Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6

Adding Paradigm
As I mentioned several days ago I am interested in what the article would look like with some information on an over-arching paradigm. I thought I'd try this out to see what it looks like, reads like ... I am not attached to it, but thought we could look at something like this as a start to looking at the civility issue in a more holistic way.(olive (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC))


 * It will probably backfire. Although well intended, the touchy-feely nature of the new section is liable to alienate many content-oriented editors from WP:CIV even more than we already are. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. It might be more accurate to describe the nature of the section as whole- brained in terms of content and in style rather than left brained or specific and point value ladened. I may be able to edit the section more towards a left brain reader....At the same time the rest of the article is very point-driven, and there may be a place for both in the article . Although scientists may be more left brain in functioning, those in the arts and humanities may not be and so this might appeal to them.(olive (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Olive, the statement looks reasonable, but I do have a couple of questions. First, do you see the community of Wikipedia editors a reflection of the larger community of, say, the English speaking world, or should it be a role model for the larger community?


 * Second, You end with, "If behavior doesn't contribute this environment don’t do it, whatever it is." I can name a number of editors who apparently see no problem with fighting to the bitter end to win a point, honestly believing (I assume good faith) they are doing the best thing for Wikipedia and humankind. Should more conservative/considerate editors give them control of the article to avoid conflict? Tom Butler (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see Wikipedia as a reflection of the English speaking world. I see Wikipedia as one of the first four collaborative communities in the world and rather than a reflection, I see it as a very real part of the world, and one that gives a sense of where the world is headed. We have been accustomed to dealing with people when we can see them, but the world is moving to a situation where people may be known and understood even at the other end of a machine. Interesting development. The world is smaller because of the web and of other communication advancements. Wikipedia marks the way, but must also advance in the environment that is now exploding into existence all around us.


 * I don' think it hurts to fight to the bitter end. What hurts is how the fighting is done. The back and forth between intelligent, well-meaning editors is exhilarating, in my mind . When editors enter the situation and cannot or will not treat other editors as part of a community of which they are also part, as equals, and do not see that in harming someone else whatever that means, they harm the project and so themselves, well thats the problem. What hurts me, may not hurt you. The job of a good editor is not only to create good articles/edits but also to be able to collaborate effectively with all kinds of people . Collabration is not just a skill in writing editing but is a skill in dealing with people so the optimum result is achieved.(olive (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I like the idea you're shooting for here, but as currently written it's too gauzy. The last two sentences show some promise -- "Civility is that which contributes to the most positive working environment possible. If behavior doesn't contribute this environment don't do it, whatever it is." -- though they still overstate the case.  Sometimes you have to do things that make people upset, like disagree with them.  What you don't have to do is insult them in the process.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Another version, less "touchy-freely", and "gauzy" I hope, :0).... with Sunray's copy edits. Fr. Goose, my take on the last lines would be that, although someone may become upset, still that may be the most positive situation in those circumstances. At any rate please edit if you can find better wording. I'm trying this on for size to see if and how it works, and or fits.(olive (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

It's a good section. I made it less gauzy. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Holistic paradigm"? This new section fails at effective communication in the first two words. The policy was clearer before it had an unclearly-written essay stuck on the top of it. I would support changing it back. I don't understand what your goal is with the new section, but I'd encourage making it a separate page and clearly marking it as an essay.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * rspeer, what we're trying to do, basically, is change the focus a little. Wikipedia is a community.  Editors too often focus on whether he said and she said this or that naughty word.  But civility is about the working environment, and not matter what words you say, if it doesn't poison the environment, it isn't really uncivil.  But if and editor, under current application, refers to "those idiots who think X," (when the offending editor knows very well that there are a lot of X thinkers looking on) it is uncivil, even though under current understanding it is fine because you didn't say the magic word that made it uncivil.  In this case, the magic word would have been the user's name, "NAME is one of those idiots who think X." It's about environment, holism, atmosphere, not just specific wording.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion is already occurring on this section. So rather than delete unilaterally, please discuss and get some agreement from other editors.


 * I am also including a earlier version of the section here in case there is some desire to use that version.(olive (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

"Civility refers to the quality of the collaborative environment created and inhabited by Wikipedia editors, and assumes the importance of the encyclopedia as paramount. Rather than being external and separate from the encyclopedia and its functioning, editors as a group, constitute the internal, central, core of the encyclopedia and as such are responsible not only for the creation of contributions to the encyclopedia, for the problems that arise and their solution, but also for environment in which collaboration takes place. Damage one part of the functioning core of the encyclopedia, one editor, and you damage the whole of Wikipedia, and thus yourself. Civility must be seen as that which contributes to the most positive, holistic working environment possible. If behavior doesn’t contribute to this environment don’t do it, whatever it is."


 * I know what I did was a deep edit, and changed the focus to community and away from holism sort of. I'm not going to be insulted if you revert it back.  I think I did keep the general essense of what you were getting at though. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a a problem. I think you did keep the essence of what I was saying. The same thing is being said in two different ways and I think thats fine. The editors as a group can choose one or the other or neither. Editing had been pretty friendly here, and we can keep it that way... c'est vrai? ;0)

It's written a little better now, but I still don't consider this section to be an improvement to the policy. It's policy creep, and it contains statements that range from meaningless to inappropriate.

Let's start with the first sentence and analyze it in detail: "Civility refers to the quality of the collaborative environment created and inhabited by Wikipedia editors, and asserts the paramount importance of the encyclopedia." Here are my objections:
 * Civility doesn't refer to "the quality of the collaborative environment": it refers to the way you treat other people. Improving the quality of the collaborative environment is one reason to be civil. But then, a software upgrade of MediaWiki also improves the quality of the collaborative environment, and upgrading software isn't the same thing as civility.
 * It doesn't make sense to say that civility itself asserts something.
 * "The paramount importance of the encyclopedia" sounds like something that belongs on WP:ENC, not here. If we suddenly decided we were writing an almanac instead of an encyclopedia, we would still need to be civil while doing so.

Now, some objections from later on:
 * It's odd to describe the Wikipedia environment as more or less "livable". People do not live on Wikipedia. Hopefully.
 * "Incivility occurs because of personal disrespect." I don't think you can pin down one reason that incivility occurs. Incivility can also occur, for example, due to people editing while tired or drunk.
 * "...damage to this environment is the essence of incivility." Oh man, I sure hope our vandals don't know where to buy some Essence of Incivility. To be more serious, this introduces another unnecessary abstraction - by now, you're referring to the essence of a negation of a quality of a collaborative environment. Really, I think it's better to stick with what we know civility and incivility are, which are the way you treat people.
 * "Incivility is that which poisons the community environment." Another definition that equates two different abstractions. Astroturfing, for example, also poisons the community environment. The statement would be more correct if you simply said "Incivility poisons the community environment", but the rest of the page says that adequately enough.
 * "Wikipedia editors should bear in mind that the encyclopedia is meant to neutrally express all notable ideas..." Should they? That's a pretty strong statement about the content of the encyclopedia. That's taking an opinion about notability -- a Wikipedia concept that isn't even a policy -- and for some reason codifying it in the civility policy where it doesn't even belong.

There are many more problems. Again, I would encourage you to work on this as an essay, not to alter the civility policy just because two editors want to.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to side with Rspeer here. There might be something in it, but what you've written so far is not especially comprehensible nor particularly correct.  I wouldn't mind an overview of what civility is (as opposed to what incivility is, the actual topic of the guideline at this time), but a "holistic paradigm" is not it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I don't wish to edit-war over it, I'd like to ask that you remove the "paradigm" section until it is rewritten to the point where what it says it is clear and correct. So far, it's neither.--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fr Goose I am not sure who you are addressing. If you don't like the version in place either see the one I wrote, and if you don't like that remove the version in place and leave the section as is.  There was discussion on the ideas in this paradigm which I was attempting to  deal with in writing this section. Please note that the section was written by me copy edited by Sunray and later on by Martin. However as I said I am not attached. I would however like to ask for "assume good faith" from the editors here. Sheesh(olive (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I was addressing you, or others who support the "Holistic paradigm" (now "Context") section. I left it in place to see if the ideas in it could be refined (an act of good faith).  But, well, I'll have to be unkind: so far it's gone from a one-paragraph ramble to a two-paragraph ramble.  In its current form, I think it just doesn't belong in the policy.  It needs to be completely rewritten for conciseness and clarity before it belongs.  And then there will still be the issue of whether people agree with what it says.  Right now, I don't even understand what most of it says.  So I'd like to request that you remove it for the time being and workshop it here.


 * First workshop issue: What are you trying to say with it? What advice are you trying to convey to editors?--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this definitely isn't ready to be added to a policy and that working on it here in the Talk page is an excellent idea. I applaud the boldness but let's get the kinks worked out and consensus established before editing an important policy.  --ElKevbo (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing uncivil comments
Someone went overboard on this section, making it appear to be acceptable to edit other people's comments in the event that you believe that they have been uncivil. I've edited the section to make it conform more to the actual norms of Wikipedia.Kww (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your version is better. It's better to see what people actually said.  If that makes them lose face, they can strike it themselves. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A reminder to get consensus before editing
To those of you who have been editing this page recently, please remember, "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." I'd strongly second that, and would add that most revisions should be considered in doubt unless they are typographical in nature. Antelan talk 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On that note, I'd like to remove the essay-ish section entitled "Context", which was added based on only an agreement between two editors. It's putting inappropriate things in the policy, including opinions about notability, and it doesn't really say anything informative about civility that the rest of the page doesn't say. See my list of objections above.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the only question remaining is "do we need to get consensus to go back to the consensus version"? Antelan talk  21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could I refer you both, please,  to the discussion that has been ongoing on these pages in a relatively peaceful manner, for context to this addition.  There has been as well editing that has gone on in this article, and which did not require consensus and to say now that consensus is required may not be appropriate or true. Please also note the discussion on "paradigm shift in an understanding of civility", and to the comments of other editors on this topic some of whom agreed with the change in the article, and some of who were openly discussing the pros and cons of the change. Please note also that there was only one person who added this change, Olive, that would be moi, and that edits were than carried on that version by Sunray who seems to have agreed with Olive's addition,(check history for verification) and Martinphi. This section was added as a more contextual underpinning for the civility section as had been discussed on these  discussion pages. That context by necessity is less concrete and literal, and more abstract than the rest of the article because it refers to an shift in understanding of how we fundamentally view Wikipedia. Please refer to discussion for more details on that . I would like the editors involved in that discussion to weigh in on this before the section is removed. I am personally not attached to the section I added, please see a copy on talk above, but am interested in having all editors interested in this topic discuss if they want to or need to.(olive (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Commenters in that section noted how it veered off topic into the paranormal. This makes me suspect that you and Martinphi have a vested interest in "shifting" the "paradigm" of civility. I was content to discuss the new section in isolation, but if you insist that I should look at it in context, I'll tell you what I think of it in context.
 * The new section has language buried within it about being disrespectful to a "group" of editors. I have noted that a certain group of editors feel disrespected when they are asked to back up their fantastic claims with reliable sources. This group apparently includes you and Martinphi, and is united by the goal of making Wikipedia articles say that the paranormal is real.
 * I find the civility policy very important. And one of the most important things about the policy is that it does not take sides. To put this in context some more: While I disapprove of the kind of things you want to add to Wikipedia, I disapprove even more strongly when JzG tells you to fuck off. The issues have nothing to do with it. We don't need a paradigm shift to know that JzG shouldn't be telling anyone to fuck off.
 * I now oppose this change even more strongly, because I suspect that the new language conceals phrases that would be used as a lever in a content dispute. The one about notability is the most glaring example.
 *  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa there! I have never edited a paranormal article, see no mention of paranormal in any discussion, have never interacted with JzG. There is no paradigm for incivility which is why I was interested in discussing it, and writing one. The version in place was edited after mine so perhaps comments about what I am doing could reference what I actually wrote. Please assume good faith. Completely confused by your accusations.(olive (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I'd have to say I disagree with the opening suggestion in this thread. One is entitled to make changes to any page, including policy pages, at any time, if one acts in good faith.  If you disagree with the edits, you are entitled to revert them, and then discuss your differences with the other editor(s) (i.e., to practice WP:BRD).


 * What you can't do is say "no changing the page until you obtain consensus". User:Ottava Rima recently got a block for trying to insist on such a stipulation regarding changes to WP:NLT.


 * If you oppose specific changes, oppose them for specific reasons (discuss them, with or without reverting them), but do not express a reflexive opposition to change.--Father Goose (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind you, I am simply quoting from the template that is plastered across the front page of this policy. I stand by the request that changes to official policy be aired before being enacted. Do people need to honor it? No. Does it make for good policy-making? I certainly think so. Antelan talk  01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Further discussion of this issue took place on my talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the context of important and widely-referenced policies, there is merit in having an inherent aversion to rapid and undiscussed change absent significant compelling reason to make an immediate change. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. It's a good principle.  I'd really like to hear what GTBacchus would like to do. Is an addition or change needed?  I consider him a leader in this issue. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility and community
I don't know what in the world rspeer could have seen that related to the paranormal, unless he's having a paranormal experience (-:. This section reflects the general consensus of the way that WP is changing, and that discussion has been going on in multiple pages, such as JzG's RfC, the Raymond Arritt Expert withdrawal page, the essays WP:SPADE, WP:NOSPADE, Wiquitte (sp?) and others.  Civility is moving away from focus on specific words to focus on the general environment, and that is what this section is attempting to address, without curtailing the ability of editors to communicate frankly, and without making it easier to use CIV as a weapon.  So, this is not just out of the blue.

The mention of notability is just a mention- and it is absolutely nothing new. WP:NOTABILITY just says we can include whatever meets that guideline. WP as community is an old concept. 

Here is a quote:

The Wikipedia community is:personal. This may seem strange: after all, the goal is to create entries which are as objective and without personal bias as possible. But the openness of Wikipedia allows total self-expression within those bounds (and even without it in the personal pages); Wikipedians define themselves within the context of the project through their interests and goals. This brings both benefits and complications--Wikipedia takes advantage of personal qualities like trust, insight, imagination, idiosyncracy and empathy which bureaucratic institutions cannot; but it cannot do so without also having some of the downsides, including confusion, bias, mistakes, and hurt feelings. A healthy community doesn't eliminate the problems, but it understands how to deal with them.

In other words, don't be so shocked.

More highly relevant links:



What we're trying to do is to state these basic principles of the Wikipedia community in the context of civility. It think it is obvious that civility is an aspect of the WP community. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the above section mean we shouldn't discuss changes?

 * Is that meant to be an argument against discussing policy changes on the relevant talkpage first? Antelan talk  02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no problem with the editing on this article until just recently, and there were several editors involved in the discussions. If agreement needs to be reached by editors at this point to make progress than thats fine. Its not a issue, just a change.(olive (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

[Discussion unrelated to policy moved to Archive 5]

Changes to this policy
This policy has often been used a club by clever trolls who drive off productive contributors with incessantly polite trolling. I would like to make an essential change. We need to distinguish between two broad classes of incivility:

1. Crudeness, bluntness, loutishness, and unintentionally inappropriate remarks. These can be due to cultural differences, personal style, or a lack of social skills. The incivility needs to be identified, and the user should be counseled, "You may not mean it, but your remarks are bothersome. Could you please be more thoughtful."

2. Remarks, even those seeming to be polite, which are intended to drive off productive contributors through overt or subtle harassment. When editors use words as weapons, they must be dealt with firmly, including the use of blocks for repeated incidents.

Comments? Jehochman Talk 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We already expect people to not troll, right? Dunno how much this belongs in Civility.  Maybe it should go over at Make yourself useful or something.  Friday (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Trolls frequently use this policy as a weapon against good editors. In other cases, editors from expressive cultures  can be put at a disadvantage by those from cultures that are more reserved.  The purpose of the remarks matters more than the format.  If the policy explained the difference between hostility and loutishness, much trouble would be saved. Jehochman Talk 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe this can be addressed by shifting the way we describe civility. To me, as a useful practice, civility is more about keeping discussion on track than it is about never using certain words, or being overly flowery in language.  It's ok to disagree and even use strong language, if you're focused on resolving the dispute rather than focused on fanning the flames.  Civility is productive because if you make things personal for no good reason, this will waste time by distracting from discussion that might have otherwise been useful.  Friday (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should all cater to the most sensitive "cultures", by being as polite and courteous as possible on this site. There is nothing to lose by being less "expressive", even when stressed, and a lot to gain. I see no reason to accept any more incivility than we already tolerate. I have never seen a troll win an argument with a good contributor because they used this policy as a club. Crum375 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I worry about this policy being used as a club as well. Frequently, it comes down to dealing with a bad editor, and the desire is both strong and reasonable to resort to plainer, blunter, and simpler language as a discussion progresses. What starts with excuse me, but your explanation of tides being the result of a dolphin conspiracy doesn't seem to be backed by reliable sources becomes your insistence on including dolphins is ridiculous and ultimately becomes will you stop talking about the fucking dolphins! I know why it happens, and it is truly difficult to believe that being civil or incivil is the real problem. Tom Butler complained above that the way he had been treated prevented like-minded people from editing. I think everyone needs to stop a moment and consider whether that is truly a bad thing.
 * I think that we truly need to focus on unprovoked incivility. This is a problem, and causes an unpleasant editing environment. Provoked incivility is a different matter, and a different problem, and needs policies set in place to deal with both the easily provoked and those that provoke.Kww (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is no such thing as "provoked incivility", but there is perhaps "revealed" incivility. IOW, a truly civil person will never be provoked into incivility, but one who only has a civil façade will be forced to shed it under stressful circumstances. It is our goal here to always be civil, regardless of the "provocation". There is never a reason to be uncivil, ever. If the person you are dealing with is being crude or obnoxious, there are many ways of properly dealing with that, but none of them is to also be obnoxious or crude. Bottom line: be nice and kind to everyone, and firm with rule violators, but never uncivil. Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we should endorse incivility, but treating it as a blockable offense is going overboard in some cases. It's true that at my core, I don't suffer fools gladly, and it is very difficult for me to stay nice when presented with the instransigently stupid. I generally manage to do so. If you truly can hold your temper each and every time someone indulges in willful idiocy, I congratulate you. The problem that I and other users face is the feeling of futility. I chose the dolphin tidal conspiracy as an example, because everyone would quickly see that an editor clinging to that theory was a problem. But objectively, how is the dolphin tidal conspiracy different from Electronic voice phenomena or Homeopathy? Editors get frustrated and tempers flare because they know that there is absolutely nothing they can do to solve the problem. Is it regrettable? Certainly. Is is forgiveable? I think so.Kww (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you see WP as a social network, and your goal is entertainment, then you are right, why worry about incivility, it's part of the "fun". But if your goal is to actually write an encyclopedia, then any incivility, under any circumstances, is simply counterproductive. In your dolphin example, if you get frustrated and become uncivil yourself, you'll be less likely to influence the article's content or another editor's behavior. The right way to handle both is by maintaining a cool, calm demeanor, being very clear about the content and behavior rules, and requesting help from the proper channels when needed. This is the way forward, not eroding our behavior rules in the vain hope that it will help influence someone or something. Crum375 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best way forward is to focus on ways to eliminate the provocations as well as the easily provoked. If we eliminate the editors that start getting snippy at the drop of a hat as well as getting rid of the editors that try the patience of a saint, life will be much better. Focusing solely on the reaction without working to eliminate the cause isn't the answer.
 * I don't see WP as a social network, I see it as an encyclopedia. Most of the people that I see as being the frequent targets of incivility are the targets of incivility precisely because they are attempting to damage the encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are being attacked by incivility or otherwise, your recourse is to protest and prevent that via the normal channels. If the attacker/harasser/uncivil editor persists, he will be blocked. Becoming uncivil yourself to defend yourself or prevent attacks will only backfire. Be nice and firm and you'll persevere. Be nasty and rude, even when "provoked", and you'll lose. Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Kww, but every other editor I've seen claim "I don't suffer fools gladly" really means "I can't stop myself from flying off the handle and leaving really nasty remarks". Such editors often define anyone who disagrees with them as a "fool". People who can't "suffer [people they disagree with] gladly" are exactly the reason why we need a civility policy with teeth.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a chat with Olive and MartinPhi, I think that they will tell you that I generally deal well with people that I intensely disagree with, and stay civil even when I am angry.Kww (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, are you advocating getting rid of people you don't agree with? Are you advocating making it so that one group of editors can more effectively dominate? If so, that is a pretty fast way to see a competing wiki assume intellectual leadership. By the way, I know that I am one of the editors you would purge. I also know that is exactly what SA would do--eliminate the bother of all of us morons and idiots. Tom Butler (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not advocating getting rid of people that I personally disagree with. That would be far too low of a threshold, and would defeat the effort to build an encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I express surprise that this policy can be used successfully against contributors who are not being uncivil. And there's never an excuse to be uncivil -- it's just self-defeating, as Crum375 points out. The JzG RfC (among others) made it plain that to do good work, you don't have to act like a "bad cop". If you're not a patient person, you shouldn't be a troll-fighter. If a troll does get you worked up enough to make you lose your cool, what's your defense, "He made me do it"?

It all reminds me of the phrase, "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and win on experience."--Father Goose (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you got closer to highly disruptive situations, such as Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, you would gain perspective on what's wrong with this policy. Feel free to help out in that battlezone, and you will see many forms of incivility, overt and covert. Jehochman Talk 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "covert" incivility. There may be cases where you don't like someone's demeanor or personality, and that's part of life. The question is: are you able to collaborate on content, or not? If the answer is the latter, then pursue DR. To try to win an argument with an uncivil person, or one you perceive as uncivil, by escalating the incivility is wrong. To loosen this policy to allow even more incivility than we already have is wrong. You move forward by being nice and firm, not by descending to the lowest common denominator. Crum375 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, there are plenty of editors who are politely dickish. Jehochman Talk 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly you can be civil and obnoxious, or harassing, stalking, trolling, and lots of other nasty things. But this specific policy deals with civility, and it needs to be restricted to that only. If someone is civil while trolling, or whatever, that would be handled elsewhere. The point is that there is no justification ever to become uncivil, regardless of the behavior of the other side. Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm no stranger to the issue. I was once caused incredible wikistress by a user who is among the most "polite" I've met, but who became a tendentious, disruptive, wikilawyering, edit-warring nightmare over a particular issue -- while still remaining studiously polite.  He wasn't guilty of incivility; he was guilty of all those other things I listed.  Had he just jawed on endlessly but not actually edited disruptively, I could have ignored him.  I came within a hair's breadth of taking him to arbitration, before the situation was magically resolved by a help of an editor from outside the conflict.


 * Now, all of those behaviors are dickish, definitely, and we have various rules against them because they are disruptive. I don't see the need to add nebulous extensions to WP:CIV to cover those behaviors.  Arguing to the point where someone loses their cool should not in itself be a crime.  In such situations, editors should learn to just drop it.  If, however, the person is editing in a concretely tendentious or disruptive way, that is what they should be sanctioned for.


 * Let's bring up a name that hasn't surfaced in this discussion yet: ScienceApologist. I don't get the sense that he loses his cool when battling pseudoscience-pushers.  I get the sense that he doesn't want to deign to show respect to the people he is opposing.  (I saw a video of a lecture he gave at a recent NY meetup, where he said that he had an "detached amusement" toward the civility blocks he had received.)  He is right to oppose pseudoscience and other POV pushing, but only works against himself when he speaks in a patronizing manner.


 * Just because he's on the right side of things (for the most part), or takes on some very tough fights, doesn't mean he should get a free pass from his own incivility. Nor should you ban others for "goading" him.  You should either block those offenders for taking concretely disruptive actions, or if they're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk pages only, ignore them.--Father Goose (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a situation where CIV is being used to get rid of disruptive editors because you can't get them blocked for disruption. But there is also a certain level of disruption which is necessary to create NPOV articles. Yes. To make a good article, you're always going to be stepping on someone's toes. The problem with "Remarks, even those seeming to be polite, which are intended to drive off productive contributors through overt or subtle harassment" is that you have to be very specific to define it before you use the banhammer. I don't see that this issue of specificity is being addressed.

We have a basic situation in which there is no ultimate authority on content. We have no solution to this problem, and our other troubles grow out of that.

And yeah- an editor who isn't uncivil doesn't get whacked for incivility. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy already explicitly forbids 'taunting'. What exactly is meant by 'polite provocation'? Is this  actually a code-phrase for "continuing to disagree"?  Goading, baiting and taunting are disruptive, but it seems to me they are already prohibited - although I don't see this prohibition being enforced (along with most of our other important policies).  I'd like to see an example or two that illustrates both the problem, and how this policy change could help alleviate it. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in putting any user on the spot by making them into an example. The situation we often see is that a user is subtly baited over a long time, and finally they explode.  Most people are trollable to a greater or lesser degree.  This policy needs to recognize and warn about how trolls sometimes use the policy as a weapon.  When an editor becomes incivil, before muzzling them, we need to ask, is this editor the aggressor, or are they a victim of abuse.  When that dynamic appears, we need to ask the incivil editor to back away from the conflict, and then we need to apply disruptive editing restrictions to the main aggressor. Jehochman Talk 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand why you would identify this behavior as disruptive and worthy of sanctions, but simultaneously not want to "[put] any user on the spot by making them into an example". Why not? If they are disrupting Wikipedia, why not make them into an example?
 * I agree that editors who engage in taunting or other disruptive behavior should be banned, blocked, etc. (Although I don't see it happening.) But my point is that this behavior is already prohibited under the existing policy. Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a nasty line to draw, which is probably why no attempt has ever been made to draw it. The difference really is the difference between failing to see your opponent's point and willfully refusing to see it. The case that recently brought me right to the edge was WNDL42's insistence that it was reasonable to describe William Arntz as a "research physicist", even though the man possesses a degree in Engineering Science and apparently worked as a project manager, not a physicist. No matter how many times it was explained to him that it was unreasonable to describe him that way, he would continue to edit the description in, and accuse everyone that disagreed of being uncivil. Ironically, he titled a section of the talk page where he discussed it as Caution ... Children at Play. Given that WNDL42 is able to read and write, I have to believe that he knew full well what he was doing. Some of the reactions to him were clearly uncivil, and I walked right up to the line with this immediately retracted comment. I tried the RFC route, which was useless, as everyone apparently felt that we should have wasted more of lives talking to him.
 * Extra credit question: is is uncivil to falsely accuse your opponent of incivility?Kww (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to know whether was "willfully refusing" to see a point.  But since he also at one earlier point argued that David Albert was not properly described as a physicist, I didn't take his comments seriously, and certainly didn't feel provoked by them.  Sometimes people are just wrong, for whatever reasons, and sometimes you won't be able to convince them that they are wrong, and they will continue to strenuously argue their case, even it it is without merit.  That doesn't mean that they are deliberately trying to be provocative. Dlabtot (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WNDL is a very simple example. Another example which many people would, and have, used is me and ScienceApologist, with SA as the victim. Yet, I maintain that he is the disruptive editor, and I also maintain that, since he is not himself subtle, I have seldom been very subtle with him. Thus, anything subtle which could be said to be polite aggression was unintentional. So I'm highly suspicious about how this would be applied in practice. The situations on wiki are often extremely complex. They are so complex that to get a grip on them, an admin would have to go over hundreds of diffs, and understand them all. This would also require understanding the technical problems. In practice,this isn't even close to possible. So, I think we either need to drop this, or find a clear line where an admin could say "you crossed it." —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why I started with It's a nasty line to draw, which is probably why no attempt has ever been made to draw it. I think what should be done is to make it clear that incivility is not a bright-line offense like block evasion or 3RR. Judging behaviour as being incivility is pretty easy, but judging it as being unprovoked incivility worthy of a block is much tougher. Editors that respond to the slightest of criticisms with insults and expletives should be blocked pretty quickly. Editors that get bitchy at the end of a long, drawn-out exchange with an intransigent editor can be judged a bit more leniently, even if they can't quite be forgiven.Kww (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Making it less of a bright-line offense was part of what the "essay" was trying to do.  It seems to me that what you say is already the way it is applied- unless you mean the way it might be applied to people who have already been blocked a lot for incivility.  If you get blocked for a thing once then it builds up. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Workshop civility: possible addition
The purpose of adding a section to the civility page was to provide a larger context for what civility was, or is. Right now, the section is for the most part, a collection of points. My thought was to place these points within a larger, more current understanding of collaborative communities and how they do, and will have to function to sustain themselves in the present environment of communication explosion. Wikipedia is considered to be one of the first of these communities along with Linux, MySpace, and YouTube, but in order for Wikipedia to continue to succeed, it will, like all of these communities have to change, and quickly, since that is the rate at which the world is expanding /shrinking. Part of that change may have to do with how the community of editors sees itself. I include part of an earlier comment to explain what is meant by this statement. I guess I've done what I could with this. If other editors have ideas about how to write something that includes these ideas, great. If no one else thinks its important, thats fine too.(olive (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I think most of us think of ourselves as standing outside of Wikipedia right now trying to fix the problems, trying to make it work well. Now turn that inside out or "inside in", all of the editors, inside Wikipedia. We are now Wikiepdia, its "heart", and as the heart we create the articles. Wikipedia flows outwards from us. We also are the problems. Outside of Wikipedia, we can separate ourselves from the problems, and from each other, isolate ourselves, our thinking. Inside of Wikipedia, we are the functioning unit, and are responsible for having created whatever happens in the encyclopedia including its problems. This isn't a physical shift, obviously. Its a shift in our own habits, in the way we view the encyclopedia.

At the heart of the encyclopedia, are also the hearts of the editors. At the risk of sounding trite or schmultzy; damage one heart and you damage the whole. If we think of Wikipedia as this whole, that gives rise to the parts of the encyclopedia; that's the picture. Dreadstar's point about lying, is so much larger than telling a lie given this paradigm, not that I am putting words into his mouth, but rather how I extrapolate from what he is saying. The heart of the encyclopedia, and the hearts of the editors are influenced by every single aspect that protects or damages it. Damage one heart in any way, and lies of any kind are a lack of openness in the heart, and you damage the whole. Editors lying, for whatever reason, whether the lie is found out or not, damages the editor's heart who tells the lie at the very least, and possibly the editors who deal with the lie, and that damages the whole larger heart of Wikipedia. This isn't just about lies obviously, but is about anything that damages or supports.

You can't tell people this, necessarily. Many would scoff, but you can begin to shift the paradigm, by saying, lets look at ourselves as the functioning "heart" inside of, and of, this encyclopedia.

This paradigm is becoming known in other collaborative environments, and is an obvious movement toward the better functioning of a global, sustainable world where we are connected to each other and to the world we are destroying/creating.

Parameters then have to be as holistic as we can make them, I suspect, and based on the sense that every editor is an important, functioning aspect of the encyclopedia just because they are inside there with us. They are part of the heart. We have to begin to design parameters based on this paradigm, it seems to me.

I want to make to make it clear that I believe the statements below and agreement with them constitutes a breach of good faith as I mentioned. Normally, I would bypass such statements but given the discussion on this page, the input of many editors not necessarily supportive but always civil and respectful of each other, and the extent of the discussion on this topic, that such statements indicates the discussions weren't read, which is fine, but be careful what you say if you don't know what is going on, and also calls into question my integrity as an editor which I do not like, and cannot bypass with out comment. I won't discuss this. Just a point for clarification so that I can continue to work on this page with out further such attacks.(olive (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

"This makes me suspect that you and Martinphi have a vested interest in "shifting" the "paradigm" of civility..."

"The new section has language buried within it about being disrespectful to a "group" of editors. I have noted that a certain group of editors feel disrespected when they are asked to back up their fantastic claims with reliable sources. This group apparently includes you and Martinphi, and is united by the goal of making Wikipedia articles say that the paranormal is real."


 * I apologize deeply for the suggestion -- which it seems was incorrect -- that you were writing the "holistic paradigm" on behalf of paranormalist editors. I made an assumption because I looked at the larger context of this issue, but the context is larger and more confusing than I suspected.
 * The comments I read about civility and paranormalism actually all came from Martinphi when he was agreeing with you, so I unintentionally transferred Martinphi's goals to you. The sentences I objected to were also not written by you, but added later by Martinphi.
 * However, I think it is quite clear that this vague section is being written and rewritten to benefit particular users' interests, including paranormalists (why else would we be talking about the Electronic Voice Phenomenon on a page about civility?). We should not change the civility policy vaguely; if we change it, each change should have a clear meaning and be supported by consensus.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My intent was not to place onus on another editor(Martin) in any way, but to clarify what I know something about, and thats my own involvement, but I thank you very much for the apology.(olive (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I frankly don't care about civility as defined currently in WP very much- you can cuss at me if you want. Nor do I think anything we do here will benifit my area of editing much, if any.  But I do edit in a very nasty area of the wiki, which has given me extensive experience with how civility is used and abused.  I may not be a real expert on it, but I've seen and experienced incivility in all its permutations.  That's why I'm saying that it is a matter of atmosphere, and that groups should not be indirectly insulted- I've seen CIV in action a lot. So I agree with olive's emphasis on holism.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up on holistic
My previous reference to paranormal is because it is illogical to consider changes in the civility article without considering the whole body of work within Wikipedia. One of the problems I had/have as a new editor is that there are it seems hundreds of articles representing fragments of the policy of how one editor should interact with another. These cannot be taken each one in isolation if there is to be a cohesive policy, yet that is what is occurring.

Flash points in Wikipedia must also be considered. Kww, your dolphin example is a good one, although it lost its luster for me when you extended it to EVP. You indicate one editor that will not let go of a notion, and then extend it to a subject that has had many editors and many months of conflict. Are you really saying that you do not believe in EVP and could not resist comparing it to your dolphin example to discount both with a straw man ploy? How have we arrived at a culture in which it is okay to only have articles about what certain editors believe in?

The paranormal subjects are an example of a "poisoned well" environment within Wikipedia. If you try to fix civility, you cannot do so without addressing why incivility occurs. In a "poisoned well" environment, incivility is clearly often used as a tool to take control of an article. Incivility is not one of those namby-pamby words that just gets in the way of "real editors" writing good articles that reflect their worldview. It is symptomatic of ideological differences and editing rules that are not able to facilitate such useful tools as compromise, consensus and balance. That is why a holistic approach should at least be attempted. It isn't getting done with the existing approach. Tom Butler (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem becomes how to deal with editors who insist that "dolphins cause tides" or other nonsense and just won't let go. In an ideal world we'd never lose our cool even on the 173rd invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But the real world (much less Wikipedia) isn't ideal.  And people with an agenda to push have learned how to turn such a natural human reaction to their advantage. It's a travesty that we block people for saying naughty words others are free to drive their fellow editors nuts by  pushing the Dolphin Theory over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again at zero risk to themselves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Raymond, it seems to me that you're doing an awful lot of work towards creating a reality that you vociferously oppose. You maintain that "we block people for saying naughty words [while] others are free to drive their fellow editors nuts..." However, our reactions to spurious claims of incivility are precisely what we make of them. The next time it happens, we have the opportunity to read the situation superficially, or with fuller judgment. You seem to presuppose that we'll do the former rather than the latter, and you state our propensity to do so as if it's a fait accompli, a done deal. Why are you so willing to say that we've already lost, when winning is standing in front of us? Am I reading your position somehow incorrectly? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone has their breaking point. Geogre explains it best.  We have seen ArbCom take into account the nature of provocations when measuring sanctions.  This policy needs to be clear that incessant, polite provocation is not civil and may be stopped technically through blocks. Jehochman Talk 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I beliebve that at this point two separate discussions are occurring . One has to so with the context or holistic paradigm that underpins Wikipedia in terms of its collaborative functioning - a big topic and yet simple:

Outside of the encyclopedia figuratively speaking - Inside the encyclopedia as the seeds, or the core, from which the encyclopedia flows
 * The editors see themselves as outside of the encyclopeida and looking in to create its content and solve its problems, which allows them to feel separate from the other editors and the content or
 * The editors see themselves as the creators of the content, the problems, the solutions and the heart or centre of the encyclopedia, only able to fix the encyclopedia if they can fix themselves.... "We have met the enemy and he is us"....


 * We are second, dealing with questions of civility what it is, or is not, from a more point value - an exploration of what causes incivility, and questions as to how to fix it. Solutions tend to be point value as well, and expressed as desire for changes in individual policy or guidelines. I would think that both the holistic and point value discussions are necessary.


 * The holistic view contains the point value, the guidelines and policies . The points must take in consideration, must contain, the holistic view.


 * Until we decide on the holistic context for the policies on Wikipedia, the individual policies will always be and feel segmented, floating individually in a way, because they are not anchored in an overarching understanding of what is going on here.


 * My suggestion is to first deal with both an introduction that provides context for Wikipedia's most basic, collaborative policy, and then to fill in the points as needed to elaborate on that policy. Of course these discussions can both go on at the same time. We just have to keep them very separate.


 * I would suggest for all of us that on this page especially, we all assume good faith, and practice the civility principles we are trying to understand, write, collaborate on. Not meaning to be patronizing in any way, just want to make some progress.(olive (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Disambiguation page
Is there a disambiguation for interacting with editors? Part of my interest in a holistic treatment of the civility article is due to how many other articles there are that touch on the same theme. Perhaps it would be useful to have a disambiguation page with a likely search title such as "Editing etiquette " and direct civility to that page while changing 'Civility" to "Civil editing" ... or something. All of the other articles, such as straw man and assume good faith could be pointed to with a synopsis for each. If that were done, then I believe the disambiguation page would eventually show the need for changes in all of the related pages so as to present a unified view. Tom Butler (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like a related links section, but towards the top of this page? Antelan talk  02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is Etiquette. Although the "holistic" section was not ready for prime time, I still think it's worth giving a brief overview of what it means to be civil (instead of focusing exclusively on what actions are "uncivil"), and it would be sensible to link to WP:ETIQ from that.--Father Goose (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Something like a related links section, but towards the top of this page?" is a good idea if it can have something of a one line description. For instance:


 * Etiquette:summary of good manners for editors and reminder of Wikipedia objectives.


 * I think that, if all of the related articles were spread out on a table, patterns would emerge that show duplication in part and a general consensus overall. For instance, the Straw man article addresses discrediting by inference or association that is often accomplished in very polite and indirect ways. For instance being sure to use words with religious references when trying to discredit the science aspect of a subject. We are talking about a similar issue with polite provocation.


 * There is also the problem of article stability. What I learned as social norms of civility are a little different than here. For instance, we try to have a zero tolerance for incivility in the AA-EVP discussion board. So I learn the nuances of this civility article, but if it is changed in the future to be more lenient about how assertive an editor can be, how will I know? Should I have watches on all of the related articles?


 * By the way, I am impressed that you see the possibility to change such a central policy article. I had not thought it possible. Tom Butler (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[Discussion unrelated to policy moved to Archive 5]

Mediation, See also
There were a lot of words here. (Merged these two sections; the mediation advice is over-long--) There are 14 items in the See also section. Are all of them necessary? --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another version: context paragraph for civility article
Well, here's another try at a paragraph that gives the civility article context. I am being somewhat tenacious on this, because I feel that it is critical for editors who come to the civility page to understand the shift from viewing Wikipedia  from outside itself, and themselves as  separate from other the editors, to the point where editors actually see themselves as the truly responsible creators of the encyclopedia, and its environment. Right now the article is for the most part, lists. For most people, if they can understand something in a larger context they are more likely to want to go along with the dos and don'ts aspects. Anyway take a look and see what you all think.(olive (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia can be described as a collaborative community of editors whose paramount purpose is to write an encyclopedia. Editors should see themselves as intrinsic rather than extrinsic to the encyclopedia and it’s functioning. As such they collaborate on, and are responsible for not only the creation of contributions to the encyclopedia, for the problems that arise, for the solution to these problems, but also for environment which they as a group create. Civility is that which defines the optimum, working environment in which the encyclopedia is created, and in which each editor works. Damage to the collaborative environment of the encyclopedia even with incivility to a single editor, by extension creates a less than optimal, functioning, collaborative community. If behavior does not contribute to this unified, collaborative, working environment don't do it, whatever it is.


 * No. It's unclear and unnecessary.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both counts. I think you may be trying to say something worthy here, but the language is so tortuous and muddled that I can't figure out what it is. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the simpler language version would be Wikipedia is a project where people work together. While working on the encyclopedia, we are also working to build a collaborative working environment. Being uncivil towards another editor damages that collaborative working environment. If the action you want to take damages the work environment, don't do it. Kww (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In actual fact, that is not completely what I'm saying. I'm talking about a paradigm shift, but its a complex idea, and attempting to place it here as a shortened version, in the present structure of the article may not work very well for lots of reasons.(olive (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

It's good and understandable (read it again if necessary). It does need to be put in simpler words. Kww's verion says most of it, but does not quite fully get at the definition of the civility as promoting, and incivility as detracting from, the community environment. But he's going in the right direction. The post above basically explains why we need to emphasize community, holism, a bit more. The concepts here have been there from the start, but apparently not applied fully to civility. As it is, people focus on specific words. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That steamroller that just rolled through
Anyone but me think that Sunray went a little overboard with deleting active discussions?Kww (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The banner at the very top of this page says: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Civility page." The page was up to more than 160 kb in size. I simply archived some of the outdated discussions and carefully preserved the extensive digressions from policy discussion in a separate archive. Sunray (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So the question of whether WP:CIVIL applies to discussion of people outside of Wikipedia isn't a policy-based question in your mind? The interaction between how we treat outsiders, insiders, and those that can be readily identified as both isn't worthy of any further discussion? The conversation I rescued from the archive once and you reverted without so much as a comment?Kww (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you made the restoration while I was moving material and I didn't know you had done that. My move automatically nullified yours. Sorry about that. I've looked at that section again (you mean the discussion under the heading "Enough," right?). While I agree that a small part of it is a discussion about the application of the policy, I don't see anything that has to do with improvements or changes to the policy. Two of the discussants noted that the discussion was "off topic" (though I did note that you said you thought it was relevant). I don't think so, but I'm not the last word on this. Others? Sunray (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think most of what was removed and archived was very tangential to the focus of this page, though of course there were some on-topic posts in there, such as by user:Crum375. Those threads are surely exhausted? so archiving seems reasonable anyway, for completed threads. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I don't like calling threads that start and stop on a weekend "completed". There are a significant volume of weekday-only editors.Kww (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a participant in one of the extended off-topic threads, I don't have a problem with it going into a separate archive. With regards to the rest, so long as only completed discussions were archived, I think archiving is fine. Antelan talk  02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing and harassment
''Harassment occurs when a particular editor is "targeted" by another user, and may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that editor, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that editor. Repeated instances of incivility, if unchecked, can also constitute harassment''.

''Because of privacy concerns, which apply to the Internet in general, editors (Users) are encouraged not to supply superfluous identifying information about themselves, such as home address or telephone number. This minimizes the likelihood of spamming or harassment by outside parties. If personal information becomes available in such a way as to constitute a risk to a User (editor), the information can be deleted or Oversighted if necessary. An editor (User) who makes use of such personal information available concerning another user to harass that user, or who enables the harassment of a user, may be blocked for doing so''.

''Where information about an editor is available, perhaps because the editor refers to such information or provides it on their own blog, or on another site, such information should only be referred to if it is reasonable to do so to assist in working on the encyclopedia, and if it is reasonable not to doubt the accuracy of the information. This may occur in the case where a particular editor is an acknowledged expert on a subject, perhaps the author of reliable published information about the subject, or the editor may in fact be the subject of an article. See also: Conflict of interest.

''If an editor for the purposes of working on an article or otherwise collaborating does volunteer some personal details, such as where they work, what their job is, their school or academic institution, such details may be referred to if it is of assistance in working on the encyclopedia. (Remember, such information may not always be completely inaccurate, or may become out-of-date, and should be used with discretion.)''

Harassing and "outing" editors is a subject often under discussion at AN/I, and at WT:COI and WT:BLP. Since these are issues of Civility, there should be some guidance about these matters on this project page, not comprehensively, but in a way which does not conflict with other policies and guidelines. In a nutshell? Use discretion. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What this doesn't include is the issue that I worry about: the idea that civility provides an immunity from harsh criticism. The gist of the case that we dance around is that one editor said that we couldn't use a source because the source had no credentials and essentially made stuff up. Had the source not been an editor, no one would have blinked an eye. Because the source actually was an editor, it wound up being judged as being incivil. Somewhere, we need to state that criticism that can be reasonably aimed at a source can be aimed without consideration as to whether that source is an editor or not. That behaviour has to be judged in terms of the appropriateness of the criticism and relevance to the topic at hand, not whether the source also has a Wikipedia account.Kww (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't want to promote the idea that civility provides an immunity from harsh criticism. WP:OUTING has this more precise wording:
 * Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.
 * Perhaps that is clearer? --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It addresses a different aspect. Finding me is trivial ... my full name and occupation is on my userpage, and I live on an island with a population of 14,000. Finding Tom is trivial ... he uses his full name on Wikipedia, and is quite open about who he is. The problem is simple: if, in a dispute with an editor, I said "it's obvious that you are just making things up", that is probably uncivil. If, in evaluating a source, I say "it's obvious that this source just makes things up", that may be uncivil, and may be justified. If it's relevant to the topic, and a view that a reasonable critic could hold, it isn't uncivil, even though it is highly insulting to another Wikipedia editor.Kww (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OUTING is from a guideline; putting that in here would elevate it to policy status. Not saying this to support or oppose; just noting it. Antelan talk  00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is correct procedure to link from a policy to a guideline. Just one link to HARASS should be sufficient. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else chuckle at "such information may not always be completely inaccurate"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a point there, Raymond, and that is especially if we get imposters claiming to be real (world) people, and making up spurious sources, and then everyone gets confused; things like that are very worrying. (You may well laugh) --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As for instance,

[...] But even then, some care is needed, because it might be someone just using that name. [...] Then the real person got in touch with Jimbo to say he was not, in fact, the person behind the pseudonym, and he complained about the insults that had been posted about him, and it all got horribly complicated. (Had the pseudonym just pretended to be the real person, or was the real person now pretending he had not been the pseudonym?) [...] -per-SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC) 


 * Ya just have to laugh. --NewbyG (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Small section on Removing uncivil comments
Something seems not quite right here. Maybe it's that refactoring other editors 'uncivil" comments is not covered by policy! WP:ATTACK has

Removal of text

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern.

Suggestions? --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some personal attacks are so clearly egregious that they are refactored or removed already. The problem with codifying a procedure for removing "uncivil" statements is this: (1) civility is not objective, but (2) everyone feels like they know it when they see it. Thus, we'd end up with people removing edits based on differing interpretations of "civil". In other words, I believe that to do this would lower the bar for removing others' comments. I could envision this as exacerbating, rather than ameliorating, heated exchanges. Antelan talk  05:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't put it back where it was before I edited it. That version made it sound like editing other people's comments was the first thing to do whenever you thought they were being uncivil.Kww (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good suggestions. Yes that previous version sure had problems. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism
I added "accusations of vandalism" as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and added a link to WP:VANDAL. I was actually surprised to see that it wasn't listed here, or at WP:NPA. --Elonka 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've seen that behavior a lot, it definitely should be mentioned here.--Father Goose (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that new bit which refers to WP:VANDAL is a good addition. Good place for it, and concise words. Just a thought; if there is nothing at No personal attacks already covering it, further addition might be possible here or there (I am thinking) concerning the "posting (and removing) of warning templates", for instance, in cases where poor judgement might lead to templates being posted without due investigation and in error (which can leave a User unfairly branded and unhappy). Also if it could be worded decently, what further action is appropriate in the case of legitimate "warnings" being removed from a discussion or user talk page. Maybe these are matters for a guideline page, or are already covered in a guideline somewhere. --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did, here. Can't say that I believe these should be used en masse for RfAs. It took me over three hours to answer them, and I didn't take anywhere near the time to proof my responses that I would have if they were so essential. :) That said, some of them are seriously good questions and would make a good launching point for further conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How should we deal with it?
I have seen too many great editors leave Wikipedia because of harassment. There does not seem to be a working policy against personal attacks and stalking, and that is IMO unacceptable. WP needs all the hard-working editors it can get. What can be done about it?--Berig (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I would agree with you that the behavior guidelines need some better method for ensuring even-handed application. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that WP:NPA and WP:HARASS are deficient. Are you sure the problem is with the policies themselves, and not with a lack of enforcement? Dlabtot (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is probably the lack of enforcement that is the problem.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with it (documents)
There's been some tidying lately, of CIVIL, some headers were re-named, this was added to CIVIL :

Outing and harassment

See also: Harrassment

...may include any untoward attention such as seeking to communicate inappropriately with that editor, or contacting other persons (either on- or off-wiki) in order to cause harm to that editor...

...An editor (User) who makes use of such personal information available concerning another user to harass that user, or who enables the harassment of a user, may be blocked for doing so...

(Remember, such information may not always be completely accurate, or may become out-of-date, and should be used with discretion.)

--> I think it is accurate, and that it helps, in starting to deal with it, here, if there are any particular wordings in the relevant guidelines, I have looked, but not extensively, so what do we know? --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is this guideline with this particular wording --

No personal attacks

External links

...Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence...

<-- * --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnote, Footnotes
No, I don't think we need worry about two lists. There won't be many additions, I am betting, and we can weed out the ones that aren't any help. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the edit I reverted there were already two lists, one with the behavior and one with the examples of the behavior. No reason not to combine them instead of making footnotes out of the examples.  It only follows that if that's the style, then not only should the examples of "insults" be footnoted, then so should the rest of the behaviors' examples. It would have ended up in two lists, making the reader go to the bottom for each one to see examples of each behavior.  A consolidated list is better, including the examples with the behavior.  Dreadstar  †  02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This was the most recent addition to the "list", which was quite a good one. I would like to see more additions like that, then any excess ones camn be culled. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to splitting the current list into two parts, keeping the "behaviors" in the body text, and putting the "examples" of those behaviors in the footnotes; as was started here with "insults". I think it's better to keep the examples with the behaviors.Dreadstar  †   17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that is a good point; however, I think there could be also good reasons to separate some stuff out; (e.g.) "technical", stuff, and "jargon" might be best in the Footnotes, the text ought to have as little jargon as possible, for the sake of the general reader, and new Wikipedians. But what goes where could be in a state of "flux" as new ideas are submitted by editors, which is OK, I think, as long as CIVIL maintains stability. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It got reverted
User:Dreadstar made this revert in the grand old tradition of claiming consensus where none has taken place. I maintain that special dispensation for special examples is not only unwarranted: it is a serving the aims of Dreadstar who believes that the only interpretation of what should be included here is Dreadstar's. This kind of behavior is, frankly, disgusting and smacks of WP:OWN... all too typical of Dreadstar's behavior at such places as Talk:WTBDWK, for example. I only point out these things because I fear this policy page is being held hostage by an agenda-driven, disruptive and tendentious editor. Look at the sections he claims establish consensus. Neither of them do so: both just parrot his fantasies about the way Wikipedia should be.

Disgusting.

ScienceApologist (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, that is a bit much, we don't need such comments on the discussion page for CIVIL, I am sorry to say. The point being made about the inclusion of specific "examples" may have merit though (in my opinion) - this ought to be sorted out through civil discussion, forgetting past enmities, and being a little more sensitive about using the Revert Option. Please carry on, and let's co-operate here at least, even if other pages are a minefield. Take no offence, none is meant. --NewbyG (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion derived from WTBDWK

 * I have spent months working on WTBDWK, and there was no instance of Dreadstar claiming false consensus. On the contrary he was instrumental in making great progress at different times in the article. I do not want to get involved in this, but I won't stand by and see this kind of false accusation made against another editor. This is wrong!(olive (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)).


 * You've spent months working on WTBDWK? And here you claimed that you didn't work on paranormal topics, getting me to back off from identifying your conflict of interest in editing this policy. I feel duped.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gentleman: WTBDWK is a movie, and I delivered many arguments in attempts to have the article treated as an article about a movie and nothing else. Do not even begin to imply dishonesty. That would indicate a serious lack of discretion on your parts and a desire, to, as we say where I come from "drag a bush". I support Dreadstar's positive involvemnt in Bleep. I was there. Attempting to accuse him, or any editor of something that did not happen is anathema to me. Attemtping to then imply that I have somehow been dishonest in my statements is unfair, inappropriate and the very worst kind of incivility for it infairly attacks another editor's honesty, integrity and shows a lack of inclination to truly understand collaboration. You might note that I did not name SA in my comment on Bleep and Dreadstar but you however, did not pay me the least of that courtesy in your attacks. (olive (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC))


 * If I have a COI here, because I worked on the Bleep article, you are saying by extension that all editors working on Bleep have a conflict of interest on this Civility article. Please note who all of those editors are. That makes no sense to me at all.(olive (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Whoever those editors are, none of them told me to my face "Whoa there! I have never edited a paranormal article, see no mention of paranormal in any discussion..." and got me to believe it. Yes, you were dishonest. Call this the "worst kind of incivility" if you want, but that doesn't make it true. Personally, I've seen much worse. I think it's far from forbidden -- in fact, it's quite important -- to point out where an untruthful statement has changed the course of the discussion.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I started to point out the dissimulation, but we've decided that calling a spade a spade is uncivil, so I didn't. Now you know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in spades

 * Raymond, speaking as one of the leading opponents of "calling a spade a spade", I have never suggested, nor do I begin to believe, that pointing out a false statement is uncivil. I don't know anybody who thinks that, or who has ever said or implied it, so I'm not sure what you mean here. What we've decided is uncivil is going off-topic to engage in name-calling when there's an encyclopedia we should be talking about instead. If you'd like to represent the pro-civility, pro-professionalism position as somehow discouraging you from pointing out a falsehood... then I would point out that you've got your own falsehood going. Careful there. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You and I seem to have a remarkable ability to misunderstand one another. To me, "calling a spade a spade" is telling the truth, even if that truth is uncomfortable for someone. I'll come right out and admit that I have no idea what you mean by "calling a spade a spade" in this discussion. My latest hypothesis is that it equates to name-calling, though to me that's a separate issue from uncomfortable truths. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I can agree with that first sentence, and I hope I understand it :). I'm not against telling uncomfortable truths. I'm against applying labels to people, and that's what the phrase "calling a spade a spade" is often used to justify. I'm not aware of anyone who's decided that telling uncomfortable truths is uncivil, and I'm frustrated to see people say that the community is somehow against telling the truth. If that's not what you meant above when you said, "we've decided that calling a spade a spade is uncivil", then I don't know what you meant. I don't think anyone's decided that any variety of spade-calling other than off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil, so I guess I'd ask if you could clarify what you meant by that assertion. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ( I agree with this bit, u:GTB )- I'm against applying labels to people. I'm against applying labels to people, and that's what the phrase "calling a spade a spade" is [often] used to justify. A ND the [often]'s are dealt with, every time, by applying common courtesy. Call spade a spade. Dont use name-calling, any kind of name-calling, for people. --NewbyG (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Which means that off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil.
 * Off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil.
 * Also, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil, neccesarily.
 * That is, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are necessarily uncivil.
 * That is, instances of name-calling of any kind directed towards any user or editors are likely to be uncivil.
 * Other than all the indents, does that make sense? --NewbyG (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, here
GTB, your statement seems to imply that there was a dishonesty here. I don't know if that was your intention or not. However there was no dishoesty, and I am dismayed by the way in which Speere's misguided comments and I suppose R. Arritt's, have come to seem like truth, while tainting my reputation as an honest editor. This is truly remarkable especially given this page. I would like to reiterate that the Bleep article is not about the paranormal as many other editors pointed out at the time, nor did I ever consider it to be about the paranormal. It is, quite simply, about a movie. If it is possible for this kind of accusation to be made and seen as truth, then Wikipedia is indeed broken, and much work will be needed to mend it. Just a clarification.(olive (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Huh. I'm not in any position to say that someone is being dishonest. I can't distinguish, in another person's typed words, a mistake from a lie. Therefore, I don't try to. Your reputation, Littleolive, as far as I'm concerned, is impeccable - I've only ever seen you say intelligent and helpful things. I don't believe that "falsehood" = "lie". I was really just replying to Raymond's suggestion that anybody has ever suggested that pointing out falsehoods in uncivil - as far as I know, that's false. I doubt he's lying. I'll bet he believes what he's saying, and I'd like to disabuse him of that error. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Olive, my usual response to accusations of COI is to say, get the diffs. COI is all about POV edits, nothing more. It's really just a weapon to throw. And -let me get this straight, because it doesn't seem to make any sense- people think that working on certain articles means you have a COI here? Perhaps I got it wrong, since it doesn't seem to make any sense? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank ScienceApologist, for giving us, in his comment about Dreadstar's edit, a perfect series of examples of the type of behavior this policy exists to calm: "Insults, and name calling"; "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety"; "Rudeness"; "Taunting, goading or baiting"; and an example that "Comment on the actions and not the editor" may not be a complete solution, showing us how insults can be woven within comments on actions as well. It's a perfect storm of irony to find that kind of disrespect for a fellow editor and disregard of policy, on the talk page of this particular policy.


 * With that example provided here on the talk page, it seems advisable to list specific examples in the policy itself as well. Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
There has been some reversions of inclusion of this issue and related behaviors recently. I can understand the merits of describing it somewhere, and of the dangers of undue weight of particular behaviors. However, a more fundamental question seems to be is this really an issue about civility or rather would it better be described under the broader term of disruptive editing (which incivility is too, of course). After some reflection, I would propose the latter, asserting that this behavior is related to civility more in that its consequences (intended or not) can be provoking incivility.

That said, without question this issue is a big problem and should be clarified somewhere. I note some stirrings on the project which suggest things may finally take a turn for the better in the near future, in this regard... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it all depends on definitions and perceptions. In terms of our basic definition of incivility, feigned incomprehension causes me much greater "conflict and stress" than someone using foul language. I'm a little worried that we go overboard on the obvious and superficial types of incivility while ignoring the tactics of the smart troll. But if others don't think WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT belongs here that's OK. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to keep with simple examples on this basic policy. If someone is an obvious troll you don't need that example on this policy to point that out, and when it's not obvious how do you define when someone is doing "feigned incomprehension"? If it means that someone is pretending to not understand something what they actually understand, I guess that's uncivil, but I doubt that writing it to this policy would help. I hope the concept of civility would not be made unnecessary complicated. Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you tell feigned incomprehension from the real kind? How can you avoid false positives, which it would seem are worse than false negatives? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The real kind will become comprehension after a not so disruptively long conversation on the relevant page. The feigned kind won't.  How long is "not so disruptively" may depend on the context, but in nearly all cases where otherwise intelligent editors cannot seem to comprehend something that is obvious to pretty much all other editors (with some minor technical jargon caveats), one recalls the Garden Tool That Must Not Be Named.


 * Good faith false positives can be made very rare by really assuming good faith, and not assuming that just because someone disagrees with you, that they are not listening. But it is when the word "just" no longer applies that we should sometimes critically ask why.


 * You actually have seen this: an example that has very high probability of being such a case is pretty apparent in the (now archived) discussion leading up to this exasperated edit by yourself. That's ironic, as you are arguably the most patient and civil editor on this page over the last couple of months or so (seriously), and it could have come off that your were defending or at least rationalizing  even more extensive snarkiness by another editor there ("His reaction really isn't surprising, is it?").  But the basic implication you made is pretty obvious; "Well, duh" says volumes, although you were patient/civil enough to not explicitly accuse.


 * But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it?   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. That's a good example to look at, it seems. I am curious what "basic implication" it was "obvious" I was making. What exactly does, "well, duh" say? Do you think I was accusing Martinphi of acting in bad faith? I have personally made enough good-faith errors of judgment that I can't really do that. An error of judgment is very different from bad faith. Bad faith means you're not here to help but rather to disrupt. I have never doubted that Martinphi is here to help. Every POV warrior is here to help, because they think their POV is correct, and that it will help people, by enlightening them or whatever. Am I perhaps misunderstanding what you were reading from my frustrated remark? Very high probabilities of bad faith should be dealt with as good faith anyway. Heck, even outright bad faith should be dealt with as good faith. That doesn't prevent us from responding effectively, and it keeps us clean, whether we're right or wrong. Check out this example: a user asked a question at AN, and a senior Wikipedian removed the question with the edit summary: 99% chance of trolling. Rather than revert, I just answered the user's question on their userpage, and they seemed pretty content with the answer. The next few edits there, as well as some chat at another talk page, make for an interesting case. There was a very high probability of trolling, and yet treating it as good faith was the most effective way to deal with it. Even if it had been trolling, a clear concise answer would be the quickest way to neutralize it. I'd like to see one example of a case where "calling a spade" was useful. My argument is not that it's rude, or even necessarily incorrect, but that it's invariably unproductive. I've seen the argument that it's "honest", and it's clearly satisfying on some level. Some argue that you have to be able to identify a bad editor to warn others, but I don't think I've ever seen an example of that leading somewhere good. Have you? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My feeling is that if you "call a spade a spade", you'll just end up with an angry spade.  This is good if it's your goal to antagonize people, but that should never be your goal... unless you're a spade.--Father Goose (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground
I believe this is the most important policy to refer to here. Not as something else to add the project page, just something to point out here on the talk page. The bold, revert, discuss cycle has been subverted here by a group of editors with a common interest in subtly changing the way this policy applies to paranormal topics, making this page a battleground for paranormal claims vs. science. (After examining Olive's contribution to Talk:WTBDWK, I stand by my assertion that Olive shares that interest.) There will clearly never be a consensus to make such a change -- in either direction -- so leave this page alone.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Leave this page alone". What are you saying? You go to Bleep draw your own conclusions, and do not assunme any kind of good faith. My contributions to the talk pages, which by the way you have no right to say, stay away from, have been to add something on a paradigm shift on civilty, comments on lying which led to thought on a new paradigm, and to respond to a unjust attack on another editor. The paragraph I wrote was not accepted, so I have removed myself from that discussion. I stand by the unjust attack on another editor.
 * Speer, I work very hard at being a neutral editor. You might have noted on the Bleep article the multitudes of times I agreed to changes I did not agree with to allow progress to be made. I am flabbergasted at your assumptions. You know nothing of my Point of View, and I do not air it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Please do not presume to know anything about it.
 * If this is a battle ground it is created by assuming to divide editors into two camps according to some presumed POV. Can editors, or people for that matter, be divided so neatly into paranormal believers whatever that is, and scientists.
 * If one deals with what is actually going on here, and on the edits, rather than attempting to label other editors at any time for any reason, things would move more smoothly. Such labelling might be construed as true incivility, and highly destructive to any collaborative environment, and that, if anything is my Point of View (olive (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
 * I am dealing with the edits, which is to note that they are being made against consensus. Fine, you're doing your part with "bold", but then you release these long diatribes when other people do their part and apply "revert, discuss".
 * It is a very important fact that you can't just divide people into "scientists and paranormalists". In the normal state of this page, you could not do so and there would be no need to. However, the way this discussion is currently going, you basically can, and it would be detrimental to Wikipedia not to notice the pattern. I am pointing out the pattern so that, hopefully, we can move on past the issue, and this talk page can once again be used to discuss actual shortcomings of the policy instead of electronic ghost voices and misleading movies.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no patterns, unless you are creating them. I have not commented on this page for quite a while, but now this is part of a pattern . My means of exprssing myself may be longer than yours although not longer than some, but why would you disire to stick that in an editor's face as a problem. From my side this discussion is complete. I have no need to defend myself any further against unjust claims. You are welcome of course to your opinions. It has been a revealing morning. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again
( Repeated from section above for being a most pertinent observation ) --

But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it? (--per--Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Yes, that is a good point to initiate discussion, surely. --NewbyG (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Role of examples
See also: Role of examples

Guidelines usually contain more examples than Policies and Role of examples during the creation process of policies and guidelines.

Those sections in the Civility policy which consist of lists are likely to attract additional examples. --NewbyG (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology: edit summary
I am working with an older computer with an old processing system that gives me some strange problems .... delays on text appearance and so on, so I sometimes don't see what is happening immediately. There must have been a delete in there I didn't see .... Anyway my edit summary was removed, for rv of SA's deletion but should have read: Please discuss since several editors agree on this inclusion .... sorry about that.(olive (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Incivility at that page
Yes I was at Bleep so were you. I was editing an article about a movie. What were you editing? SA this information had agreement from several editors so please discuss with them before making such a large change.(olive (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm taking out your recent addition about terms such as "crank" and "woo-woo". That last term is one that only appears in paranormal-related discussions. This is undue weight.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my additions, Speer, but a revert to a version that had the acceptance of several editors. I was not involved. I reverted as per implied aggreement of those ediotrs. If someone wants to remove the terms, discussion first would be appropriate. I personally do not care one way or the other.(olive (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Uhh, the terms are uncivil regardless of who you use them on. I don't see this undue weight. undefinedUntil  18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who else would you apply the term "woo-woo" to? Shall we use the policy to list every name that has been called in every argument on Wikipedia? You'd probably have to start with a bunch of nationalistic racist terms.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not apply the term "woo-woo" to anyone, it would be uncivil. undefinedUntil  18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean you in particular. There are many things that I hope none of us would call anyone, but we're not listing them exhaustively in the policy. Because of the disagreements that users who have recently shown up on the page have been in, the policy is being drawn toward attempting to define what is "civil" when those who believe in the paranormal conflict with those who use the scientific method as a standard of evidence. And that will turn this page into a permanent battleground. I'd prefer that discussion happened somewhere more appropriate, such as Wikiproject Paranormal or Wikiproject Rational Skepticism or both. (And I would stay out of it.)  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In broad policies like this one it helps to keep things general. Giving specific examples X, Y, and Z only invite people to respond "but I didn't call him X, Y, or Z like the policy says." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Raymond makes an important point. The rest of the article does, however, use examples to describe what is meant, and consistency should probably be maintained. If "woo-woo" does refer to an editor who edits a particular kind of article, "moron" seems more general as does POV pusher. As a compromise perhaps "woo-woo" could be taken out, but the other words left in place.(olive (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

and a revert

 * I was about to remove "woo-woo" but for an edit conflict ... please check the editing history. I am reverting as per several reverts by other editors, but hey, not going to edit war based on these discussions. I am alone in some ways, yes, because I am not the one arguing for either side here, I'm arguing for a compromise, but I also am not alone in reverting this material to its original state.  I can sit here and discuss and do nothing else and we both know nothing will change in the directions I suggest, or I can and did rv and try to delete "woo-woo" as per the discusion I had, and see if you all thought it was any better. If there is going to be a discussion on this material, the material should probably be returned to its most original state and discussion for changes carried on from there, rather than deleted first despite the revert history of the section. This would be a neutral way of dealing with this contentious material.(olive (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I added "woo-woo" because I've seen it used more than a few times. I've seen editors referred to as "woo-woo's" in the third person, and I've seen topics referred to as "walled gardens of woo", when in actuality they were valid minority-religion topics that survived AfD with snowball keeps, showing how far off the characterization was.  And even if they didn't survive, that's not a civil or respectful way to refer to the work of volunteers  on the project, or to the volunteers themselves.


 * It's not a big deal though, it's just one example, it can be removed. The examples in general though are useful because without them the idea of insults is too general; we need wording to indicate the particular kind of insults that occur in disputes.  If we can do that with prose, OK, but as it's currently written, it's not clear without the examples.


 * Also, I agree with Olive, if there is an overall move to deprecate examples in the policy page, then we should apply that consistently across all the sections and bullet points, not only the one about insults. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think examples are good. We should mostly be discussing exactly what words to use as examples, rather than whether or not they should be used. It gives a sense of the level of insults which are actionable. If we used "asshole," people would say "woo-woo" is ok. Using examples of this level helps to give perspective. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it makes sense to include examples. If the only argument against examples is that, "people will respond 'but I didn't call him X, Y, or Z like the policy says'," that's not a compelling argument. Anybody responding in that way could simply be told that we weren't all born yesterday. It's not as if we'd have to say, "oh, gosh you're right, you called him a 'bastard', but the policy says only to refrain from calling him a 'moron'... carry on." It's true that calling people those names cited in the examples people are putting up is uncivil. Since none of us is going to do it, what are the grounds for objecting to it? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm deeply concerned with Martinphi's use of the term "actionable" as the motivation for including examples. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall that my push to get incivility defined as a poisoning of the environment didn't get anywhere. In fact, even my desire to expand the definition of civility to nastiness ostensibly leveled against groups, but obviously applicable to people who edit the article didn't get anywhere.  If not either of those things, we're pretty much back to "actionable."  Unless there are other suggestions. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Both of the points raised here by User:Martinphi are in fact adequately covered in existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --
 * The sanction against nastiness ostensibly leveled against groups, is covered by the normal process of reading our "rules" in a broad manner, if that is reasonable.
 * And -- Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of conflict and stress. -- is currently policy; the poisoning of atmosphere is not mentioned, that metaphor is not needed.--NewbyG (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. [And towards each other, singularly and severally, each and all to all.] Broadly interpreted, as is reasonable. I think --NewbyG (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit - DIFFs

 * I would agree with this -- In broad policies like this one it helps to keep things general. [...]-per- Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)  --
 * However if editors keep adding examples, the helpful ones will be kept by consensus.
 * Yes, I agree with User:GTBacchus that examples can be useful at this time, especially since there is an impetus for adding them, it is a list, after all. If they are helpful, they stay in by consensus.
 * I think I prefer for stylistic reasons that such "jargon" terms as POV-pusher and other all-caps links go into the Footnotes section maybe. It may be that such lists, or extensions of such lists are more properly in guidelines, rather than the CIVIL policy page. (this could also be discussed, see Wikipedia talk:Civility.)
 * There are options, that is good. Re-writing of little snippets of info. is easier if there are options, such as the Footnotes section., I think. --NewbyG (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to go with the general consensus on the examples, whatever that consensus eventually turns out to be. Premature bold edits should be avoided.  If I remember, the examples were in for quite a while (consensus), then one or two eidtors started to try and edit war them out.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe these are better done as proper shortcuts. --NewbyG (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit
--belligerent is 38 entries after behaviour on page 67 of the dictionary I have to hand. (Behaviour with a u, but that's another story.) --NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said
See Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6. The Rfc has been open all month (April). --

I found this very moving material in Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6 /Archive 6

I see no reason to accept any more incivility than we already tolerate. I have never seen a troll win an argument with a good contributor because they used this policy as a club. -per-Crum375 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

There is never a reason to be uncivil, ever. If the person you are dealing with is being crude or obnoxious, there are many ways of properly dealing with that, but none of them is to also be obnoxious or crude. Bottom line: be nice and kind to everyone, and firm with rule violators, but never uncivil. -per-Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

The right way to handle both is by maintaining a cool, calm demeanor, being very clear about the content and behavior rules, and requesting help from the proper channels when needed. This is the way forward, not eroding our behavior rules in the vain hope that it will help influence someone or something. -per-Crum375 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

Becoming uncivil yourself to defend yourself or prevent attacks will only backfire. Be nice and firm and you'll persevere. Be nasty and rude, even when "provoked", and you'll lose. -per-Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

You move forward by being nice and firm, not by descending to the lowest common denominator. -per-Crum375 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

If someone is civil while trolling, or whatever, that would be handled elsewhere. The point is that there is no justification ever to become uncivil, regardless of the behavior of the other side. -per-Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 

Bottom line: be nice and kind to everyone, and firm with rule violators, but never uncivil. -per-Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

Well said, all of it, --NewbyG (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest archive
(:Archiving due soon? --NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc.  It has NOT been dealt with.  In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility.  And many other editors said similar things.  So I know from experience that what you say is not so.  It is not adequately covered in existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  If it were, something would have been done in the cases I have experienced.  Reading of current rules in a broad manner is not done.  One way or another, this policy is broken.  I've seen editors simply stop editing because of the nasty atmosphere.  Look on the Bleep talk page.  Look even on this page, where people tried to eliminate olive because she edited at Bleep, and so had a COI (?????). Anyway, the current policy isn't applied. It's broken. This is a proven case, not something to argue about. The civility rules, if they indeed are as broad as you say, are not enforced. Indeed, I've edited here for about 2 years, and never saw or heard of what you just said. It's complete news to me. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. [And towards each other, singularly and severally, each and all to all.] Broadly interpreted, as is reasonable. I think --
 * Long discussions have been held before of previous events on other talk pages; that has not been helping discussion on this page. That is why we are archiving more often; Take Arbcom matters to the proper noticeboard; discuss edits, to this page, and not editors, would be nice. --NewbyG (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very correct that the policy is, broadly interpreted, good enough. It's just broken in practice.  So, what do we do, say it's good enough in theory, so do nothing about the practice?  Maybe the discussion of cases in point didn't help.  Ok.  Let's not use examples then, but all I'm saying is that the policy is broken.  The policy doesn't work in the very places it ought to help most that is, in contentious articles, and relative to chronically uncivil editors.  Do nothing? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If User:Martinphi you are saying that our dispute resolution process is broken; that also is a matter for discussion elsewhere. --NewbyG (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the policy "works" reasonably well. Given that this is a community of strangers interacting anonymously over the Internet, the overall level of civility here is remarkable. And violating the policy does have consequences - foremost among them a loss of credibility. That's the punishment for incivility. You get things done here by working collaboratively, and people who are chronically uncivil are only shooting themselves in the foot. The user to whom Martinphi is alluding is a perfect example. The policy is not "broken" just because admins aren't handing out blocks for "actionable" incivility. MastCell Talk 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see it. I see editors be uncivil, drive the others away, and get to do what they want with articles.  Especially on low traffic articles.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of behaviors drive away good editors - tendentiousness, relentless advocacy, WP:OWNership, gamesmanship, edit-warring, etc. Incivility undoubtedly plays a role, but it's hardly the root of all evil, and there's no reason to think that this policy is more "broken" or in need of fixing than many others. MastCell Talk 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said it was more broken. The reason it's enforced more is that it's less broken. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidance
It is easy to write good policy if you are managing uncontroversial subjects. The policy is mostly not used until there is a content dispute. Then, things routinely escalate to incivility. If the policies do not manage such situations, then the policies are flawed. What is the sense in discussing a civility policy if you are not going to see how well it works in content disputes? This is exactly the place to discuss civility in the paranormal articles. Tom Butler (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. You don't need CIV on non-contentious articles. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The holistic approach (recent)
See Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6

As I mentioned several days ago I am interested in what the article would look like with some information on an over-arching paradigm. I thought I'd try this out to see what it looks like, reads like ... I am not attached to it, but thought we could look at something like this as a start to looking at the civility issue in a more holistic way.-per-(olive (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

And Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6 and Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6

For the holistic approach, if there are any advances with that material, or thoughts. --NewbyG (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the holistic approach was shot down here. It was suggested by a forward thinking admin. that I do the thing first as an essay. I am moving in that direction. I am open to suggestions and advice.(olive (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * It was a really good idea. Maybe we could revive it, and everyone would jump on the bandwagon, and we could have consensus. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm
NewbyG was hoping to keep fringe discussions out of this, but that is not going to happen:. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you pretending it hasn't been happening? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets be perfectly straight here. Discussion of fringe came into this discussion with RSpeer and Science Apologist. I am not discussing the right or wrong of that, but simply that is where it started. Taking this discussion to this arena when the topic should be civility and how to deal with it creates a Red Herring of the largest size. I am truly puzzled by what can be accomplished by staying on this path. Certainly civility and collboration will be held hostage,  and the article will not and cannot be served by such side steps. I would suggest then that all such comments be laid aside, and saved for private discussions and pages if they are deemed necessary. Perhaps we could continue to edit and discuss this very important policy, leave out discussion of fringe, save the damaging and hurting  of other editors for  hypothetical situations, and treat real people in the  real life of this encyclopedia with respect and dignity. Not doing so while attempting to change this particular article can only be called hypocritical and a sham(olive (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes, there isn't any need to bring anything fringy into it. Good ideas. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Contentious articles are best sorted out at the appropriate talk pages, and noticeboards; Protection and Admin/Incidents and so forth. Good luck! Incivility on this page should be kept to a minimum, and that includes reporting the insults of others, it is unnecessary. DIFFs, are good, diffs of edits to the project page, not of specific insults from another talk page, another battle. --

Disregard any canvassing that does not result in editing to the project page. Scrutinize those edits, and use common sense and courtesy. --NewbyG (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued

 * Oh, I didn't report it as an insult. Why would I?  Like I said, the policy is broken.  I put it on this page because people here should know what's going on if suddenly other editors, all of a POV, started showing up.  Sort of a "heads up, this is not ideal Wikipedia process!"


 * Maybe you're right. I just thought people ought to know. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a core policy page. If the changes being proposed are objectionable to a large number of established Wikipedians, regardless of what you perceive their POV to be, then they are probably not appropriate. On the other hand, if the proposed changes actually improve the policy, then having additional voices as part of the consensus will be helpful. No? MastCell Talk 04:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no current proposals for change on this discussion page. Who would want to change a core policy, except by small increments that are reasonable and reflect wikipedia's best interests. By proper editing to the project page, there have been some 'examples' added in Engaging in incivility. Some have been kept. Some in the Footnotes section. No specific proposals for change, just update as necessary, so fresh input to the discussion or page is welcome. --NewbyG (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not by a bunch of highly uncivil editors who are complaining that the CIV policy is being used against them- instead of just deciding to be civil. If they really can't help themselves being uncivil -and they say they can't- maybe this isn't the right place for them.  But canvassing for the opinions of these editors in order to head off a pending consensus and influence a core policy page wasn't correct.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 04:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the policy be better respected if it truly represented consensus, instead of becoming known as the tool of a few editors of a certain mindset? It may be easier in the short run for editors to have their way unimpeded, but in the long run, if one truly wants the policy to be meaningful it needs input from others. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We aren't going to get consensus on CIV with editors who reject outright or can't abide by basic civility. Those editors, of course, think themselves hard done by when civil editors try and get CIV enforced.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your diff is irrelevant, because SA was participating here before my post to that page. Are you objecting instead to MastCell's participation, since he's the only one who was brought in by my post? Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What is happening here to focussed discussion on improving the page? The argument has not led to nor can lead to good edits to the project page. And there are assertions, assertions of incivility and refusal to abide by consensus some of them stale or vague, and that are made mostly without Diffs, diffs of relevance to this page. --NewbyG (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When and why does incivility happen?
In other cases, it may be done on purpose: either to distract other editors from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project. --NewbyG (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that any experienced editor would disagree with Raymond's points about consensus. If I understand Martin's point correctly, he has some concern about canvassing which would however, "seed" the discussion with POV editors, skew consensus, and thus reduce effective true collaboration. Martin's point, like Raymond's, is well taken. The only real agreement or consensus I see here in the last day or so is towards discussion that focuses on the article itself, and that moves away from any discussion of fringe. That seems reasonable as a direction we can take and can succeed with.(olive (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Okay, here is an instance of baiting and outright incivility by Kww on 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is little doubt that he was talking about me. His edits seemed to show a very strong and determined intention to win his point, which I noted that he was "talking like a religious zealot" because he was basically saying that anyone who does not believe as he does is a charlatan.  Perhaps in poor taste and against the intent of the civility rule, but what followed was more interesting. rspeer came to his aid by admonishing me.  Is rspeer and admin? It is so hard to know. The page was immediately archived and I cannot find the Kww's Insult header in the archive anywhere, as if an embarrassing moment was swept under the table.  Tom Butler (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It does no good raising stale issues at the vandalism noticeboard, nor at AN/I nor at 3RR. I dont see how they can profitably be discussed here. --NewbyG (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about with "It does no good raising stale issues at the vandalism noticeboard, nor at AN/I nor at 3RR." There was a request for examples and I gave one. I do agree that bringing it up does no good, unless it serves as an illustration. I will try to use fresher examples next time.


 * The question of civility cannot be selectively applied, and that is what some seem to be arguing for. If the policy does not work when it is put to the test, then it is broken and it does not matter where that test occurs. Part of a holistic view might be zero tolerance for any incivility, whether it is provoked or not. In my view, Kww and I should have been sanctioned. I was the only one sanctioned, which makes the policy look broken to me. Tom Butler (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no request from me for further such examples, I don't see them doing any good here. --NewbyG (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where were you sanctioned for incivility? I see nothing in your block log. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He means, everyone came down on him, but the editors being mean to him were defended. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very confusing. So there was actually no "sanction" in terms of policy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The pruning begins (began)
A particularly impolite user can also aggravate other editors into being impolite themselves resulting in non-constructive behavior further escalating the level of incivility. --NewbyG (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Was too much pruned?

 * On that note, I would suggest reinserting the sentence reading "Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact." This was removed as part of recent pruning, but I think it's a reasonable description of baiting, which is an uncivil behavior. The part about "trolling" could be removed, since that's a fairly inflammatory word, and it could just be described as "not a civil way to interact". MastCell Talk 17:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what could easily happen is that an editor may be doing their best, presenting arguments civilly and the best arguments they know. They don't agree with the other editor, and the other editor gets angry and uncivil.  In this case, it's the first editor who gets blamed for the second editor's breach of CIV.  All the first editor (and/or his friends) need to do is keep saying to the first editor "you're pushing me on purpose," and then call in a friendly admin to have the first editor blocked.  This is just a weapon.  There is no excuse for incivility, and this is just trying to create one.


 * Perhaps I'm wrong in this. If so, could you present diffs which clearly show a civil editor deliberately pushing someone to incivility?  We're talking about the psychological state of the pusher here.... —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be misunderstanding me. This passage does not "excuse" incivility in any way; it merely emphasizes that baiting or provoking other editors is also an uncivil form of interaction. This represents what I think is a valid and widely supported general principle. It's not a response to a specific incident (and I find that trying to amend policy pages to address specific disputes in which I've been involved is unproductive), though this is perhaps a canonical example. Since you apparently do have specific concerns - that this addition would be abused in bad faith by an editor working in tandem with a "friendly admin" - is that something you've observed, or a theoretical concern? MastCell Talk 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, good example (at least the soup thing). I've seen that a whole lot.  How would we keep the thing within normal bounds though?    I've seen it happen that one person refuses to "get" the argument of another, then starts using whatever is available to bludgeon the other user. Since person A doesn't get it, person B politely repeats and repeats.  In this case, person A could use CIV to "get" person B- with the above sentence you suggest.  How do we prevent that? —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is a tricky little statement. In truth if you breach civility, its your own fault no matter the circumstances. We have to be responsible for our own actions it seems to me, as adults. If we breach civilty, we should take the consequences and not blame others. I guess this statement is a kind of "blame the other guy" one, which is not a behaviour that supports collaboration. Perhaps the statement could be reversed from "blaming" to being supportive with something like: Create an environment that supports other editors, and that does not encourage or support breaches of incivility.(olive (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * The 2 sentences reading "Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact." -- could indeed go back in. However the word 'trolling' is problematical here. I thought it better that this point be "covered" or included under "Taunting, goading and baiting" at #Engaging in incivility but if that is not enough then a rewrite and return of those 2 sentences could be a solution. I might try a re-write, although I think I favour leaving it out, it's already covered, probably. Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that "trolling" should be omitted as it's an inflammatory and unecessary term here. It's probably most appropriate to put this under the heading of "Taunting, goading, and baiting" as you suggest. I'd favor a single sentence amplifying on "Taunting, goading, and baiting" - along the lines of: "Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This is an uncivil way to interact." MastCell Talk 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think instead of "trolling" we could use a word like "gaming". undefinedUntil  18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried this: Taunting, goading or baiting. Such actions provoke retaliatory instances of incivility, and do not contribute to the writing of an encyclopedia. --
 * In theory it might be best to consider converting the section into prose. Maybe. --NewbyG (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Things have been happening here so fast and I have not had time to read and think about everything as much as I hope I had. Among some removed things there were also some which I liked, but I might not have time to look at it more today. I think the sentence "deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility" would be clearer than "baiting" which I think is unclear, but could someone give me a link to one example where this has happened please so that I could have a look at it? Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  08:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that your pruning was appropriate. Taunting is the behaviour that is contrary to this policy. The essay on baiting (a link you eliminated) is not well written, IMO, so I'm fine with your shorter simpler version. Sunray (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pruned again, converted a sub-section to prose
converted this section to prose. Any bits chopped probably belong elsewhere if they need to go back. --NewbyG (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reacting to incivility
Would it be productive to have a section on this page about what to do if you feel someone is being uncivil? I think it would be good to advise editors that the best response to incivility is neither incivility of one's own, nor even accusing the other editor of incivility. Should that be said here? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should. Perhaps with a link to Ignore personal attacks.  Friday (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. Much better than my, "hey, your an adult grow up, eh?" Its a teaching point in a sense, and maybe wherever a new editor can be helped along well, that's a good thing. Linking as suggested by Friday above seems a good idea as well.(olive (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC))


 * I notice we don't ignore vandalism, or ignore disruptive editing, or ignore edit warring. May I ask why we should ignore uncivil behavior? It is rather possible that many people seek action to personal attacks and incivility not because they need to grow up or have a thin skin, but because they believe it creates and unproductive collaborative editing environment. Ignoring a problem does not always make it go away. undefinedUntil  19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that personal attacks are unproductive and harm our collaborative environment. However, getting overly upset about it is also unproductive.  The essay just tries to make this clear.  IMO it's good advice and it wouldn't be bad to link to it from here.  Friday (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's what is being said here... in layers. First, a collaborative environment means take resonsibility for yourself and the other editors. Make it as pleasant as you can. Collaborate effectively, with all that means . Then if you have problems with incivility this is where you go, what you do. I didn't think there was any sense of ignoring the situation, but rather of clarifying it, and then adding helpful information. My sense anyway. (olive (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Very good ideas here, GTB's orignial suggestion, Friday's link, olive's summary above. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree that getting overly upset about anything is unproductive, I think a reasonable response to incivility is often labeled as excessive. That is not to say that all reactions to incivility are productive. undefinedUntil  22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that incivility be ignored. I think it should be responded to, just not with more incivility, nor with accusations of having "violated" a policy. The best response to incivility is increased civility, and diplomacy, and focused dispute resolution behavior. If someone is being uncivil, that's an opportunity to identify what's making them upset, and address that concern. Until(1 == 2), when you say that a "reasonable response to incivility is often labeled as excessive," what do you mean? What kind of reasonable response is that? More generally, what does a reasonable response to incivility look like? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think that one should tell an uncivil person they are being uncivil before reporting? Should you warn them if you are about to report? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 02:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that make sense?

 * I wouldn't report them. It's not a crime. I'd ask someone else what they thought of the situation, preferably via WP:3O, assuming it's a content dispute. I wouldn't tell them they're being uncivil, either. I'd respond to what they actually said, civilly, and in a way that firmly dismisses off-topic, personal comments, while refocusing the discussion on edits. If someone else comes in and says that the person seems uncivil, especially someone unrelated, that's much more powerful than if you say it yourself - you, who are after all involved in a dispute with them already. Does something like that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't see what is wrong with pointing out that a person has violated a policy. If someone is uncivil then you tell them not to be in a polite manner. Of course you don't violate the civility policy when enforcing it, but not accusing the other person of incivility when that is what is happening is just denial. If someone becomes more uncivil because they have been asked not to, then that is a problem that goes beyond how we enforce the policy. undefinedUntil  02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you find to be the most effective response to incivility? We're after best practices, not just practices that we don't see what's wrong with, right? I said I wouldn't tell them they're being uncivil, because I would prefer they come to that conclusion themselves. That fosters better collaboration with that person in the future. I think it's better, so I aim for it. Does that seem wrong? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I would say the best practice would be to inform them of policy and ask politely that they follow it. They may not be aware of the policy, or they may not be aware what they are doing is uncivil, it is even possible that they know it is uncivil and against policy and don't care. The correct action in all three cases is to inform them of the facts. undefinedUntil  03:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Having tried various approaches, I find that the best, in my experience, differs from that. Do you suppose I'm mistaken? Is it possible that there is a better means of de-escalation than telling someone that they're breaking a rule? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well often they don't know this crucial piece of information. undefinedUntil  04:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, my mileage varies from that considerably. I find that most people know that we (as humans) are to treat each other right. Most people who don't do that are slipping, and would realize it pretty quickly if it's made apparent. The gentlest way to make it apparent is to let them see the stark difference between their tone and yours, without outright accusing them of anything. An explicit rule-call puts egg on their face, so they're now embarrassed, in addition to whatever they were already being uncivil about. The cause of most incivility is not that people don't know that it's a rule. We've all known that for a long time. For those who don't know it, they should hear about it from a third party, not from someone who feels offended about something they've just said. It's better that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am strange, but I love a good flame war as much as the next guy, but when I found it was against the rules here to be uncivil I chose to respect that. I have also seen others do the same when they learn of the policy.


 * Also, many people may know about the policy but not realize that how they are acting seems uncivil, yet again it is a service to inform them of this. undefinedUntil  04:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm pretty well convinced of the unproductiveness of flame-wars, which does a lot to extinguish any enthusiasm I might feel otherwise. I agree that it is a service to inform someone when they're being uncivil. I maintain that the best way to do this is not in explicit words from someone who is offended, in response to the remark by which they're offended. I can think immediately of three better ways of letting them know: someone else, or later, or more subtly. Whatever's clever, right. I just think that saying, "you're being uncivil, please read our civility policy," is often suboptimal. Not crap, but suboptimal. There are better ways of doing precisely what you say: informing them. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is always room for a sparkling personality to bring a breath of fresh air to any exchange. undefinedUntil  04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We request a reasonable degree of civility towards others
Ignoring a problem does not always make it go away. But Ignore does form part of our strategies, and arsenel of techniques for dealing with various problems. --

There are sound reasons to ignore inadvertent or minor personal attacks against oneself, just as we BRIgnore long-term vandals and socks and spammers; different reasons in each case, but Ignore is part of our strategies. One of the best reasons for ignoring personal attacks against oneself, is that it provides the opportunity for consensus to be observed in action, as an uninvolved editor may well take the opportunity to weigh in, and give a polite well-reasoned admonition to the editor who made the uncivil statement or post. --

There are also very, very good reasons to deal with on-going and blatant incivility, and to deal with tendentiousness, WP:OWNership, edit-warring, soapboxing, and other transgressions; because they creates an unproductive and not a collaborative editing environment. We must take action, reasonable action as a community, and make it clear in this documentation what the community expects, by way of a reasonable level of civility. --NewbyG (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that minor or unintended incivility should be shrugged off. I also fully agree that it is important to deal with ongoing and blatant violations. undefinedUntil  03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with all of that. I think that when incivility first occurs, the best response by the victim is to refrain from reporting the person, or saying, "don't be uncivil", and to take de-escalatory steps. I think the best response from an uninvolved observer - or even better, from someone who agrees with the uncivil party regarding content - is to react to the incivility, and say, "hey, I don't think that was fair". If the uncivil party persists, then the best action for those involved is to request that outsiders look into it. For those outsiders, the best response is to issue stronger warnings, or possibly to talk about or issue sanctions. In general, as the scope widens, harsher measures become appropriate - for those close to the incident itself, greater stoicism is preferable, so as not to start a fire. If I say that I think one response is "best", I don't mean to imply that other responses are somehow illegal or something to judge people over. A wide variety of responses to incivility are quite natural, and part of all of our job is understanding that, and working to get past the less productive reactions. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no need to escalate such a situation, which I did not mean to imply in my previous post. I think a useful addition could be made on the topic of dealing with incivility, or ignoring minor incivility, is that it? --NewbyG (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't think you'd implied that. I was just thinking aloud. I agree that something useful could be said in the policy about dealing with incivility. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, but you see, I thought that I may have implied such, no matter. Yes, do write something in that vein or continue on the talk page. ( 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)) --
 * I do hope the Rfc or some other scrutiny results in welcome input. --NewbyG (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The examples are important as an illustration. The point is that some assume that these things are not a problem. However, if the policy does not deal with that kind of situation, then there remains work to be done.


 * I like the idea about. "... give a polite well-reasoned admonition to the editor who made the uncivil statement or post." That was what was missing in the example I gave. It was also missing when the "moron" example showed up. In fact, efforts to find help only produced more "moron" comments from those sympathetic to the offending editor's view.


 * Back to the question of Wikipedia culture, public opinion is important, and it would be an excellent outcome if editors showed their intolerance for incivility. I do not know how you can write a rule that says editors are responsible to show their intolerance, so that goes back to Olive's holistic approach. Right now, there is something of an "alphabet soup" of rules addressing interaction amongst editors. Perhaps we need to look at the terminology we have for telling an editor he needs to be less offensive. And yes, without backing the editor into a corner. I think the holistic approach can help change the paradigm."We are our brother's keeper" works for some people. Tom Butler (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing
I removed the word outing from this page since I can't see any reference on the page to revealing a person's sexuality. In fact. other than in the header the word nor an explanation of the term is present in the page. It is therefore unnecessary. Hiding T 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is "outing" in the sense of revealing a person's off-wiki identity, not sexual orientation.Kww (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably best to use common language rather than Wiki-jargon, e.g. "revealing personal information." Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Outing in the context of Wikipedia refers to revealing or pointing to information about a person's real-life identity. I was glad to find this section, because I've never been quite clear whether it's okay to refer to a person's real-life identity as long as the person has revealed it him or herself elsewhere in the wiki.  I gathered that it was frowned upon, but this is the first time I've seen it written in policy.  Before reading it, I was considering whether  to reveal something a person has revealed, or acknowledged, on other talk pages about his/her identity that would directly contradict an assertion that person has made about COI; after reading the section, I won't hazard referring to that information, although I think it is relevant to the making of a neutral encyclopedia that that information be more generally known.


 * At any rate, almost half of this section refers to outing, and I wouldn't have read the section for information about outing if the heading had simply said "Harrassment."  It doesn't matter that the word "outing" doesn't appear in the text; there are at least two paragraphs that are entirely about outing.  (edit conflict) But I wouldn't insist on the word; if the heading said "revealing personal information" per Arritt above, that would be okay with me too. Woonpton (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on. Are we saying it's somehow bad to reveal an editor's real name? Hiding T 17:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You didn't know that? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit taken aback on this as well, Hiding. I thought you were a fairly senior person around here. Revealing someone's name that chooses to hide behind a handle is considered to be a very serious act. It comes from the fact that people confuse privacy with anonymity. I fully support privacy, but think that anonymity should be discouraged. That's why I use my name, and think everyone should. Still, in a system that is set up to support anonymity, breaching it is a serious offense.Kww (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I forgot it. I remember contact details being bad form to post, yes, but real names? Age may be catching up on me. Hiding T 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Crum's reversion; while Hiding is right that there was some brief discussion here about an explanatory phrase perhaps being better in the heading than the word "outing" which may not be understood by everyone, I think the solution using the explanatory phrase along with the label "outing" is even better because it covers all bases. I'm not sure I understand why there would be any objection to that.Woonpton (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My objections are based on style issues and the need to repeat a link within the same line, something we actively tend to discourage. Hope that clarifies for you and you find my edits amenable.  I'd also be interested if anyone could point me to any discussion as to the revealing of a personal name being harassment.  (comment added:  16:56, 27 April 2008 Hiding (Talk))


 * Well, for starters, there's the fact that WP:OUTING redirects to WP:HARRASSMENT. Then, on the latter page, there's a section titled "Posting of personal information" that starts out, "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment."   Woonpton (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I meant discussion on adopting it as policy. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Hiding T 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that personal information should never be divulged or repeated, no matter how it became available. Biographical information is a very different matter. I do not personally chose to use a fictitious persona in Wikipedia, but I am willing to honor the decision of an editor to do so and I understand there may be important reasons that have nothing to do with how the person edits. But if the person has revealed his or her identity and biographical information that pertains to how he or she contributes to Wikipedia, then I think it should be available to all editors. How else can they judge a potential conflict of interest? The appropriate thing to do would be for the editor to say what he or she is willing to reveal in the personal talk page, and let that be the boundary.

This is not a civility question unless it is done to harass or in some way harm an editor, but I do think that a "no outing" clause should distinguish between biographical and personal information. Tom Butler (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems like a good point: to distinguish between biographical and personal information. I think I go along with that. Not sure if the place to do so is on this policy page or another or guideline page. Perhaps this section is the most appropriate place, if anyone has any ideas. Thanks. --NewbyG (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points. To be honest, I can't really see what level of harrassment can ensue from teh revelation of your real name. It's the extra information attached to your name that can be construed as harrassment if revealed. On another point, does the use of brackets in a section header bug anyone else but me? Hiding T 11:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For most people who have a visible presence in the real world, revealing the real name is essentially the same as revealing the other personal information, because a click or two of the mouse will easily lead to business address and phone number and other contact information.  I think it would set a bad precedent to suggest that revealing someone's name is any less bad than revealing any other personal information.


 * There was a recent instance I happened to observe where someone mentioned, in two different places, the name and biographical information of a scientist (not contact information, but his university, area of expertise and number of publications) who had given enough information about himself that someone had deduced who he was;  the person who posted that information (not as an intentional outing for the purpose of harrassment but just to make a point that the person was an established scientist who might have been treated a little more politely  than to be scolded for not understanding procedure and kicked out the door)  was warned to remove the biographical information, and when he removed it one place but forgot to remove it in the other place --a user talk page--  the remaining personal information was removed by an arbitrator.  This is considered, I gather, a very serious breach, and if I've picked that up as a newbie, I'm surprised there are more senior editors unaware of it.


 * Having said that, I do agree that it serves the purposes of those who have a hidden COI and want to keep it hidden, that it is considered a breach of etiquette to reveal biographical information even if the person has revealed it themselves; it seems that it would serve the community to be able to share that information more widely, as Tom says above, when it relates to editing.     But in addition to the  example I just referred to, I've seen a couple of other instances where people have been warned even for sharing, on user talk pages, biographical information (not personal information) about someone else that the person being talked about has shared or acknowledged themselves on their user talk pages.    I like the way it's worded in this policy, that if the person has revealed the information themselves, and if it serves the encyclopedia to share what you've read on someone's talk page, then it might be revealed.  Oh, I see someone removed that paragraph again.  Without it, there's nothing in policy anywhere (that I can find)  that suggests that there might be any justification for sharing any personal or biographical information about another person, for any reason other than a formal COI investigation.   Woonpton (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The widest meaning of the word "outing" in this context would mean to "revealing private information about someone that they do not wish revealed". I think it fits in this policy. undefinedUntil 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors have the option of not being editors if doing so might endanger them or their job. I certainly do not want responsibility for their well-being. At the same time, if the editor is going to be abrasive and a bully in Wikipedia, then he or she can expect to have others want to retaliate in kind. The thing about a social experiment is that you need an effective feedback system and social disapproval is one of the best.


 * All of the subject matter experts I know are public in that their contact information is available via university rosters, publications they have contributed to and professional organizations. That is part of the world for them and that is an important way for them to grow their reputation. I am associated with one of the more alarming fringe subjects and it draws criticism from just about every corner of society, including the offended religious and the offended scientists. Even so, I have never been harassed in any way that seems to be feared here.


 * I am not advocating that people mine the Internet for biographical information. If an editor wants to put the information on the personal page, then it should be considered public knowledge. Wikipedia publications in which the editor has publicly divulged biographical information should also be public. Tom Butler (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time with the idea that repeating information that has been revealed by the affected editor on Wikipedia is a problem. My userpage reveals quite a bit about me, and, if you dug around my posts on talk pages, you could probably figure out shows that I watch, books that I have read, and products that I have designed. By saying those things on talk pages, I've made them free game for Wikipedians to discuss. There was a case where an editor successfully linked me to my corporate identity, and revealed the name of my corporation on Wikipedia. No harm done, but that was, in my mind, a form of outing: I had never mentioned it, she had to do some minor detective work to discover it, and it didn't have any relevance to anything under discussion. The repeating of on-Wiki information on-Wiki is not a problem, the revealing of off-Wiki information on-Wiki is.Kww (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but perhaps civility is not the place to make the distinction. As we are talking now, there is personal information such as tax id, bank account number and perhaps even the name of family members. Then there is biographical information that has been made public by the editor and that has not. Of the three, the only information that should be considered pertinent to the business of Wikipedia is biographical information made public by the editor. Even then, it should be seen at best to be in poor taste to use information that has nothing to do with the article. For instance, I am an ordained Spiritualist, but that is irrelevant in a discussion about the speed of light, for instance. In such a hypothetical case, use of the information can only be seen as an effort to somehow discredit me as an editor. Tom Butler (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, this section of policy is meant to be a sanction against disclosing private information about someone that they do not wish revealed, or disclosing publicly such information which could likely lead to harm to them and Wikipedia if it were disclosed. According to User page, contributors are allowed to provide some personal information, and that is done for the purpose of assisting the process of writing the encyclopedia. --

''Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth. (If you are concerned with privacy, you may not want to and are by no means required to emulate this.)''

I think most of the points made above here in this section by most users are sensible, and could probably be incorporated into working text for policy, if that was needed. Perhaps WP:User page has got it coverered though, for most purposes. --NewbyG (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is really hard to find things in Wikipedia. A person almost needs to know what the guidelines are called before they can be found. Even more fun is following related links given in the introduction--round and round in tight little circles.


 * Is there a reference that could be given at the top of each related guideline? A decision tree or a table of related content would be nice. When I began to edit, it was not long before people were hitting me with NPOV, COI, SNPOV ... as if they thought they were communicating real information. I am seeing the same thing here but in the light that this and this and this article covers parts of that point. It may be that there is no integrated view that is causing the trouble. Tom Butler (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Formulation problems
While I agree that the core of WP:CIVIL is reasonable policy, that core is covered in WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. As it stands, this is a behavioural guideline mixed in with things that could never, and should never be enforced, such as "Balance criticisms by providing a constructive comment as well." - hence essay.

I think this needs divided in two. This page would include the behavioural guideline-level discussion, another, new page, say, WP:How to improve civility would cover all the essay-level suggestions. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is clearly a behavioural guideline, but WP:HARASS should be policy, to match WP:NPA - those are the core policy issues. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been very, very bold: Let's see whether it sticks =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

( BOLD DIFF)

01:11, 28 April 2008 Shoemaker's Holiday (Talk | contribs) (12,511 bytes) (Clearly a behavioural guideline BASED ON important policies such as WP:NPA and WP:HARASS.)

What problems?
I am not seeing any problems, nor particular problems with the edits so far.

Five pillars

Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project:

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

--> Wikipedia has a code of conduct Be civil and Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. No problems there, --NewbyG (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Civility is important, but so are other guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:MOS. The hard "policy" parts are WP:NPA and WP:HARASS, and by no means should those be weakened, indeed, we almost certainly fail to emphasise them enough here, and should work to increase their prominence. But the page as it stood before I got bold claimed to be policy, which is defined by policy as firm rules which almost never should be violated - then included a section of feel-good suggestions like "remember to say please and thank you" - good advice, but not really actionable rules =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether WP:CIVIL is a policy or a guideline is 1 issue.
 * Whether WP:CIVIL is well-written throughout is 2 issues.
 * Whether WP:HARASS is a policy or guideline is 3 issues.
 * I would say, probably, 1. don't care either way. 2. Yeah, some could be split off. 3. Dunno.
 * I would welcome further input. At the moment, some trimming of WP:CIVIL has been underway. It may be best not to implement radical solutions, but to proceed with updates as necessary.
 * These sorts of decisions would generally attract comment from a number of editors, as part of the consensus process, which is of course begun by editing the page. --NewbyG (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, if consensus goes agaisnt me, that's fine, but WP:CONSENSUS does suggest being bold as a first step, then seeing what happens =) Just.. please don't revert the edit that fixed it so that calling a good-faith but awful edit vandalism in an edit summary was no longer implied to be worse than racist attacks =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure- As to your second point, Look, the list in #Engaging in incivility can go in any order, they are not on an increasing scale of any sort. And there can be inclusions or deletions. Maybe the section is better as prose. --
 * As to the first point, consensus is always forming, always formed. (See the visual aid, or flowchart at Wikipedia:Consensus.) -- NewbyG (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not in any particular order now, but it used to be divided into two lists, and the division between the two lists was rather eccentric. Maybe the racist attacks item was added after the poorly-judged "more serious" label got removed. I haven't checked. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker's Holiday, I doubt that "be bold" means disregard consensus or at least discussing your intended changes before making them. In effect, you just took ownership of the article until others have had a change to consider the changes. (How many time will other editors refer to this article before consensus is reestablished?)


 * Since I lost track of the changes, I will assume the text is yours. The first two items in "Engaging in incivility" are now redundant. Is that your intention. If it was your intention to take "could never, and should never be enforced" items out, can you tell me what you mean by "Incivility creates a hot, unfriendly space and a sense of threat..."


 * There is much more. It would be good if all of us took Newbyguesses' lead to discuss changes first. Tom Butler (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, that isn't mine. I just rearranged that section a little bit to fix some funny sorting. I think all my changes have been pretty edited by now =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing the list
OK, we've sorted that out for now, WP:CIVIL is policy, as it amplifies WP:5. --
 * Sorry if all of these edits seem confusing. If editors make additions to the list, they ought to stay if they are good. Yes, there is some redundancy in the list at Consensus, which is probably better at this time than arguments over what has been left out. At least four items could be combined, I think, they say much the same things, (but in slightly different words which may make it easier for different editors to understand, maybe). Perhaps then it would be easier to convert the section to prose, if anyone has any ideas. The policy has to remain stable, that does not mean that minor improvements/changes should always be resisted. --NewbyG (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think making some other things into prose was a good idea, but not this one which is easier to read as a list. Best regards Rhanyeia  ♥  ♫  07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd items
"Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user)." - it's not clear what "requires technical help" means here, or what difference there is between IP contributions and user contributions. "Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)." - not actually possible at all. --Random832 (contribs) 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)