Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 8

Incivil remarks without naming any particular editor
Sometimes editors make remarks like "I'm sick of all these idiots making stupid edits", referring to undesirable edits from various people. It isn't a personal attack because no one person is being targetted, but it still seems to breach the general principle of civility. Comments? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that definitely this kind of incivility iyou gly go away

s unacceptable because it destroys a general environment. The ultimate best collaborative environment depends on the behaviour of all editors, and how that behaviour affects not only individuals, but groups, and the working environment. Civility, I think should define how one contributes to the group process as an editor both in how one treats other editors, but also in how one attempts to manage the working environment.(olive (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Certainly unacceptable on an article talk page, less so if it was done on a user talk-page (who was not one of the "idiots") Of course, unacceptable and actionable aren't the same thing. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I guess "actionable" could mean various things, from the perp being blocked, down to being given a gentle reminder about the ground rules.  The former would be rather excessive in most cases, but the latter certainly would not be. --  JackofOz (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, of course. I was thinking of the higher end of the scale =) And, of course, like anything, degree matters - venting about IP vandals is not a problem, declaring (in seriousness) that all editors who oppose you are evil, deceitful members of a conspiracy lead by the CIA and the milk marketing board... that's crossed some lines. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with connexion
Hi! I Have some problem to connect at Wikipedia. I can't acces to wikipedia. I'don't know the reason. I say to french admistrator, because i edit lot of in wikipedia french language. Please resolve this problem.I must change my computer ton acces to wikipidia. Excuse me but my english is basic. Thank'you.--Great11 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Language edit: "as such"
Any objection if I replace this line:
 * This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and, as such, are to be avoided.

with
 * This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and, therefore, are to be avoided.

?

The first is improper use of "as such"--see for example Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, you're right ... go for it... should not be a problem since its not a change in actual policy wording just a copy edit.(olive (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Gross vulgarity
Hi, folks. Sorry for asking a question which perhaps has been asked many times before. However- how do we all feel about gross vulgarity? I don't mean the occasional "hell" or "damn", but things like "fuck" and "fucking". Say that someone writes, "this is fucking ridiculous!" or "this proposal is completely fucked up!". I feel that gross vulgarity like my latter examples is disruptive, chilling and just simply not appropriate for this project. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone is attacking a proposal, then it's a case of "Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED". On the other hand, "You fucking idiot!" is an No personal attacks violation. (cross-posted from WT:Etiquette)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and on this project page(olive (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC))
 * The operative phrase on that policy page is "... directed at another contributor." Otherwise, it's uncouth but not uncivil. — Satori Son 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say the words are not forbidden, only rude use of them. So "That is a fucking stupid idea" is exceedingly abusive, whereas "I have had a fucking long day" is not really a civility violation in my mind. It is about the meaning one intends to convey, not the words one uses. Chillum  14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility is dead
If we can't enforce it on the most recalcitrant of editors, why do we even have it? NPOV, NOR, and RS have widely enforced sanctions which actually stick. Sanctions in the name of CIVIL get ignored. Barring that, we need to put in exceptions for certain editors so they do not need to follow this policy. Sceptre (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, could someone please add me to the opt-out list? user:Everyme 13:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Civility is alive and well, but its level of enforcement has turned this policy into a toothless old lady. I agree that we should either make it clear in this policy that it is equally applied to all users established or not, or that we should make very clear criteria for who is excepted from this rule. I have an idea I will ask... Chillum  13:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have created a poll to see if the community wants the civility policy applied equally, or to give special consideration to established users. Chillum  13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't think of civility as something to enforce. We're thinking about this waaaaay to hard. We have a page explaining what civility is. We have a section explaining what Apologizing means. I mean, come on, how silly is this. -- Ned Scott 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, if NPOV, NOR, and RS actually did have "widely enforced sanctions which stick", there would likely be less incivility. MastCell Talk 03:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Should established users be treated different?
Should this policy be applied with equal expectation to all users? Or should we give extra leeway to those who have established themselves with the community? Some questions need to be answered, specifically should we allow users to violate the civility policy if:


 * They have been on Wikipedia for years
 * They write featured articles
 * They are admins
 * They have decided the civility policy does not apply to them
 * They are very helpful in other areas

The reason I ask all of this is because I see these reasons coming up from time to time to justify/excuse incivility. I want to know if that is what the community really thinks. Chillum 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Treat the same Now that I have made the question, here is my answer: Everyone needs to be civil regardless of the services they provide for us and the level of reputation they have created. Everyone else is expected to be polite, I see no justification for an exception. Chillum  13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should widen the scope of what civility and uncivility really mean. user:Everyme 13:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Everyme. Also, I suppose civility. My infoboxes say so.:) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so any specific suggestions? In what areas should we widen the scope? Chillum  14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. There are three issues that seem to me on initial reflection to trouble this policy. First, some people are extremely rigorous in reviewing it as it applies to comments made to themselves. This seems to have contributed to a "oh, not this again" response when editors complain about incivility, even when those complaints may be legitimate. A second concern is that, for some reason, some of Wikipedia's contributors seem to equate a behavioral standard with censorship. Cultural factors also probably come into play there (that's my third issue, too), as certain cultures are more tolerant of what my particular demographic would regard as "rude", while my demographic might be comfortable with things that would offend another. Part of the problem may be that templated warnings, standard with all other offenses, have generally been regarded as a bad idea with civility offenses, outside of the egregious ones, which call for uw-npa. Also, the WP:WQA process doesn't seem to be taken particularly seriously in some quarters, which I think is a mistake. If uninvolved editors agree that a user's behavior is disruptive, we ought to be taking that seriously. Even when incivility doesn't reach the level of personal attacks, continued low-grade incivility can mount into quite a problem, as a review of the AN/I archives will support. This section--No personal attacks--does a good job of explaining consequences. It sets clear parameters for when and why an administrator might block for personal attacks. I think that this policy would do well to give more concrete steps for seeking productive resolution, to grant more weight to the opinions of the community at appropriately established forums (e.g. WQA), and to give solid guidance to administrators on when and how individual action may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with much of that. The various reasons that people dismiss legitimate civility concerns are a real problem. I also agree that living in different cultures will give people different baseline standards of what they think is civil. Chillum  15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Service is not a token with which you can buy policy exemption. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Policies are supposed to be descriptive of the way the community works. We all know that the community is now working on a two - tiered system. Policy should be re-written to conform to actual practice. Trout Ice Cream (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What sort of criteria should we use to exempt people from the civility policy? How should we change policy to reflect practice? Should we make a list of names? Chillum  15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true of some policies. However, WP:Policy notes that there are three ways that policies are enacted. It seems to me that civility is related to Wikimedia's Code of Conduct, a declaration of the Board of Trustees, which is "intended to provide guidance for volunteers" and which "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects": Point 1 "Treat other people with respect" includes "The Foundation aims to treat all people with respect, and to foster a productive environment free of harassment, intimidation and discrimination." While working on Wikipedia, we are all volunteers helping out the Wikimedia Foundation. The civility policy serves to ensure that we treat others with respect and foster a productive environment free of harassment and intimidation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That certainly does put this debate in a different light. Chillum  16:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Civility is policy, and should stay so. I realize that there are some current issues with longterm editors that are "hard to block", but civility still applies to them just as to everyone else, and just because there are disagreements with a few specific editors, doesn't mean we should worry about the civility policy as a whole.  I refer to WP:CIVIL all the time, and as an admin, I have warned editors (even longterm editors) about violations, and I have issued blocks for those violations.  Overall, the policy works fine, so don't worry too much about the exceptional cases. --Elonka 18:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While this policy does work overall, the fact that some members of the community have repeatedly appealed to the idea that established users should be given more leeway in regards to civility leads me to believe this is something that needs to be decided. I don't think anyone is saying it should not be policy, the question is to what point, and to what standards the community wants this policy enforced. Chillum  18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Chillum -- This exchange has already proved very useful to me. I don't have fully-formed opinions about this subject -- not yet; but I'm very taken with a phrase from Moonriddengirl's posting above -- "...foster a productive environment...." -- and I'd like to figure out how to emphasize the practical objective implied by these words. Is there an alchemy which escapes me here? I guess ...?  In any case, this exchange is a step in the right direction because it helps me to discover that I'm not the only one who has encountered an intractable impasse which realy should have been avoidable. I have to disagree mildly with Elonka because for me, overall, the civility policy (or whatever-you-want-to-call-it) does not work just fine. My experience seems consistent with what Trout Ice Cream identifies above.--Tenmei (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the exceptional cases are precisely the ones we should be worried about and they are where this policy regularly fails. user:Everyme 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Being civil is a good idea because it helps create a good working environment, etc, etc.. But lets not get hung up on it. Yes, there will be times when we don't punish incivility, there will be times when the best thing to do is just move forward, or times when someone just doesn't really care enough. Civility is something to strive for, not really something to enforce. Stop thinking about it as civility rules and start thinking about it as how to help the situations at hand. It's not civility that is the problem, it's the disruption that it causes. Sometimes the disruption really isn't that big of a deal, and we let stuff slide. So what, we move on. -- Ned Scott 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To amend part of my above comment, even if the disruption is a big deal, enforcing punishment isn't always the best thing to help the situation at hand. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To more directly answer the main question in this thread: I don't care who the user is, I care about what the situation is. -- Ned Scott 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To elaborate from my vague suggestion to widen the scope: The civility policy is primarily about communication between editors and I personally see incivility as a failure to communicate, the result of two consecutive failures, one on each side. I believe the policy should emphasise the need for a mutual effort to prevent communicative failure. To that effect, and replying to Trout Ice Cream's points above, I'd say that while policy should reflect actual practice, it should also work as a positive filter and amplifier by discouraging bad behaviour and encouraging best practice. There are e.g. those editors who manage to respond calmly comments/wordings which would cause other users to instantly go complain at WQA or AN/I — which then completes the bilateral failure to communicate.

Another point is based on personal experience, and it results in my opinion that the policy should explicity stress the need to prevent the impression of engaging in uncivil behaviour, whose ever turn it is in the exchange. The example I can give is removal of comments from user talk pages. While explicity allowed, I for one regard it as highly uncivil in most situations, and as proof of unwillingness to positively collaborate. So the one addition I'd make is an addendum to Civility, something along the lines of Uncivil removal of comments. user:Everyme 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see people have gone well beyond the topics I suggested for this debate. If no firm decision is made at least I have inspired considerable thinking and debate on the subject. We will be better suited to both craft and debate the next proposal. Chillum 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is civility a rule, or a tool?
I think some confusion may stem from thinking of Civility as a rule to follow. It's not really that. We can't make people be civil, and the whole rule/punishment structure doesn't make much sense here. Civility, more than being a law-rule, is a practical tool: If you wish to have productive interactions in a collaborative environment, then you'll be civil. If you're not civil, then you won't be able to have as many productive interactions in a collaborative environment, because incivility is disruptive. People who are disruptive enough are eventually blocked. To the topic of this thread, if an editor is a valuable Wikipedian because of whatever work they've done, that doesn't make their incivility less disruptive (it might be more disruptive), but the disruption they cause necessarily ends up being balanced against the good work they do. When the disruption outweighs the good work, then we have to block them, often amid some small hullabaloo. I would say that, if we're going to put energy into convincing people to act civilly, the best place to start is with established users, who are more valuable to keep around, have more experience with the wiki, and will serve as examples for many others. Those are the most difficult cases, and the ones where progress makes the most difference. I dunno; does that stuff make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It does. :) As you say, people who are disruptive enough are eventually blocked. But one might wonder (well, this one does) how many potentially constructive editors they might have driven away before they reach that point. This is why I think a forum like WQA needs to have more respect in the community, because editors who may not be that familiar with the environment or know how even to find a second contributor to help file an RFC need a quick, reputable resource when they run into hostile behavior. If consensus of uninvolved editors determines that a user is behaving disruptively, I believe it should be a bit easier (with less hullabaloo) to handle it. Blocking isn't punishment, but protection of the project--it sends a message to disruptive editors that their behavior will not be tolerated and sends a message to editors who aren't disruptive that putting up with occasional harassment may be worth it, as something will be done when they have legitimate complaint. (And, of course, it stops the disruption for the period of the block. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * GTBacchus -- I can't agree more strongly with the strategy implicit in the dichotomy you propose in this section heading and in the express result you hope to achieve. That said, the problem for me arises when things simply don't work out as I would have hoped; and no constructive resolution presents itself.  I can wish it were otherwise; but there you have it.  As yet, I haven't been able to divine a better strategy -- but it occurs that a solution might be readily available by simply plagiarizing your section heading?  Maybe I can affect a difficult situation by simply presenting your dichotomy -- by simply typing out "your" question: "Is civility a rule or a tool?"


 * This gambit may not work (of course), but it's a better option than I had before I encountered your curious posting in this watch-listed venue. Thanks (maybe) ...?  I'll get back to you on this after I've had a chance to experiment.


 * Pivoting towards an alternate approach: Japan's first Nobel laureate in literature was Yasunari Kawabata (川端 康成);, and Edward Seidensticker was Kawabata's acclaimed English translator. The introduction to Seidenstricker's translation of The Master of Go explains:
 * Go is simple in its fundamentals and infinitely complex in the execution of them."


 * Some years ago, a literary critic writing in the London Telegraph proposed that the same dynamic applies to good writing and to great translation, and I wonder if perhaps this point-of-view might hold out some usefulness for us as well. The London-based critic pointed out something attributable to one of the characters in Kawabata's master-work:
 * "When a law is made, the cunning that finds loopholes goes to work. One cannot deny that there is a certain slyness among younger players, a slyness which, when the rules are written to prevent slyness, makes use of the rules themselves."
 * The critic then explained that he thought he might have recognized a similarly "sly" strategy in Seidensticker's work.


 * In this vein, maybe we might do better if we tried to affect a more playful, "sly" strategy whenever we confront ill-tempered editors in any Wikipedia context. I'd guess that an ebullient, irrepressible good humour would be likely to vex sour-natured people; and maybe it could turn out to be a very wholesome thing for us as well.  Just a thought ... a potentially helpful step in an arguably constructive direction? --Tenmei (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia
I largely agree with GTBacchus' comments, though I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective. GTB is right to say that civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.

It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia. This is essentially the dilemma posed by people who are "civil POV-pushers" (see User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing for some useful insights into this problem). Incivility is often associated with bad editing, but it can also be a symptom of bad editing as well as a cause of it.

A case in point, for those of you with long memories, was User:GordonWatts, an editor who was utterly obsessed with the Terri Schiavo affair - to the point of attempting to intervene in the litigation. He was frequently tendentious, a constant POV-pusher and soapboxer who constantly promoted conspiracy theories and sources that were misrepresented, cherry-picked or simply bad. He was also unfailingly civil, as far as I recall. In the end he was banned after two years (!) for exhausting the community's patience. Some other editors were undoubtedly incivil in response to his behaviour, but this was a symptom rather than a cause - their incivility was a reaction to his problematic editing and talk page conduct.

In other words, we have to look at civility holistically and in a broad context, not simply regarding it as some sort of sine qua non separate from our encyclopedic goals. If incivility exists, is it happening in conjunction with problem editing by the same individual(s), or in response to problematic conduct by someone else? If the latter, what is being done to deal with the wider problems? The key mistake we made with the GordonWatts saga was not dealing quickly enough with the tendentious conduct that was at the root of the problem. Editors who called him out on the tendentiousness were actually at more risk of being censured or blocked than the tendentious editor himself. In the end, people realised this and community-banned him, thus finally solving the problem.

I wasn't closely involved with this episode and followed it mainly through WP:AN/I. However, I drew a few lessons from it that I think are relevant to this discussion:


 * Incivility is often a sign of a wider problem with dysfunctional editing or talk page engagement - established editors may react incivilly in response to tendentious conduct by others.
 * Issues with NPOV, tendentious editing or soapboxing shouldn't be left to fester - that will actively harm the encyclopedia and most likely result in more problems with civility further down the road.
 * Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
 * Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals.

-- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be. I'd say the root cause of tendentious behavior, including incivility, edit-warring, sock- and meat-puppetry, etc., is almost always a content dispute. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are cases where personality conflicts take on lives of their own, usually subsequent to many content disputes. Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems, but in such instances it's more than likely that the editor will be behaving in other problematic ways (e.g. POV-pushing, soapboxing etc). On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. That may require advising or restricting the editor or editors who are contributing to the wider problem. The remedies suggested at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would seem to be a good place to start. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2 types of incivility

 * Whereas a moderately sophisticated algorithm could comply with other Wikipedia policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc.), civility is more difficult to fathom. Incivility can take place in roughly two ways: "Parental advisory:explicit language" and "Parental advisory:explicit content". PA:Language is of the form "Go F yourself." Individual diffs are good at identifying this type of incivility. PA:Content is of the form of paying lip service to the letter of all rules, surreptitiously agitating an opponent the whole while. Individual diffs are unlikely to identify this type of incivility; a thorough reading of the contribution history, and context, will be important in these cases.
 * When PA:Language occurs, look for it from both sides. If only one side is being verbally offensive, become suspicious: (a) of long-term PA:Content from the other side, or (b) that the aggresor is a new, agenda-driven account that finds it is unable to freely push its agenda.
 * PA:Content tends to be a smoldering, weeks-to-months long pattern of editing that is often agenda driven. Again, individual diffs are unlikely to identify this type of longterm, content-oriented incivility.
 * Antelan 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can say "That article was fucking hard to source", and that is not uncivil. I can also say "Your actions remind me of an imbecile", and that would be uncivil. To put it short the words one chooses to use does not determine the level of civility, rather the meaning of the words. Civility is not a matter of the language one chooses, it is a matter of the respect on chooses to show. Chillum  04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fuckin' aye! user:Everyme 07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true. Incivility is any failure to treat others with respect and dignity. Rather than focusing on what incivility looks like, however, what if we took an opposite approach and talked about what civility looks like. The imperatives "Be civil," and "Don't be uncivil," are superficially similar, but they imply a different set of priorities. On one hand the game is identifying who's being uncivil and getting them to stop. On the other hand, one could approach the same situation with the question, "how can we use civility (along with other tools) to resolve this conflict. Never mind who is being uncivil, but instead civilly focus on the content dispute which is the root of the conflict. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility and NPOV, NOR and RS
Mastcell has written above that we would probably have less incivility if we really did have "widely enforced sanctions which stick" for these policies and guidelines, and I think we need to look at this. Although he is replying to an editor who thinks we do have such sanctions, I agree with what Mastcell is implying, we don't. It can be very hard to make sure articles comply with NPOV, NOR and RS, and my guess is that a lot of problems with civility originated in situations where this is a problem. Is this worth considering? Doug Weller (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I partly agree with MastCell, but for completness' sake, I have to open a whole other can of worms: Deletion. And that's all I'm going to say. user:Everyme 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that ChrisO has addressed my point in some detail immediately above: . MastCell Talk 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But do you agree with it? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

suggested amendment to Civility
I've posted this above, but it was lost in the 'brainstorming' discussion. That, or nobody responded because everyone thought it was a rubbish suggestion not even worth commenting on. I'm open to both interpretations.

Anyway. I still believe, as above, that the policy should explicity stress the need to prevent the impression of engaging in uncivil behaviour, whose ever turn it is in a particular exchange. The example I can give is instant removal of comments from user talk pages. While explicity allowed, I for one regard it as highly uncivil in most situations, and as proof of unwillingness to positively collaborate. So the one addition I'd make is an addendum to Civility, something along the lines of Uncivil removal of civil comments. user:Everyme 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Recently someone blanked text in a talk page thread because it was perceived to have been uncivil -- my words and sentences gone without an explanation. The action did nothing to help me understand what I'd done wrongly, nor did it allow me a opportunity to try to re-formulate my offending prose. Worse still, it did nothing to help me begin to guess how to avoid a similar faux pas in the future.  I only felt intimidated.
 * I would argue that this needs to be amongst the central points which are repeated again and again in Wikipedia guidelines -- that at least some part of the process of mitigating incivility needs to be focused on developing plausibly better words and actions in the future.
 * As for what to do with those who simply balk at even trying to listen, I have no suggestions, no clue. Nevertheless, if even 99% of uncivil editors were unwilling or unable to try to figure out what's gone awry, it's worth mentioning that there may be a few who just don't "get it" yet -- like me, perhaps. --Tenmei (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIV makes it clear that it shouldn't be done lightly or without explanation – "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of an editor, it is appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording." If they fail to do that, the best option in my opinion would be to revert them to restore your comments, and promptly note that the post had been deleted without explanation. Ideally, also put a note to that effect on their user page. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The particular issue I'm talking about is the relationship between WP:TALK allowing users to blank anything from their own user talk page, which imho is, at least by some, frequently done in a rather uncivil way. Namely, a few people instantly remove any posting which is in the slightest critical of anything they have said or done, even if the message is just perfectly civil pointing out flawed logic. Main talk, and thus the situation you're talking about, is an entirely different issue. It's the invoking (expressly or otherwise) of a Wikipedia guideline (WP:TALK) to —imho— breach an important policy concerning the spirit of collaboration and the mutual respect necessary to sustain it which worries me. user:Everyme 20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If they remove the comment, that means they're held to have read any warning given in the comment. If it's not a warning, it shouldn't be a big deal. I'd assume that they've read it and don't want to communicate further on their talk page. Ideally the discussion would then be resolved on the relevant article talk page, and they can't say it wasn't drawn directly to their attention. Not really worth wasting more time and frustration all round by making an issue of the comment being deleted. . . dave souza, talk 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about warnings, which don't really need to be replied to, but about other, normal comments pertaining to that particular editor which don't belong on any other talk page. There's a huge grey area between idle chatter and full-blown warnings. E.g. any attempt to resolve some issue with something that user said or did that doesn't specifically merit any real warning, but which doesn't belong on any other talk page either. Any comment really that most people would reply to because the encouragement to do so is implicit in the content of the message. To respond to such a message with instant removal is imho indeed very uncivil. Contrary to what some people believe, being civil is an effort. It takes no effort to be an ass. None at all. But it takes an effort to follow what IRL was once called "social obligations". user:Everyme 21:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So maybe they think you're trolling? Perhaps try framing things so they don't need a reply. . . dave souza, talk 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Labelling a message as trolling is quite an assumption of bad faith, or alternatively very uncivil, unless it's clearly valid. Trolling is not in the eye of the beholder. It either it, or it isn't. And some things cannot and actually shouldn't be formulated so as not needing a reply (assuming you are not actually encouraging telling off other users over a friendly exchange with a mutual learning experience). user:Everyme 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OTOH, this isn't necessarily only about removing messages from one's own user talk page. One closely related issue, and maybe the overarching theme here is not responding to polite queries — this may happen on any talk page actually, wherever that particular user has commented in a discussion and is being directly addressed, possibly even with a notification on their talk page. It's a common tactic employed by a few people to systematically ignore messages that are in fact important because they validly challenge their reasoning. People don't take too well to their reasoning being compellingly refuted. But not responding in any way is clear incivility on their part, and it should be sanctioned, for the sake of collaborative spirit. Otherwise, as is currently the case, we'd actually be "subsidising" this form of blatant incivility. user:Everyme 21:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If things are important, follow dispute resolution. It's understandable that people might not like their reasoning being compellingly refuted, but unless it's affecting an article or article talk, it's hard to see why it's such a big deal. I'm surprised that you seem to find this a common problem, perhaps just something I've never noticed. . . dave souza, talk 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Must have been that you never noticed it. Of course there many many things that do not merit dispute resolution at all, but still need to be addressed. Why are you so much resisting to my suggested amendment? Do you think it would do any harm to tell people to be careful to avoid the impression of incivility by being a tad thoughtful when removing comments even from their own user talk page? What precisely is the potential harm you see therein? user:Everyme 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from outsider
This is a reply to the above question from Everyme. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would resist adding words to the page that tell people not to remove comments from their talk page. My reason is that the civility policy should not be couched in terms of different types of "offenses" or "violations" or "thou shalt nots". Rather than identifying and addressing incivility, why not think in terms of using civility to resolve disputes? If someone removes a message from you on a talk page, what's the best response? Is it to accuse them of incivility? Maybe, but I think that in many cases, such a response will lead to further recriminations, defensiveness etc. - in short, to more incivility. Ideally this policy page shouldn't contain rules at all, only strategies. I'm sure others disagree, but that's my take on it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a few words that instant removal of comments can be seen as uncivil? I mean, we have an entire section devoted to removal of uncivil comments, and not one word that instant removal of civil comments can itself be seen as uncivil. user:Everyme 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems very appropriate to suggest ways that people can be civil. Would you be ok with phrasing it positively rather than negatively? That is, we could say that a civil response to a talk page comment is to reply, either there or at the other user's page, so they know you've read it, and to let the thread stand for a reasonable amount of time (before archiving). It would probably also be good to suggest a constructive response to comment removal. I'm just leery of suggesting to people that comment removal is an "infraction" of some kind. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. As you correctly said, there is no bright-line rule for civil behaviour and I'm all for phrasing things positively wherever useful and at all possible (btw, did I suggest a particular wording or give the impression that I favoured a negative, prescriptive wording?). Do you have a suggestion on the wording? user:Everyme 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Everyme, I don't think you were suggesting a negative, prescriptive wording. I just think it's very easy for a policy like this one to turn into a rule-book, because many bring an expectation of "rules" that they can lawyer. Sorry if that seemed personally directed; it wasn't. As for the wording, there are a lot of ways to say it. People might as well know that many Wikipedians perceive comment removal as uncivil. That said, we could offer two kinds of advice: What to do if someone removes your comments; and what to do if you remove someone's comments and then they're upset. That way, we offer constructive suggestions on both sides. Then, if either party consults this policy, they'll find advice directed to them, and they might also gain some insight into what the other disputant is thinking. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful idea. I for one fully agree. user:Everyme 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The standing guidance on that subject (from WP:TPG) is "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred." That said, whenever I've seen people remove comments from their talk page, it has been done with seeming hostility.  We could recommend against it, except in cases of personal attacks, but stop short of prohibiting it.--Father Goose (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seem comments removed for good reason, such as comments that belong on an article talk page, or tendentious attempts to extend and continue an argument that isn't getting any consensus on article talk pages. Ideally a reason should be given in the edit summary, but making this judgement call a civility issue is one sure way of getting more drama and waste of time. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, when you remove such comments, the tendentious party can continue their fight by re-reverting them. I find it's more effective to just stop responding than to explicitly reject further communication.  Would it be worthwhile to mention WP:JDI as a strategy to avoid further escalation?--Father Goose (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dave, I've seen cases where the people removing comments (and their friends) thought it was very much ok to do so, while others vehemently disagreed and perceived it as fairly uncivil. Whether or not it's indeed perfectly civil or' useful to quickly remove civil queries is subject to debate, and at least that bit of advice should be offered in the policy's section on removing uncivil comments. There is indeed a chance to infuriate others by doing that, and since being civil means  making an effort not to piss others off, each such situation should be carefully evaluated and instant removal should not be taken too lightly. It can very well be seen as an affront. user:Everyme 08:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I dont understand why/how anyone would consider the removal of items from a talk page uncivil. Every wikipdedia edit page contains the statement "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it. " Why in the world would comments on user talk pages be seen as any more sacred than submissions to an article page? --  The Red Pen of Doom  23:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)