Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 21

Brightlines?
In the context of this discussion, do we need brightlines on zero tolerance behavior? While we've become so inured to vulgarisms that "fuck" is not actionable, is there not a line that must not be crossed? While one might see clearly that sexually violent imagery should be right out, apparently we don't. So should there be clear cut lines that cannot be crossed?
 * I'd say sexually violent imagery should be zero tolerance.
 * What about common political insults-- libtard? Nazi? *cuck? Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We're well smart enough to judge context and what's appropriate and what's not. We do not have words and phrases that are verboten. Words and phrases are not inherently evil; what makes them evil is the way in which we use them.  G M G  talk  00:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that people have rightly sought to avoid bright lines because incivility is context-dependent. I also think that we, as a project/movement, have hid behind the context excuse to avoid holding people accountable for incivil behaviour. But I don't know the solution, when we have no carrots to incentivize civil behaviour and the main effective stick we have is to remove people from parts of or the entire project cold turkey. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Whilst I like the idea in practice I dislike it in application. One reason I doubt they ever will be, to many tame admins who will still defend their pet to the hilt. So unless it is "if you do this it is an unappealable auto block (is that being suggested?) it will never be a "line in sand". A second reason is "He can call me a "loathsome spotted reptile" but I cannot call him "a self confessed chicken strangler"", its just another tool in the "I tell users to fuck off so as to get them to react in a way that gets them a block" brigade. At the end of the day the issue is enforcement, not lack of rules. If users are "too useful" to get blocks for incivility, if admins will bemoan their pet being sanctioned, or defend users who tell admins to fuck off for issuing a "please don't do this again" then no amount of bright lines will work. Or bullshit like "well yes he has been uncivil before, but this is the first time "in this way", as long as we have users who are too valuable to sanction this is not going to be solvable. We have rules, they just need enforcing with a tad less "flexibility".Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And I will noW contradict myself (given recent events), the only brightline there should be is deliberately making posts to dare the community to ban you, no one should be beyond a ban.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * We need a broader "don't abuse other editors" policy. The subset "Civility" being used in place of that has left many gaps. IMO "Civility" is already overbuilt, it should not be expanded with additional "bright lines". North8000 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. The Civility policy has failed in its goal to keep Wikipedia discussion civilized. Editors can get away with being abusive and bullying, going through AN/I and arbitration several times and coming off without sanctions because "they know better", whatever that means. Existing policies, WP:DE and WP:OWN, already cover everything Civility purportedly covers, but actually have actionable limits (which are not enforced properly). Bright☀ 06:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And mis-using Wikipedia systems to conduct warfare against people. Just don't use any uncivil words while one sticks the knife in between their ribs and twists it and and they'll be fine. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But the issue is incivility, that is what we are discussing. Of course people are not going to get sanctioned for incivility, if they are... not being uncivil. We can all disagree, not all of us need to (stiffed moan) swear at users or (if I may turn over I like it better that way to you) call people names.Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that a part of my post went outside of that, but I also addressed the specific question with ""Civility" is already overbuilt, it should not be expanded with additional "bright lines"" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but I do not agree there are any brightlines now. That (to my mind) is the whole problem with our civility rules, there are no brightlines.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO context is immensely important, probably more so than the word itself.North8000 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the law (even a private one) should be blind. All context means is "I agree this user is a loathsome spotter reptile". It's just about being on the right side of a debate (I.E. that side that has the most admins). When you have "context" you have uneven application, and that is why I say there are no (as you now seem to agree), and can never be, any bright lines. If deliberately trying to get a block is not a bright line nothing can ever be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just don't use any uncivil words while one sticks the knife in between their ribs and twists it I wasn't aware rib-stabbing is a Wikipedia feature. Turn off the drama, no one is getting stabbed here. Bright☀ 02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - I wasn't aware rib-stabbing is a Wikipedia feature - you need to pay more attention to the Christmas wishlist! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BrightR, IMO it is commonplace in Wikipedia. (obviously intended as a metaphor for what happens) Done cleverly, of course.  North8000 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - no one is getting stabbed here - Please re-source yourself. WP:NEWTREAT Stabing does occur. Melt 09:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only was any one gets metaphorically stabbed here is when they hold the knife and thrust it in themselves. Watch this...

Hi, I disagree with you very strongly, will not get me stabbed.

Fuck off, moron, will.

Its really not all that hard to not have someone stab and you twist the knife.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The stabbing is done by cleverly using the system to get people. Of course, talking very civilly while you do it is a part of the cleverness. A far bigger consequence than the pain of hearing a dirty word. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what happens is someone breaks the rules, whilst another person does not. It is not cleverness to act civilly, but it is not very bright to act uncivilly. I really have never understood the mentality of "but if I cannot call you a totally and utter smeg head if I disagree with you then I cannot have a debate", especially when you are writing and thus have more then enough time to think about what you are going to say. If a person is "cleverly got using the system to get people" what that means is they could not keep their temper, or walk away but had to (had to, it is a choice) revert to abusive and aggressive invectives designed to chase users away. But all of this is irrelevant other then

to show what I meant, there is never going to be any brightines, as there is always going to be someone who will excuse egregious breaches of not only police, but also basic civil decency, as being stabbed in the back or entrapped ("yes I know he called them a cunt, but they did refuse to let him have his way, it was a deliberate attempt to get him to say cunt").Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Conflation of content and conduct disputes in "Dealing with incivility"
If someone is reading the dealing with incivility section of this page, they want to know how to handle a user conduct issue, right? But the text mixes in some advice that's only relevant to content disputes. For example, step 7 of the numbered list at the top says:

But WP:DRN says This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors..

The next section ("Dispute resolution") is a bit confusing, because it seems like it's trying to do the same thing as the numbered list above it (give a recipe for dealing with incivility), but... it's a different recipe? It doesn't mention DRN, but instead gives WP:Third opinion (which is also for disputes of content, not conduct) as the step before WP:AN/I. It also mentions arbcom as a further step, which the numbered list doesn't.

So here's my suggestion:
 * Harmonize and merge the numbered list at the top of dealing with incivility and the "Dispute resolution" subsection. (I don't have an opinion on which of the two formats is preferrable.)
 * Remove references to DRN and Third opinion
 * Add a note dealing with content disputes as a separate thing. e.g. Note that the above steps are for dealing with issues of conduct, not content. For advice on resolving disputes over content, see Resolving content disputes, or if that fails, Resolving content disputes with outside help. Or maybe add a step early on saying something like If the incivility is related to a content dispute, try to refocus the discussion on the content. If the discussion is going nowhere, consider requesting outside help in resolving the content dispute.

I don't really have any experience with these processes though, so I thought it'd be good to raise this here rather than being wildly WP:BOLD. Colin M (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this passage may refer to content disputes that are getting a tad heated, rather then PA's persee.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Unified Code of Conduct
For those either against or in favour of a unified code of conduct across all the wikiprojects, there's a specific working group discussion on it at meta. I think it could use some extra discussion. Link to Basic Suggestions Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Types of incivility
This summary of some research on Wikipedia found three types of incivility on the English Wikipedia (about 10 minutes into the talk):


 * policy weaponization,
 * technology weaponization, and
 * content-based.

This page mostly focuses on the "content-based" incivility, such as insults. I am thinking that it might be a good idea to write a short section on the first one. "Policy weaponization" encompasses what we might call wikilawyering and POV pushing, and they are both destructive to civil collaboration.

So imagine, for example, that someone proposes adding information about a given POV, sourced to several gold-plated reliable sources, in an article whose main subject is relevant to that POV (e.g., a social justice POV if the article is about a social problem, an Asian POV in an article about Asian countries, a feminist POV in articles about gender, a religious POV in an article about religion, a different political POV in an article about politics, etc.). Another editor personally does not agree with this POV and opposes including it. I think that these forms of incivility would not be entirely unexpected by any editor who has spent time dealing with dispute resolution:


 * The editor who dislikes this POV quotes a policy or guideline out of context to reject the material (policy weaponization – wikilawyering type).
 * The editor insists that including the disliked POV is WP:UNDUE and that WP:YESPOV does not apply, because the disliked POV is a "tiny minority" (policy weaponization – POV pushing).
 * The editor calls the person a pejorative name (e.g., social justice warrior, liberal, feminist, socialist, etc.)

All of these behaviors are bad for our articles and for our community. They harm our ability to work together, which means that they are uncivil. I feel like our current policy emphasizes the "name calling" parts of incivility, and I think that it would be helpful to balance this by acknowledging that harming the community comes in more, and more important, forms than anything that a "bad word checker" could identify. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Side note
Another thing that I thought was interesting in this talk was the identification of our social norms as being not just from encyclopedia communities, but also scientific and FLOSS communities. That last one might be where we get our notion that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" – as long as you're not "thin-skinned" about being subjected to incivility, of course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Phase 2 - Unified Code of Conduct
The updated recommendations (no major changes post phase 1 discussion) for a Unified Code of Conduct can be found at META Community Health Recommendations

Please give your views on its Talk Page Nosebagbear (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Uncivility from a user
How do I deal with this comment? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , is that the right diff? That user seems to be saying they made a mistake and so I don't see a problem with self-criticism in this way. I don't see where you are involved which is why I ask if it's the right diff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just a witness, that's all SpinnerLaserz (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WMF Board Authorises Universal Code of Conduct and authorisation of non-local sanctions of those who breach them (et al)
Hello,

With the announcement today (22nd May) by the WMF Board of several significant T&S-related changes, please consider taking a look and participating at the Village Pump Discussion to discuss a Community reaction(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Objectionable labeling
Does the policy adequately cover labeling people in ways that they do not identify with, and are poorly defined, or there is not sufficient evidence to indicate beyond reasonable doubt (or even balance of probability) that they are in fact a member of the group described by a well defined label? In some cases labels have been applied to people, or groups of people who have done something similar, and then apparently used as a reason to assume that their actions are influenced by them being what the label appears to imply. Many people are offended by what they see as mislableling as members of a group. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverting
Should we encourage reverting edits that are uncivil or perceived as such more? There seems to be already some old discussions about how this policy is poorly or inconsistently enforced, many of which are more polemic than constructive. I guess reverting for incivility can be misused, as much as any Wikipedia policy, but if done right (with a not provocative edit summary) it could lead to a more constructive rephrasing. Discussions prone to incivility seem likely to be scrutinized more often by the involved editors, so abusing this for some kind of censorship seems less likely. The major benefit I see in this kind of approach is that less polite contributions will have a lower visibility and will not be perceived as an acceptable behavior by other contributors (replies which just mention the policy, rightfully or not, can have the opposite effect or be equally incivil, the article looks sometimes as a guide to escalate the problem instead of solving it). Not sure how this should be phrased in the already long article and some similar thoughts can apply to wp:NPA, but comments and suggestions are welcomed. Quaqual (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which uncivil edits are you referring to? In what way do these edits show us that the policy at WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL is inadequate? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)