Wikipedia talk:Competence is required/Archive 2

Required level of English
Lots of people edit English Wikipedia even if their first language is other than English. I just changed this essay to indicate that the required level of English be mostly comprehensible. If a user contributes content which is not language proficient, but still communicates an idea in an obvious and cites a source, then they should get encouragement to edit. I am not aware of situations in which people without English proficiency copyedit large text passages, but I do see people adding sentences and paragraphs. Students, academics, and scientists seem to be especially interested demographics for editing English Wikipedia without native English skills.

Here is the change I made. I am being overly communicative about this and if anyone wants further changes then I think it is fine to just edit the essay and post a note here if you like.

Someone should be able to read and write English competently enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into the article space. Everyone makes spelling mistakes or grammar errors from time to time, but if a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in the article space, it can create problems for others.
 * before

Editors should write English competently enough to share text which others can easily understand. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Sharing good ideas and following other rules, like using citations and being willing to engage in conversation with other editors, is more important than language. If a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in the article space then instead they can post a request to the article talk page.
 * after

Previous discussions on this topic:
 * Target audience? Purpose? These are spectra, and they are discussed backwards, November 2015
 * Changes, August 2014

There are other discussions in the archives which mention language skills but these seem to be most developed. I am not expecting anyone to contest the idea behind this change. I think everyone wants non-native English users to edit here, and that everyone recognizes that we accept edits which require much more copyediting than "spelling mistakes or grammar errors from time to time".  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There needs to be some language that indicates that repeatedly introducing incomprehensible text into the article space is suboptimum. I like that you've offered an alternative, but you haven't presented any indication that it shouldn't be done in the first place.  I'll make a tweak.  -- Jayron 32 14:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea, make that change. I agree - we cannot accept incomprehensible text.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also moved some of the text around. Some of your guidance was very good, but it was more about what "CIR is NOT" than what CIR is.  -- Jayron 32 14:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, my experience at frwiki was that various editors have corrected my texts without making a big fuss about it. Instead, at nlwiki my poorly worded texts were flat out rejected. At rowiki I have corrected myself the texts of other editors who are not proficient at writing in Romanian language. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. If language skills make it so someone is unable to communicate effectively on a collaborative project, we do take that into account when making blocks and reviewing unblocks. The ability to be a native speaker is not required, nor is necessarily a high functioning level of English, but one must have enough of a level of English to effectively communicate their ideas to other editors. The previous text made this clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have re-added part of what you removed; the "what competance is required does not mean" was improved by a reminder that being a perfect English user is not a requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that bit is fine and I think is important, so no objection to it. My concern would be the new language being held up as "we shouldn't take into account language skills when reviewing unblocks." Well, unfortunately, sometimes we have to. An editor who is being disruptive and is communicating in a way that shows they have no clue what is going on and are unable to communicate their thoughts isn't going to get unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

As a teacher who has a lot of ESL students who regularly contribute to Wikipedia, and as an ESL speaker myself who routinely edits/copyedits articles frequented by ESLs, I have a lot of experience with subpar English. I have reviewed the recent changes and overall I agree with the revisions I see (also changes are mostly cosmetic and clarifying). Frankly, this entire essay is something I agree with, and so I think does everyone else. The main issue is, IMHO, the common failure of communication that originates NOT from the ESLs poor communication skills, but from our, experienced and English-fluent editors failure to tell the newbie what they are doing wrong. Case in point, I came here after CiR was mentioned in an ANI discussion about one of my students. She got blocked for "not being here to build an encyclopedia", she was incorrectly warned about using bad sources (not right, she was using mostly good ones), but as it turns out, upon review of her edits, the major problem was her poor language skills, sometimes indeed introducing gibberish to the article ("cheese made with crude oil and best eaten with skilkorms"). But nobody told her, through warning, forget even a polite message, that we have a problem with her language levels. She just got reverted, templated as a vandal and eventually suddenly indef blocked. Competence should be required also on the part of editors who revert/warn/block others, and that competence should require detailed rationale why someone is being reverted/etc. We can complain all we want about the problem of incompetent n00bies, but that is only one side of the coin, with the other being the well known issue that Wikipedia these days is much less welcome to new editors. Our standards have risen, our enforcement is severe, and it is not accompanied by enough coaching/mentoring/etc. We need to be careful not to 'competence ourselves out of existence'. Remember, on the far end of that scale is Citizendium/Nupedia and like. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction?
Quoting from section "What is meant by 'Competence is required?'" (emphasis mine): "...if a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in articles or from communicating effectively with other members of the community, it can create problems for others.

Quoting from section "What 'Competence is required' does not mean" (emphasis mine):

"If a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in the article space then instead they can post a request to the article talk page."

Now, is it a problem if an editor cannot write comprehensible text in article space? The first section says 'yes'; the second says 'maybe, but they can just request on the talk page'.

Also, I don't see how an editor who writes incomprehensibly in article space can be magically understandable when they post a talk page request. Teratix (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's possible an editor cannot write concisely, clearly, or grammatically. So a longer text that can be scrutinized and discussed among editors before crafting article text, seems quite plausible. I think the larger question is what to do when an editor is unaware of the weaknesses of his contributions and becomes offended because he does not understand what is "incompetent" about it.  SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Per specifico, it is quite possible for a person to lack the ability to write English correctly, and still make themselves understood on the article talk page well enough for someone else to make the corrections they not there. -- Jayron 32 14:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, so should we change the wording (in the second section) from 'comprehensible' to something like 'clear, concise and grammatical'? I don't think an editor who writes incomprehensible text in article space - text so unclear as to effectively be gibberish - would be able to make an understandable talk page request. However, as you and Specifico pointed out, it is indeed plausible that an editor who can't write article-standard English would still be able to intelligibly request edits on the talk page. Teratix (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the current wording. I don't think we need to change anything.-- Jayron 32 08:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a contradiction, because there's both a different bar of language competence for article page vs. talk page, as well as different guidelines governing a user's contributions to each namespace. At a talk page, zay gramma und shpelling complately turribly ken being, buht iff you iz nowing or overstanding wut zay trying to saying in Takk payzh, zen dazn't metta zo mash, bikkoz zay meenig, iz gettig to you inside you hed, no? As long as you can understand their intent and respond, communication is going on and that's enough for a talk page. However, you're not allowed to alter their words to make it clearer, per WP:TPO, though you can certainly restate them in your own words and say, "Did you mean this?"  OTOH, at an article, you can go to town and change all their words around all you want, again, as long as you understand their intent.  In a way, their language could even be worse at the article page, as long as they have inline citations of English sources, because if they have good sources but their text is borderline, you can maybe figure out their intent from the combination of what they wrote and the source content; and if you can't even do that but the sources look good, you can just rewrite it and keep the sources (if you have the energy).  That said, I would discourage someone from contributing directly to articles on en-wiki if their English competence was that sketchy; and if I saw very sketchy language plus no inline citations, I would revert, and gently suggest they try over at Klingon wiki, or wherever. Mathglot (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I took 'incomprehensible' to mean 'gibberish' (e.g. rneairgaerihan). However, I see other people are interpreting it as just content that's hard but not impossible to understand (like your example :)), so I'm fine with the current wording if that's how people read it. Teratix (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

English Wikipedia
Hi @, you reverted my edit that adds "English" before the sentence Wikipedia welcomes any text that is easy to understand but if a person's inability to use the English language prevents them from writing comprehensible text in articles or from communicating effectively with other members of the community, it can create problems for others. with reason Unnecessary, context is glaringly obvious. With all due respect, I'd like to point out it's not obvious at least to me. I'd propose for this sentence alone, either emphasize "English" before both Wikipedia and language, or drop "English" in both places. Since English Wikipedia is the biggest Wikipedia according to this article itself: Often, people may not be aware that there may be a Wikipedia in their native language, I think it's fair to assume that people might be confused. If you don't mind, I'll revert your revert for now, please let me know if you object to that and we can have further discussion. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s not exactly how WP:BRD is supposed to work. And the context is exceedingly obvious fromt he sentence right at the top of the section, right above where you are trying to add a redundant mention of English: ”There is a presumption that people who contribute to English Wikipedia have the following competencies:” so, yeah, I’d rather you take that back out, it is too repetetive. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't have more contest. Feel free to revert back. :( Xinbenlv (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Warning at the top
Instead of the "I'm sorry you feel that way" non-apology at the ,we should quote the actual policies that deals with this issue:Bright☀ 09:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The existing wording is fine, you seem to be projecting something here that isn’t stated in those words. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * you seem to be projecting Ha! Amazing choice of words that focuses on the contributor in a disrespectful manner, isn't it. Bright☀ 07:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the standard "Comment on the content, not the contributor" template wording itself. Sometimes commenting on the contributor is exactly what's required. When you're realing with vandals, spammers, sock puppets, disruptive or incompetent editors, you often have to comment on the person, too. This is normal, we do it quite often here. Commenting on a person does not automatically mean a personal attack or an insult. Wikipedia is sometimes too cautious with this advice. Anyway, I'm fine with the second sentence, "Do not reference this essay in a rude or disrespectful manner", but I think the original wording is fine, too, and perhaps more sensitive (it says that even if you are not referencing it in a rude manner, someone can still take it personally, so you have to be careful).&mdash;J. M. (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be somewhat better to say "User's contributions do not seem to reflect adequate competence" but that is still indirectly calling them incompetent. But rather than state it outright, you can say only that it appears that way. I agree that sometimes it is necessary to point out that a user is so problematic that they are unable to usefully contribute, but that is best done at ANI and simply by referencing "CIR" (unlinked) or by mentioning an "apparent competence issue". Directly linking them to WP:CIR inside or outside ANI is too insulting. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ”Comment on content” is fine advice for discussions on article talk pages where content is the subject of the discusion. It is not blanket advice that applies everywhere. As stated above we do this all the time in numerous forums. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. I was trying to work with "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent." When dealing with CIR situations that can be tricky advice to take. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the change reads better, which is reason alone to make it, though I can see Chris troutman's concerns with it being prescriptive. Find a way to make it without making it seem like a mandate, and I think it should be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Err...wot were Chris Troutmsan's concerns?! He doesn't seem to have edited here since last November :)   —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 14:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , see the edit summary. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that says "+" ?! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 15:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mysterious code from me for "adding more to my comment" TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the change reads better. Of course, I point to this essay pretty often and have been accused of rudeness as a result. My concern is that some editors simply don't like this essay and seek its deletion. Short of that, proscribing when the essay cannot be used hampers its usage, even though the essay enjoys broad (though not universal) consensus. I think the present warning is sufficient, especially in light of our WP:NPA policy. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I take the current text as sounding a bit mopey (best word I can think of to describe it), but, yes, I get your concerns. To be honest, I'd support removing the box and just having a note in the text that references policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * proscribing when the essay cannot be used hampers its usage It's already Wikipedia policy not to be rude or disrespectful, putting that reminder at the top no more hampers its usage than putting an anti-vandalism reminder at the top. The difference being, this essay is often used in a rude or disrespectful manner, so the reminder will actually improve discourse on Wikipedia, instead of the current non-apology apology that merely encourages editors to blame the other side for being disrespected instead of not being disrespectful in the first place. Bright☀ 13:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point but disagree. As you don't have consensus, perhaps you ought to let it go. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you can recognize that it does not hamper the essay's usage in any way, and strive for consensus for better discourse on Wikipedia that will result in a better encyclopedia in general, for example by not driving away new editors with thinly-veiled insults. Bright☀ 13:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Persistently arguing against consensus might tick the boxes at CIVIL, but it is corrosive and unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Arguing against consensus" is such a bad reason not to discuss things. If we always stick to the way things are, no improvement will ever be made. Consensus is a process, not only a state. If, instead of knee-jerk undoing an edit for a false reason ("hampers usage"), people would discuss change and form a new consensus, things will improve. Bright☀ 18:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We just had an extensive discussion about this page, in which the community very strongly supported it. Constantly attempting to water it down when we just now established that it is strongly supported as-is is what I believe Johnuniq was referring to. While consensus can change, it usually takes time and it is not a good use fo your time to open a new argument against a consensus that was just strongly established barely a week ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * water it down Another false reason against a consensus that was just strongly established barely a week ago and another. The change does not "water down" the article, it changes a passive-aggressive non-apology apology into a warning that accurately represents Wikipedia's policies. This is not against the consensus that was established a week ago, which didn't address any specifics. This pseudo-snow-close and piles of false reasons is an attempt to avoid discussion. Bright☀ 08:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like how every time I say something you quote part of it in green and then say we’re not having a discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you were to read more carefully you'd see I'm saying it's an attempt to avoid discussion; "shut up, you don't have consensus". Misrepresenting my comments is only slightly less worse than using false arguments and then silently dropping them without acknowledging they're false. Bright☀ 11:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand how you are using the terms "passive-aggressive" or "apology" here. Can you articulate further what is wrong with the warning as currently phrased? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors" implicitly places the blame on other editors, a tactic common in non-apology apologies. "Do not reference this essay in a rude or disrespectful manner" places the blame on the person being rude or disrespectful, and quotes existing policy verbatim. The arguments that telling people not to be rude "hampers usage" or "waters down" the essay are false; it doesn't change its content and it doesn't place any new restrictions on its usage. Bright☀ 11:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the purpose of the original sentence is to blame anyone. It basically includes the same message as your suggested replacement, plus an additional warning. That is, while not referencing this page in a rude or disrespectful manner is a must, you should also be careful when you a referencing it politely and rightfully, because it is a sensitive topic and it may hurt people's feelings. In other words, we should generally avoid referring incompetent people to WP:CIR (as they are typically not capable of understanding it anyway). I can't see how this has anything to do with passive-aggressive non-apology apologies or anything like that.—J. M. (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with stronger warning. Far too often I have seen people involved in conflicts and content disputes link to this essay, and this is unequivocally a WP:JERK move. Something along the lines of "Warning: Linking to this essay while involved in a dispute with another editor will be considered a personal attack and may lead to a loss of editing privileges". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GRUDGE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GRUDGE. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpinningSpark 17:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing the word "tenet" with "principle"
Referring to paragraph 3, they both mean the same thing ("tenet" with "principle"). But I feel (I'm probably wrong) that readers would more likely understand and be more familiar with the word "principle" better then "tenet" and could be confused with "tenant". And it wouldn't change the meaning since WP:AGF does say "Assuming good faith" is a "fundamental principle". Maybe there's a grammatical reason on why its like that? Not sure if we use this but, Google's ngram view, here shows "principle" to be more used. OkayKenji (talk page) 08:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:BEBOLD is also a tenet a principle important 😉  ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagree, CIR on WP:CIR. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with DIY's disagreement. If we change to principle someone might confuse it with principal. E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will leave it as is. At least I know a new word now. OkayKenji (talk page) 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

CIR and ownership behavior
I would suggest to add somewhere, eg on the line starting with "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent", a link to WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which gives as an example: "At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article", which is a common (bad) use case of WP:CIR --Signimu (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this idea inspired by this dispute? Do you need help with that dispute? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Competence on what?
I am struggling to understand what precisely this article argues editors should be competent at. Is it limited to editing articles or to all activites on Wikipedia?

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 14 years now, and have met other editors who excelled at one or several tasks, all of them useful for the collaborative construction of an encyclopaedia:
 * article writing
 * fact checking
 * dispute resolution
 * motivating other editors to collaborate on an article
 * style polishing
 * referencing
 * categorization
 * content structuring
 * image selection
 * programming
 * etc etc etc

At the same time, I have never met anyone who was competent at all of the above. As the article well says, "Everyone has a limited sphere of competence" and this applies of course to all of us editors, in the different roles we have to adopt. Banning someone because he or she is bad at, say, style or English grammar would be a grave mistake. Those editors should rather be advised to direct their energies to other tasks which are equally necessary and their natural skills would be very welcome.

--Hispalois (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I get the impression that you read the lead section only, and stopped there. The rest of the page explains exactly "What is meant by 'Competence is required'", "What 'Competence is required' does not mean", and explains what "Responding to suspected lack of competence" involves and how to do it. Please read the entire page again, slowly and carefully, and see if it does not answer most if not all of your questions. I believe it does. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll second what BilCat said; and I will emphasize that where one person's lack of skill in an area might mean working together to allow others to supplement that shortfall, another person's lack of skill in some area causes some sort of disruption.  In my mind, that distinction is the key to understanding this essay NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with BilCat. Wikipedia does not ban anyone just because of their English grammar or any other particular shortcoming. Nobody is perfect or competent at everything. As you can see in the template at the top, the page is an explanatory supplement to the disruptive editing guideline. Wikipedia only blocks users whose incompetence harms the project. That is, only if their edits are disruptive. Which is no different from disruptive editing in general—Wikipedia simply blocks chronically disruptive users who ignore warnings and keep making disruptive edits. Incompetence is just one of several reasons why people make disruptive edits on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia does not care about the reason too much, the only important thing is the result—in this case, the disruptive edits.
 * Your suggestion to advise editors to direct their energies elsewhere is of course included in the article—and most importantly, this is the standard practice on Wikipedia. What the article says is that users should be blocked when they keep ignoring this advice. Which, again, is the same thing as chronic disruptive editing or vandalism—you warn them once, twice, three times, but when they ignore everything and everyone, refuse to communicate and keep doing the same thing over and over, a block is the only option. The only specific thing about chronic, disruptive incompetence is that users are not aware of their limitation (or even not capable of realizing it—that is the Dunning-Kruger effect which is extremely common among incompetent Wikipedia editors), and ignore everyone who tells them or asks them to stop. For example, if someone keeps making wrong edits to articles on subjects they know nothing about and refuse to stop, or keep adding incomprehensible pseudo-English text to articles despite their minimal knowledge of English, and people repeatedly ask them to stop on their talk page, that is a typical pattern of disruptive incompetence, and these are the types of users who typically get blocked from editing.
 * So, in summary, you can be incompetent at many things, but you should be aware of your limitations. Do not keep doing things that exceed your capabilities, and do not ignore people who tell you your edits are disruptive and ask you to stop, unless you have strong evidence that their requests are unreasonable.—J. M. (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Warning for good faith poor grammar?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Warning for good faith poor grammar?. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination by linguistic ability
As the new Universal Code of conduct prohibits us from discriminating on either skill level or language fluency, a standard that I doubt has been run by many HR professionals, we need to review this document and I would suggest produce some sort of policy that we can put to the WMF as an exception to the code of conduct. I made a number of suggestions during the development of the code, but I'm not sure if many of them were taken on board or even treated with the respect they would have had if the code had already applied, so we are where we are. To start the ball rolling, I would suggest that for multilingual projects such as Wikipedia, the no discriminatition by language fluency rule works at the multi lingual level (Meta, Commons, Wikidata, phabricator and the WMF) and that each language version of Wikipedia be allowed to require that contributors "have sufficient language skills for their contributions to the project to be a net positive". So I have contributions in many languages that I don't speak, but as long as my contribution is to add an illustrative image to an article that doesn't have one I think that's OK. Whereas someone with far better language skills than me, might add a paragraph of text that would be incomprehensible to others, and clearly that isn't helpful. At the same time, I would hope I'm not the only person who happily has spent hundreds of hours fixing the English of people who write great content that just needs a bit of anglicisation. I would not want us to restrict editing on English to those who have near native fluency in English. Pinging and  as I know they have discussed this elsewhere.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * has been blocked as a sock of WP:LTA/BKFIP. I don't expect they'll be participating in this conversation, at least under that username. :) Unfortunately, while they make some good points, their uncivil behavior ended up exposing them as a sock. BilCat (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The only thing that the UCC says is that all people should be treated with respect, including people with poor linguistic (or any other) ability. It does not say that people with poor language skills have to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, even if they're being disruptive. There is no need to change the CIR, because it does not say anything that would violate the UCC. Again, the CIR is just an explanatory supplement to WP:DISRUPT, and it's WP:DISRUPT, not WP:CIR that's the actual behavioral guideline here—editors are blocked on the basis of WP:DISRUPT, i.e. when they're actually disruptive.
 * Disruptive editing is not and cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. The form of disruptive editing does not matter at all. Whether it's vandalism, persistent violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines despite repeated warnings, stubborn ignorance or persistent introduction of poorly written, incomprehensible text into articles. Nobody blocks editors just because of their poor language skills, and it's not what WP:CIR recommends at all. That's also what the UCC says—these people are not and cannot be discriminated against just because their English is not good enough. Nobody blocks a new editor whose English is not good enough, when they're either not editing articles or are editing articles in a sensible way that does not cause any harm (that is, when they are aware of their limitations). What WP:DISRUPT (and, in turn, WP:CIR) says, and what UCC does not question, is that editors should be blocked when their poor English persistently harms the project. That has nothing to do with discrimination. Saying that this constitutes discrimination (and therefore violates the UCC) would be like saying that spammers are not treated with respect when they are blocked from editing, because everyone has the right to insert external links into articles. Sure, everyone has the right to do so, as long as they're not being disruptive. When they're doing it disruptively, they get blocked from editing. In fact, the UCC clearly says: ""All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects". It is the bold text ("unless evidence otherwise exists") that is routinely overlooked when interpreting codes of conduct or guidelines like Assume good faith. We do not and cannot assume good faith forever no matter what. And we do not and cannot tolerate people who are damaging the project, just because the UCC says we have to respect everyone and cannot discriminate against anyone. In fact, WP:DISRUPT clearly says even well-meaning editors can get blocked from editing if they damage the project, even unintentionally.
 * If the UCC said that disruptive editing on Wikipedia, including vandalism, spamming, sock puppetry, edit warring, or the introduction if incomprehensible text has to be allowed, because everyone has to be treated with respect, then the UCC has to be ignored, and, eventually and inevitably, abolished as a harmful, poisonous rule that acutely endangers the project. But I'm quite sure the UCC is not trying to suggest anything like that. Generally, the danger of codes of conduct is that people often think they are suggesting these things. And these codes of conduct are rarely written in a way that clearly dispels this misunderstanding.
 * (As a side note, I really don't think these fashionable and now ubiquitous codes of conduct should exist at all, at least not in their current form, as, while often well-intended, they are very seldom intelligent and wise, very rarely based on actual, real-world experience, and almost inevitably misinterpreted and abused.)—J. M. (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the way the code gets interpreted then OK, that's not a problem. But I did comment on the draft before it was adopted and I didn't get that response. I'm also concerned that some of our community take rules very literally, which is why I like to try and get rules written so that people who try to enforce them literally don't get into trouble.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rules should never be taken literally, everyone should always try to understand the "spirit, not the letter of the law". The actual reason why the rule exists and what it really wants to say.
 * For example, the UCC says that the "expected behaviour" consists of many things, like: "Practice empathy. Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you.", and "Recognize and credit the work done by contributors: Thank them for their help and work. Appreciate their efforts and give credit where it is due." Taken literally, the UCC says that anyone who does not thank others on Wikipedia could or should be sanctioned (another quote from UCC: " Actions that contradict the Universal Code of Conduct can result in sanctions") and administrators should probably check that all editors practice the compulsory generosity and those who do not thank others should be blocked for violating the UCC. Furthermore, admins themselves should be immediately banned from Wikipedia, because they constantly keep violating the UCC by not listening to the lies and false excuses sock puppets, spammers, trolls and other disruptive editors keep telling them when the admins block them—the UCC clearly says everyone should listen to others with empathy (i.e. patiently put up with any kind of nonsense anyone keeps repeating). I hope you realize how absurd this is, and that the point of UCC is not to be taken literally. It is just general guidance, something that encourages good spirit when possible. Not something that enforces it, regardless of the circumstances.
 * As for language skills in particular, the UCC says: "In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect ... This applies to ... language fluency". That's all that it says. And there is nothing in CIR that contradicts that, as CIR does not encourage disrespectful behaviour anywhere (on the contrary, it repeatedly encourages respectful behaviour).
 * This is also generally what's so wrong with codes of conduct. Instead of focusing on substantial, general principles, they endlessly ruminate on fringe details, instead of addressing real problems, they tend to invent pseudo-problems. For me, as an old-school user, good, general principles like Don't be a jerk will always take precedence over any rule or code of conduct, and if the UCC says something that potentially harms Wikipedia, I will ignore the UCC, per WP:COMMONSENSE. And that's why I think Wikipedia should follow its own rules which are definitely sufficient and good enough, while the UCC is basically pointless and potentially dangerous.—J. M. (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, Wikipedia will follow what the Foundation dictates to it. That's why the UCC exists, to give them that leverage. BilCat (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I really don't believe that the Foundation or any of its representatives, including admins, even with their UCC, will fail to consult common sense as the ultimate, supreme authority when they judge potential UCC violations. If they do, then at least I know it's time to say goodbye to Wikipedia, and that its days are numbered. But I really don't believe it will happen. The UCC is obviously written with good intentions, it is just written as poorly and thoughtlessly as other CoCs.—J. M. (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you'll surprised how quickly it happens when it finally does, but it will, I'm afraid. And yes, Wikipedia will suffer for it, both its readers and editors. Some of us are barely welcome on Wikipedia as it is. When certain thoughts are more evil than certain actions, that's not a good sign. When some people are allowed to speak their mind without consequence, while others are scared that they'll say the wrong thing and get doxxed, fired from their jobs, etc., that only spells trouble. Oddly enough, it's the kind of trouble the ones who are free to speak say they are against. It's certainly not what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. BilCat (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

My two cents. English is not my first language, but I want to improve Wikipedia readability, even for native speakers, like here. Unfortunately, some Wikipedian accuses me of language incompetence and "unfounded insistence on changing words". How dare I! Recently they revert my edits every time I replace a word with a more readable synonym. I think that readability is more important than a slight change in meaning, especially that every article is only a summary of what was found in sources. An editor, while creating an article, uses synonyms too, and different sources often use different synonyms when describing the same thing. For example, when I replaced "hiatus" with "break", my edit was reverted because I "changed the meaning". To some extent I did, but what if the new version was closer to the original? According to Google: "in 2001 the band took a break" returns 6640 hits while "in 2001 the band took a hiatus" only 7. And even in our Wikipedia: "the band took a break" = 192; "the band took a hiatus" = 48. And this is not about a break during a concert. The first occurrence of "break" or "hiatus" in a Wikipedia article about a music band can be the result of a random choice, regardless which word was in a source. This is because Wikipedia articles are not written by simple copy and paste operations. But once such a word occurs, it becomes untouchable for me. Even if the meaning of a more readable synonym is practically identical, my edit will be reverted because it "changes the meaning". Even if the word in the source was indeed "hiatus", it was not the real cause of the revert. The real cause was the mere fact of my copy-editing, which is even more clear when you look at my another reverted edit, where I replaced "bogus" with "false". I thought that "bogus charges" meant "false charges", but - again - my edit was reverted for the reason you already know. However, I checked the source and found that none of the two words were used. The contentious adjective was "ludicrous"!

As for language (in)competence, native English speakers rarely see their own incompetence. This is because they acquire language automatically and mindlessly, at least most of the time. For example, they think that "oftentimes" or "the reason is because..." are correct and sound good, which is unacceptable to me. Most of them have no idea about misplaced modifiers. I often explain that If you "only kissed her" you did not have sex with her, but if you "kissed only her" you did not kiss other girls, and who knows what else you did with her ;-) You might say that language evolves, and much like the split infinitives, misplaced modifiers are ignored in common English. Yes, English evolves... but in the wrong direction. The split infinitive is not so important because it does not lead to ambiguity. But misplaced modifiers are ambiguous by definition. Usually context helps but why not express our thoughts precisely and logically, even at the expense of sounding unnatural? Especially that what sounds unnatural today may soon become quite natural. It is only a matter of time. You might say that most people are intelligent enough to get the meaning of a sentence from context. But sometimes context does not help, no matter how intelligent you are. For example: "there are more educated people" can mean "there are more people that are educated" or "there are people that are more educated" Besides, Wikipedia is read also by children, non-native speakers and those less intelligent adults. To me, the most valuable thing in language is logic - not idioms, jargon, slang or rarely used words. If we want to communicate efficiently, we should use plain language whenever possible. Unfortunately some Wikipedians use uncommon "clever" words just to sound smart. Sometimes they do it unconsciously, though more often they are fully aware. Of course none of them will acknowledge it. Language is a system of communication, but by the choice of words we can convey additional information that suggests something about ourselves - how intelligent we are, how much we know about a particular subject, etc. But do we need this additional information in Wikipedia? What I lack the most in Wikipedia articles is plain, unambiguous language. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * None of that is really relevant to this discussion, or to improving the essay. If others have directly accused you of "language incompetence", that is a personal attack, as stated in the essay, and should be handled accordingly. But this isn't the place to air grievances. BilCat (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @BilCat I agree with you, but what can we do about it? The simplest solution is to restore the state before my first edit. Please, allow me to do it or do it yourself. Thanks for your explanation :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IP 85, as someone who is very welcoming to ESL speakers, my brief response would be: pick your battles. Even though I agree with you on a couple of the examples you gave, while this may be annoying perhaps, this is not the hill you want to die on. Single words can at least be looked up; modern browsers and gadgets make lookup just a click away. If I were you, I'd save my energy for harder-to-find problems of mangled syntax or unclear writing that can't be pinned on a single word or brief expression, which leave even native speakers uncertain about what is being said, and cannot simply be looked up online to gain understanding. Getting into a fight about whether a simpler but less precise word is an improvement over the rarer but more targeted one, will just lead you down a rabbit hole, and isn't worth your time.
 * That said, there may be a perfect venue for you, if clarity in English for second-language speakers is really important to you, and that is Simple Wikipedia. Are you aware of it? Here is the article on Pete Way of  UFO on Simple Wikipedia. There, if you make a simplifying edit catering to clarity for non-native speakers, it's very unlikely that you will be reverted there because your words were too simple. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mathglot Simple Wiki? - by all means. I even made some edits there. The only problem is that (to me) Simple Wiki is too simple. I love plain English but not necessarily Basic English, and I do not want to limit my vocabulary to 1500 - 2000 words. As for going down a rabbit hole, I absolutely agree, especially that I do not care too much about Wikipedia. I care more about my English, which became my passion. But, as BilCat noticed, this is not the right place for such discussions. Thanks for your help :-) 85.193.252.19 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Endorsers
The following editors endorse the contents of this essay:
 * 1) —  Sundostund   mppria  (talk / contribs) 15:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Substantial Rewrite removes WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:SCREW

 * PREQUEL My proposed version is, which may be different than the present version, as it is currently in dispute and multiple drafts being suggested. Please assess with reference that, and address specific comments with reference to the justifications given in edit summaries for each atomic change.  Jaredscribe (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ENDPREQUEL

The essay has been substantially rewritten, it is now an entirely new thesis. It can no longer be used by admins to WP:OWN an article and WP:SCREW newcomers and marginalized persons, as it apparently once was, according to the two deletion discussions. I think all editors who voted in support should be ashamed, and all who voted to delete should have simply undertaken to rewrite it, as i have done.

The basic proposition is NOT a WP:personal attack. To slur an editors ethnicity, sex, or physical appearance is ad hominem, and basically fallacious. But the two ways that this essay could be used:
 * To give a negative evaluation of someones intellectual or moral character, is not - courts and schools do it all the time. It must be done justly by a person with moral or intellectual authority.  Its clear from the essay that that how it was used for this purpose, and equally clear that its author did not have that authority, in spite of administrative priveleges.
 * But to aver that someone's subject matter competence is inadequate on a given article, is a much less deprecatory - and often necessary - reminder. All of us must admit that there are dozen of topics on which we are incompetent to, say, WP:BOLDly rewrite an article's lede, or engage in managing-editor level content decisions.

But the essay, as written, was so vague and obscure, that the allegation couldn't be defended against; it was unclear what was alleged. It was also a threat of expulsion: "We should gently remove them from the wikimedia community" it suggested. Written by an administrator, it was a veiled threat to do exactly that, and could have been used to bully people in good faith WP:Content dispute

But the new essay retains and expands some key points. A good essay on this topic is needed. COMPETENCE SHOULD BE DESIRED by us all, and we should all seek to increase our knowledge each time we edit, in a project that purports to be a compendium of the humanity's collective supply thereof.

I urge @Friday, and all his cronies and critics to reread it carefully Yes, I ACCUSE him of intellectual and ethical INCOMPETENCE, and all the others with him, who have ever voted for or quoted this essay in dispute (including myself: I incompetently quoted it on several occasions against senior editors when I was a newcomer accused of edit warring, and I did it in the spirit of WP:IAR and in response to alot of WP:WTF, before I even read it closely)

Now, it can also be used by newcomers and other marginalized groups against incompetent senior editors and administrators, whose competence at quoting (or misquoting) policy and in writing crufty essays exceeds their competence in the understanding and explaining the subject matter that may be in dispute.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Your blatant attempt to rewrite the essay to suit your own personal agenda has been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Such a major change in scope definitely needs to be discussed and approved first. BilCat (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any discussion would, I suspect, have to be preceded by an abject apology for Jaredscribe's above ill-thought-out screed before the proposed changes could be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And who is "@Friday"?? BilCat (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, User:Friday, who hasn't since 2016! I wouldn't expect a reply from them. BilCat (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. Friday created the essay in 2008. Hasn't edited it since 2009. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I edited this article long before @AndyTheGrump started a WP:Content dispute with me over at Talk:Tesla master plan
 * I will welcome discussion and input from @BilCat and all other interested editors
 * Since @AndyTheGrump has repeatedly demonstrated fallacious reasoning in the form of vulgur ad hominem WP:personal attacks (which he refuses to retract), straw-man arguments, and a refusal to acknowledge demonstrated facts, and a refusal to acknowledge his mistakes and correct them, we should presume him incompetent for the purposes of this discussion, and ignore his input. Jaredscribe (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , your edits to the explanatory page appear pointy, are disputed, and should not be restored without consensus. Also, your demeanor in this discussion is not acceptable.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Ponyo, now that the conflicts of interest have been declared, regarding a current content dispute and misconduct allegations on another article and its talk page, I will not restore without consensus.
 * If I've offended anyone, I'm sorry. Is it because I called someone "incompetent for the purposes of this discussion", that my demeanor is unacceptable, or was it for some other reason?
 * I propose that you restore the 18 March version, which contained the "Three essential competencies" mentioned below, and had presumed consensus. Yes, it is my personal agenda to cultivate and practices these competencies myself, and to encourage others to acquire them as well. I'm not ashamed of that agenda, and I would like all wikipedia to adopt it, because it would this community more WP:Kind, more COMPETENT, and more WP:Encyclopedia-like.
 * I returned three days later and substantially changed the lede on 21 March to soften the threat made by this article. If that is what is in dispute, lets talk aobut that.   Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what 'conflicts of interest' you are referring to? As the other contributor most involved in the (entirely off-topic) discussion you refer to, I would like to make it absolutely clear that I have declared no CoI in regard to that article, since I don't have one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume they mean that your conflict with them elsewhere means you are not competent to comment here. It's faulty reasoning, of course, and borders on incivility. BilCat (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Might be a CIR problem there as well. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The borders of incivility were breached some time ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was erring on the side of caution. :) BilCat (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We are both conflicted with eachother from a prior and ongoing dispute, in which he has alleged "bullshit" and "conflict of interest"; in response to which I have asked a retraction and have alleged incompetence in response to his doubling down. That should be declared before this discussion proceeds, and now it has been.
 * Moreover, If my allegation is true, then his counter-claim of "blatant rewrite to suit your personal agenda" is now suspect.
 * That is sound reasoning.
 * I stand by my proposed re-write independently of that particular content dispute between he and I
 * By rewriting this essay to remove the threat of indefinite block, I INCREASED the CIVILITY of this discussion. Here is how:
 * The gentle rewrite was an act of generosity to him and to all others accused of incompetence. It was also in accord with the encyclopedic principle that admins and bureaucrats, and veteran editors who quote this essay (like myself) don't WP:OWN the encyclopedia. That is an admission of humility, and this community needs it.
 * Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "sound reasoning"? Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Based upon what I've read, I do not see a need to change this essay at all. It seems those opposed to what it says never inspire confidence that they, themselves, are competent. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)