing about ‘debates on the articles’ content’. [F-X] No !! After DonIago improved his [F-1], this [F-X] is now unnecessary, and totally undermines the philosophy of ‘my’ intended section. The improved F-1 says, you are not obliged to say it to the offender, that’s good. But, excuse my French, it is nonsense to skip that phase and run to a third person, only because some anonymous person on Internet whom you don’t even know personally calls you ‘stupid bitch’, and you feel ‘intimidated’…. come on! Either you hold your tongue about it, or you shape up and tell the bastard: ‘stop that shit please, you’re hurting me’. If he then still comes on with some more ‘rant’, as you aptly call it (“you filthy whore of Babylon!”, or the like) he is only signing his own death sentence. Good riddance. I strongly disagree with fluffer, saying ‘it is not the responsibility of the victim to educate the [bastard, villain]’—indeed it is his/her responsibility, in this situation !! And presupposing that the hurting is always intended, is exactly what we should NOT do here, in my opinion. [G] Your version is all right, except the reference to page ‘dispute resolution’. That page is enormous, and 99% of it is not applicable. I think page Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is an appropriate page; if you disagree then tell me why.

Resulting in: --Corriebertus (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * added comment: I don’t understand the angry rage of Boson. Yes, people should “obey”, but the whole point is that the policy was not clear. If you state in the ‘nutshell’ that something like ‘offensive language’ exists, you have the obligation to make a section titled 'Offensive language' explaining what that is, I believe. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with any policy that makes mistreatment the victim's problem. If you want to write a civility policy that requires victims of incivility to confront the other person in all cases, or else have to either drop it and leave the discussion, or sit there and be attacked more, you're writing a policy that is based on "if X was rude to you, it's your fault for not explaining yourself better" instead of "if X was rude to you, X should not have been". Which is to say you're not writing a civility policy at all. Should we educate people who may be using language that is unintentionally rude? Of course. But we should not require the victims of that language to be the ones to do it, or tell them we won't help them get things sorted out if they can't or won't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Angry rage"? I have no idea what gave you that impression, but perhaps it illustrates the point (which was already there): "some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright". Anyway, I shall be a little more long-winded, in an effort not to appear confrontational.
 * The policy has been around for a while, and a lot of people have worked on it, so it is not surprising – or insulting – that at least one person considers your addition unnecessary.
 * I was expressing clear opposition to adding what I consider unnecessary text to a policy that I already consider bloated. There is a natural tendency for this to happen to rules and regulations, especially with Wikipedia's "collaborative" editing process, where there is no single co-ordinating editor; so I think it is necessary for someone to fulfil the opposite role of keeping the text focussed (a role I am used to fulfilling in "real life").
 * I am guided in this by the text and spirit of the policy governing the text of policies, especially:
 * * "Be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. ... "
 * * "Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense.  If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more."
 * * "Maintain scope and avoid redundancy. ... When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy. When one policy refers to another policy, it should do so briefly, clearly and explicitly."
 * I may also have been influenced by recent and not so recent discussions on this and related policies, including criticism by arbitrators.
 * So,, I am sorry if you were offended or taken aback by my comments, but I firmly believe that the original text needs condensing and pruning. In my opinion, much of it belongs in an explanatory essay, or at most a guideline. If you proposed putting your text (with changes addressing others' concerns) in an essay, together with large chunks of the original text, I might support that. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reactions DonIago (3x), fluffernutter (2x) and Boson (2x). I proposed here(28July,12:28) to add a section ‘Offensive language’ (‘what is it? ; and how can we, and how should we, deal with it?’), because I noticed that it did not exist, and even the most logical existing section (§2 Incivility) did not even once mention the term ‘offensive language’ (off.lan.), while at the same time that term is prominently used in ‘the nutshell’ — which for me makes the policy inconsistent, and especially made the policy unusable for me in a recent conflict that I personally experienced. Apart from the detailed criticism of Iago and fluffer, which I’ll get back to perhaps later, Boson completely opposes such new section. I’ll react now to (most of) his arguments: I think (some of) these (fundamental) questions should first be dealt with, before we get back to the probably more detailed discussion points from others on a possible new section ‘Offensive language’. I’ll ask Boson personally to react on these seven questions. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) ‘this policy is not an essay or guideline’. Did anyone say that it is? But whether or not it is essay/guideline, my point is that this policy drops the term ‘off.lan.’ in the nutshell without any follow-up, explanation or so, making the policy unstable: therefore I advise to add such a section.
 * 2) ‘obey it and be aware of its content’. That’s impossible when it comes to ‘off.lan.’ because, as I said, it is inconsistent on that topic; and therefore I propose to add such a section.
 * 3) ‘The text should be stable and to the point’. Well, my point is that it is neither, where it concerns ‘offensive language’. Adding such section makes it therefore stabler (but ofcourse not shorter).
 * 4) ‘text should be short’. If you would say: ‘should be as short as possible’, I’d agree. Consistency/stabilily has prevalence over shortness, I’d think.
 * 5) ‘Nobody should need to be told that the person…gibberish…’. Who is saying who (should) need to be told? What does this have to do with opposing a new section?
 * 6) ‘they [?] are unlikely to refer to this document [?] for advice on the matter [?]’. Who is ‘they’, what is ‘this document’, what is ‘the matter’, why is it unlikely, and what has this all to do with which question?
 * 7) ‘can we try and make the text shorter and simpler?’ Perhaps we can (see next discussion section) but that’s not the topic in this discussion section.

Response: You intimate the background to this in the next section that you added below. This background is, in my opinion, an important part of this discussion, but I will take it to your talk page. Please see previous discussions, including Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Phase one. --Boson (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that long explanations and possible interpretations are better in guidelines or essays, rather than on policy pages.
 * The nutshell is supposed to summarize what the policy actually says, not the other way round.
 * It is quite possible to obey the policy without the examples you added. To repeat: (as the metapolicy says): "Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more."; "Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation."
 * Your addition of the points about gibberish etc. implies that this is needed, or will at least help people to understand what is permitted. It should be obvious that it will not be appreciated if you call another editor's edits "gibberish". Whether this amounts to sanctionable incivility will depend on the circumstances; your proposed additions will not make this simpler in the general case, and we should not expect policy to list all the words like "gibberish" which unknown recipients might justifiably regard as offensive.
 * I’ll react on Boson’s latest, further explanation in four points, of his earlier arguments for opposing a new section ‘Offensive language’ (off.lan.):


 * 1) [1a] You propose to place a proposed explanation of off.lan. not in the policy but in a guideline or essay. That seems not logical, because in Wikipedia, ‘guideline’ seems a synonym for ‘policy’—demonstrated by the fact that shortcuts WP:policy and WP:guideline end on the same page. I’m not unwilling to consider proposals about where to put it, but then you should be more concrete and precise about them. [1b] Nobody proposes adding a “long” explanation to the policy, so please just leave out such insinuations. Once we start negotiating the content of the section, anyone may propose to make it shorter or longer, etc.. [1c] Nobody proposes to add a “possible interpretation” that is not supported by the Wikipedia community, so please leave out such insinuations.
 * 2) ‘Nutshell should summarize policy’: I agree, and that’s just why I propose the new section. Off.lan. is now mentioned in the nutshell but I can’t find it in the policy, which violates your own rule which I just cited. Can you tell me where off.lan. is in the policy? If you can’t, then, according to your own rule, we have two choices: (1) scrap off.lan. from the nutshell, or (2) add explanation/description/… on off.lan. to the policy.
 * 3) [3a] You try to start commenting or negotiating about ‘examples I added’, but that’s not what we are now talking about: we’re now here discussing about whether or not we want such a section, at all. Only when we’ll have a consensus or a majority who agree to add such a section, everything about the possible content of it will be open for discussion, to those who are willing to accept the possible use of such a section. It’s your right to keep opposing such a section, but I don’t see any point in ‘negotiating’ the content of it with someone who is adamant to reject it anyway. [3b] ’spirit of the rule clear, then say no more’: I’ve said a lot of times now, that for me that spirit is now not fully clear, partly because one important term used in it doesn’t get any explanation. I had to engage in extensive discussions with editors to get that term a bit clearer, but opinions of four co-editors have less power than a section added in a policy, so I want the clarity in the policy itself. There’s no reason to assume that of 8 billion earth inhabitants I’ll be the last and only one who was or is wondering what might be the meaning and implications of ‘offensive language’ in Wikipedia, so it is only logical and serviceable for those people who don’t have (the spirit of) the rule totally clear like you apparently have, to explain somewhere what Wikipedia means with, and how it deals with, offensive language (off.lan.). [3c] I know you’ve said a few times you consider the policy too long and “verbose” anyway, but that’s not much of an argument here. As I said yesterday: clarity and consistency etc. should be more important than length. I’ve proposed to you in this and the following discussion section to start working—apart from this here debate—to shorten the policy, you don’t react on that, so how serious is that complaint of length then really? The policy gets lengthened regularly, also in recent months, I don’t see you protesting to those, so it is arbitrary that suddenly my proposed section should be forbidden because of ‘length’.
 * 4) As above in point 3a: you try to negotiate about the content of the proposed section. See my reaction there: only after we’ve decided on the possible usefullness of such a section, we can discuss about what should be in it.
 * I assume that your earlier points, which I asked you about on 30 July but you did not answer to, are now off the table. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have stated your opinion and I have stated mine. This is not a negotiation. Nothing is off the table, but it is time to let other experienced editors and admins voice their opinions, so I am bowing out of this discussion for now. In view of the sensitivity of this policy, I would suggest you wait for some considerable time for others to express their opinions. --Boson (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverted, per no WP:Consensus and this being a policy page. Policy pages need the utmost care. Flyer22 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not viable: "But it is the responsibility of editors to make an effort to avoid phrasing their opinions in hurtful ways." No, everyone owns their own emotions. It's not the "responsibility" of people to fearfully self-police every word they say for political correctness, to avoid harassment by adherents to "microaggressions" language activism. There's has to be a clear way to get at  and intentionally offensive language of two kinds, without wandering into thoughtcrime territory. These two are a) epithets against a class of people based on innate traits like ethnic background, gender, etc. (racial slurs, denigration of women, homophobic commentary, etc.), and b) direct personal insults that border on personal attacks that purport to be mental analyses ("you're stupid", "everything you post is insane", etc.)  This needs to be dealt with in a way that doesn't censor editors from stating their political, religious, or other views in a non-attacking way simply because the opposing party might take offense. It also has to be addressed in a way that does not censor legitimate criticism of irrational edits/proposals, habitual WP:COMPETENCE failures, and other editorial problems.  This is not a social club, and editors whose editing patterns clearly indicate an insurmountable problem need to be shown the door.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @ SMcCandish(5Aug): with whom are you discussing here about what, or what are you opposing against, here? If you have a constructive proposal for a section, then give us that, please. You seem now to reject a sentence given 28July by DonIago, but I’ve already refuted that sentence on 28July,18:44. So, if you want to debate constructively, you should better also react om my (refutal and) new proposal, otherwise you seem to talk into the air, to nobody (or only to DonIago). Anyway: my latest proposal for a section--hopefully satisfying and incorporating all comments given in this section up to 4 August--is to be found here. That edit was reverted, without any objection as to the content of it, which I consider a very strange, and incorrect, thing to do. So, that is still my latest proposal for a section, not yet challenged as to its content. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Try an RFC
There clearly is not consensus in the sense of near-unanimous agreement to add this section. The way to determine whether there is "rough consensus" is a Request for Comments. Making a contested change to a policy is not in order at this time. Try an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, at some point try an RFC. This is too half-baked to go anywhere yet. I only addressed one concern in my post above, but virtually every proposed line presents interpretational, over-reach, and other issues, and the general criticism "this is a policy, not an essay or guideline" someone else said earlier, identifies why most of what's been discussed so far is not usable in this policy page. It would probably be much more constructive to go put together a multi-editor essay (without trying to over-control its exact wording - let the community build it) and see if something guideline-worthy emerges from it, possible a few bits that are policy-worthy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is stating that there is or was consensus to add one specific section literally, I've only ventured and assumed that there seemed consensus as to the spirit of certain ideas. Perhaps that was too vague a thing to say, so I take that statement, suggestion, back, now. McClenon suggests that some edited "change" is "contested": well, my edit of 4 August is not contested as to the content of it, only my right to edit seems contested. I'm not planning to make an RFC, I don't see the point, but if you want to do that I won't stop you. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect revert
I consider Flyer22’s revert of an edit of mine (my edit 4August11:39, his revert 11:51) incorrect, because he does not give one argument as regards the content of the, motivated, edit. We have the right always to edit or ‘improve’ pages, motivatedly, and that’s what I did. If you disagree to the content, fine, but give arguments. The fact that I am (or was!) in any discussion anywhere does not deprive me of my rights to edit anywhere. There is no obligation to explicitly search consensus before editing, unless you can show me where that is written. Policy pages are no exceptions in that regard, unless you can tell me where that is written. I wrote in my edit summary that I considered the edit to be in the spirit of ‘consensus’ on talk page, you may disagree to that, but it does not essentially matter, because there’s no rule that an edit should need consensus on beforehand. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I already addressed my revert of you in the section above, and so did others. It wasn't an incorrect revert. Your rationale for adding that material was incorrect. Even though you cited consensus on the talk page for your addition, there was no WP:Consensus for that addition. And the top of this policy page states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit in question is diff which included text like "Debates are daily practice on Wikipedia". The addition should be in an essay, not in this policy. Reverts, particularly on a policy, are standard and are rarely "incorrect". Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)