Wikipedia talk:Incivility blocks

Moving Towards A Call To Question
Colleagues,

Would it be possible to move a finalized proposal to question? I am losing track of the discussion here and I think we're getting off track. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't help that. I've moved the irrelevant bits into it's own thread. Is that more helpful? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Making it simple
Incivility blocks are ineffective, counterproductive, and should not happen. Anyone bringing a "s/he's being mean to me!" thread to ANI should be blocked for escalating amounts of time. Should people be uncivil? No. Should we block people to keep them from acting like assholes? No. WP:NPA covers everything that needs be covered in this regard. Unit Anode  23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considered opinion, I suppose we must agree to disagree. Currently either the situation is that the editor is blocked quite severely with not much warning, or they don't get blocked at all until things get so out of hand that it disrupts the project and we have a real battle on our hands. What would your suggestions on resolving this matter be?
 * As for blocking someone on ANI for being upset that someone was being insulting? I rather think that's one of the reasons that this forum was setup. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ANI is a dramapit, nothing more. And blocks for incivility simply don't work. removing that as a potential option solves that problem. Unless someone violates WP:NPA, they shouldn't be blocked. Unit  Anode  23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, ANI is a drama pit because of the disruptive behaviour of a wide variety of editors. ANI is not the cause of the problem, the editors who are reported there are. Blocking someone for disruptive incivility happens all the time, btw, and it works really well. It's just that there is no reasonable way of doing it - it's all over the place at the moment. Some obvious trolls are given a LOT of leeway (see Nothughthomas, while others are blocked straight away, and indefinitely. I'd say that this is sorely needed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, ANI is a dramapit because people take dumb shit there, and others fan their flames. Unit  Anode  00:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can think that if you want, I have to disagree. I've found that the "dumb shit", as you call it, gets shut down pretty quickly. Have you got a better idea that will scale that would do a similar job to ANI? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience civility blocks are indeed effective. Sometimes they need to become indefinite to be effective, but more often than not if there is equal enforcement the user will start acting civil. There are always some people who uncivil and "refuse to change", and for them I would suggest that Wikipedia may not be compatible with them. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree with you Chillum, they are not effective because all too often they are given for what is not considered incivil in another culture, so they merely breed resentment, not just with the editor banned but with his colleagues on the project too. Without doubt Americans have a far different perception of incivility than Europeans - For examample - what is brusque or even meant in humour in Europe (excluding one central pocket) seems to be incivil in America. Some cultures can be very blunt indeed. Are we all to change to American culture or change to European - or more accpetable try to find a centre route acceptable to all? I have a feeling some of these here, want to impose a very narrow and restrictive view - well that wil never work - which is why i comment here, unwelcome as that seems to be.  Giano   08:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that we are not actually debating what is and isn't civil. We are trying to figure out what happens when incivility occurs, however this is decided. This policy proposal doesn't cover what is and isn't civility. I rather think you are flogging a dead horse here, Giano. I'm sorry that you got offended above, this was out of line but that shouldn't mean that you become disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is such a pity TSBDY that anyone disagreeing with you is considered "disruptive" you cannot debate the results of perceived incivility and how to punish it, if that incivility is not in fact incivil. You are cracking the wallnut before it is ripe or picked from the tree.  Giano   08:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to my previous point, which is that this policy proposal doesn't define what is and isn't civility. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you in error because you cannot find the cure for an ailment that has yet to be defined.  Giano   08:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People are blocked for incivility all the time. But if you want to debate what is and isn't civility, we have an existing page for doing this at Civility. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - this is why I feel that escalating blocks with the possibility of the escalations being reset via consensus are a good idea. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I'm having DSL probs with my internet, not sure when I'll be back tomorrow. PS: No cheering & hooping while I'm gone. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick, now he's gone let's get out the party gear! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've returned. Punishment or Prevention, is the core dispute of WP:CIVIL implimentation (if not all types of blocks). If these proposal are based on punishing editors, I've a prob with that. If these proposal are based on preventing disruption, that's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What is so special about incivility blocks?
Excuse me, but I am finding it impossible to understand why we need a special, extremely defined blocking process for incivility blocks when we don't have anything close to this rigid a system for much more obvious blocking situations. Nobody has demonstrated that incivility is more harmful than, say, tendentious editing, 3RR, or violating copyright, all of which directly affect the content of the project and are far less subjective; it makes little sense to have a rigid system based on the most poorly thought out and poorly articulated policy in the project. Indeed, some of the activity related to the development of this policy is crossing into incivility in my opinion, and I'm a darn sight more tolerant than most editors.

I am not seeing any rationale for having a separate, rigid blocking system for subjective blocks in the absence of a structured blocking system for more objectively determined blocking situations. Risker (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: A 30 minute to one hour block?  That is a cool-down block and goes against blocking policy; such blocks have consistently been shown to be more likely to aggravate rather than ameliorate situations. Risker (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I also think, for the 10,000th time, it is not possible to discuss the punishment without defining the crime. It is a recipe for disaster. This page seems to be full of volunteers wanting to employ the hangman, but sadly lacking in anyone prepared to say what the unfortunate victim is to be hung for.  Giano   09:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've stated a few times, currently we have a situation whereby either no block occurs for ages and then things get so out of hand that an indefinite block is made, or someone comes along and very heavy handedly blocks for too long, which of course either causes the editor to feel upset (sometimes justifiably so) or another admin reverses the decision, which means we go through the whole process time and time again. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I should note, it's not a cool down block. Perhaps we should make this a bit more clear in the policy text. These aren't there to "cool down" the editor, they are to stop them from being disruptive. They warn them that we are serious, and it gives them a chance to change their behaviour. Technically, a "cool down block" is an attempt to make the editor calmer by removing them from discussion, but that's not the point of the 30 minute to one hour long blocks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then for the 10,001st time, it is time to discuss a threashold - define the crime. Now that you have introduced "disruptive" that too needs to be defined before it can be legislated against, as has been seen here, some people have differing views on what constitutes disruption. You are putting carts before horses and and the whole lot will career off the precipice if you don't do things properly.  Giano  09:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a rather large amount of hyperbole there Giacomo. As I've stated, this isn't really the appropriate place to discuss this. Have you tried Civility? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, nonsense. A block of 30 minutes to an hour is a cool-down block, even if you want to call it something fancy and exotic. Show evidence that this works in an adult online population before you propose to try it here; all previous experiments along those lines in this setting have done nothing but aggravated situations. And you still have not justified why there needs to be a special rigid blocking system for a subjective block when there is no such system for objective blocks. Risker (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A block of an hour is often done to vandals to prevent disruption, why would it not work here? And we have a predefined and prescriptive system of blocking for 3RRs, which is an objective block, so I don't see why you say that we don't have such systems. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What vandals are you blocking for only an hour? Looking at your log, it seems...none of them. I'm afraid you're behind the times, Tbsdy. And let's quote the 3RR rule: "It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident." The word "usually" is not prescriptive. And please don't rearrange my posts, I consider that to be grossly uncivil. Risker (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What, you post a pig and you think that I'm being incivil? LOL! Anyway, back to the point, what has my block log got to do with anything? Regardless, I suspect you are looking at the wrong block log - try Ta bu shi da yu. But that's irrelevant, 3RR is a well defined policy, admins follow it all the time. Are you saying they don't?
 * As for it being prescriptive, the text of this policy also says something similar, perhaps you should read the first section more carefully? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tdsby, I know perfectly well what your old account was. I also remember the circumstances under which you stopped editing with that account in November 2007. And I don't see a lot of one-hour blocks in that log, either, except for IPs, and this won't be applying to them. What you are trying to do here is to force a change in administrator behaviour by legislation, which wasn't how things worked when you left, and isn't how it works now either. I do hope you are not advocating that anyone practice blocking in this way, because your "one hour block" is indefensible. Risker (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice. All of which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, unless you can correlate why I took a two and a half year break from Wikipedia to this somehow. Though I don't think that my marriage and subsequent fatherhood really has much to do with this, though burnout may be more closely related. In relation to the one hour blocks, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, it's definitely defensible and in fact I've explained it all in detail already. Oink, oink! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you have not explained it at all, Tbdsy; in fact, when asked to provide evidence that your belief that a 30 minute to one hour block would be efficacious, you've come up empty. And your 2-1/2 year absence is significant in that you are no longer familiar with either the community or expectations for administrators; they are but a misty rose-coloured memory for you, lacking in any connection to reality. (And in my book, you left because of burnout, which was incredibly obvious at the time.) I've seen this before in other admins who suddenly reappear. You're claiming as a common and acceptable practice something that has never been a common and acceptable practice, and which you yourself have never practiced. The Wikipedia community of 2007 would not have been supportive of this, nor will the Wikipedia community of 2010. We elect administrators to judge each individual situation on its own merits, not to follow rote processes that are based on someone counting entries in block logs. I can assure you that any admin justifying their block by "well, that's what it said on the chart" isn't going to be getting a favourable hearing from me. Risker (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Risker that this type of block is likely to be inflammatory in practice. Blocking is a severe measure and shouldn't be used to show someone "we're serious" or to mark up a block log for further reference.
 * My general view of the proposal is that I don't think this is the right approach. I think the policy goes far too far in reducing enforcement flexibility, while not really saying anything new on the front of what behaviors are actually problematic. If the policy were up to me, it would introduce broader expectations for civil discourse, encouraging people to write in a manner consistent with a message sent to thousands of strangers, while roughly maintaining current enforcement procedures. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A 1-hr block, is not sufficent (IMHO), one could go for a nice walk & by the time he/she returned, the block would've expired, or hang out at another website. Not all editors are 'glued' to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's the problem - a one-hour block is basically just meant to say "look I can block you". It's a demonstration of power, not a measure likely to produce positive results by removing or rehabilitating a problem contributor. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just the thing. None of the suggested text is set in stone, I was always happy with removing bits or even whole chunks of it all. I was just looking for consistency, which was the main issue at stake. It wasn't even a problem of defining civility, which is already done at Civility. I just saw that there were a lot of editors either never getting blocked and then get slapped with an indefinite block (e.g. User:Nothughthomas and User:Wiki Greek Basketball, but then there are others who get blocked too quickly or for too long and this just leads to other admins reversing the decision. If some consistency could be had, then these pretty bad issues could be resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience short blocks do in fact help with new users who are perhaps testing the limits. They are less effective for long term users. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Would a 1-hr block be effective for getting the attention of non-responsive editors? There's some out their who continue to edit away & ignore message at their talkpages & requests for discussion of their edits on edited page-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In such a case I would assume they have read the warning and accept it. If they continue then proceed as normal. If they truly do not read their talk page then the block notice will explain things and show them their talk page, in such a case a shorter block does make sense. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not get consensus that something is needed in the first place?
This is all a waste of time (probably this message included). If you believe there is a problem with incivility such that there need to be special measures in addition to what already exists, try and get some consensus that this is required in the first place. Discussing the finer details of block lengths etc etc is pointless unless the community agrees that something new is required. Quantpole (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, that's what we intend to do fairly shortly. But not much point going to the community with a policy of half formed text. It's unfortunate that we have a few distractions here, but we are persevering :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't understand me. There is no point 'going to the community' with anything if the community doesn't agree with the basic premise. Quantpole (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and calling community discussion 'distractions' is a bit uncivil, no? Quantpole (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, by distractions, I meant "Giacomo". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And continuing a dispute with him in a new section where he hasn't been mentioned is of course the definition of 'civil' behaviour. Quantpole (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We've already been down this road before: Civility/Poll. There was a vast majority felt the current policy was too lenient; you can read the other results yourself. So there's already precedent and a backing from more than just a select few for this proposal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an instructive page to read. Maybe those who are trying to push this proposal should give it a good read again to see whether they think this proposal is justified, wanted, enforceable etc. Quantpole (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is. I'll be continuing with this, I don't think it will be long now before we take this to the general community for debate as to whether to make it formal policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs, it's your own time you're wasting. Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

An RFC not so long ago showed that the community was not satisfied with the enforcement of civility and personal attack policies. I am not sure where the RFC is now, but I will look for it later. Yes, there is a need for reform in this area, this need presents itself in endlessly repeating dramas caused by the lack of clarity in this matter. I am very glad efforts are being taken to improve our response and make it more consistent. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Punishment/Prevention tends to be the crux of it all (IMHO). Punishing blocks are frowned upon, where's Preventing disruption blocks are encouraged. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there's the poll linked to above, which you might be thinking of. While it might be said that the community were dissatisfied, identifying what they are dissatisfied about is a bit trickier. Taking it to mean that the community wants some rigid, open to gaming, drama-creating additional policy would be a stretch. Quantpole (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said a number of times, this isn't really ready to get decided on as a policy. We've been throwing around ideas, that was one idea I had and obviously I was trying to be flexible. If you read above, I don't believe that you could game it very easily, however maybe it would cause drama. However, there's a lot of drama at the moment. So I didn't really feel it was a waste of time, given that we're still trying to work something out.
 * The key to this policy isn't in the enforcement, it's actually in consistency. Currently there is no consistency, anyone can block for any incivility reason at any time for any length of time. I don't think that's wise, and I think we should have some more consistent block times so that one person doesn't get blocked for a longer period of time than another editor. That's always been the crux of what I'm trying to achieve here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly looks like the key to this policy is handing out ever increasing blocks as if that is a magic answer. It's certainly an easy way out. The difficult thing is fully assessing a situation, seeing the context, whether there is baiting, is it a long term issue between editors that needs a different approach etc etc. Consistency would be good but it does not require additional policy, just admins with a bit of a clue. I can understand that might be too hard for many admins to do, so lets just wield the banhammer instead eh? Quantpole (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing is for sure, we need more administrators to get involved here. Afterall, they're the ones who hand out blocks. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Quantpole: actually, what you're citing as 'the difficult thing' is exactly what I suggest we avoid. these kinds of civ-blocks should be as pro-forma as possible to make it clear that there is just no excuse for incivility.  that's the only way we're going to dissolve the current culture of being uncivil and them whining, moaning, and screaming about it if someone tries to block you.  If people are being uncivil, block them all for a bit and then studiously ignore their complaints.  they will learn quickly not to be uncivil if they can't even get the marginal reward of being able to complain about it.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way I see that you could game the system would be to stop being uncivil for a few months in an attempt to reset the block duration. I think that if someone wants to avoid blocks by becoming civil then that is a success. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If only every editor would take that approach. Reformation (even if temporary) of conduct, goes a long way. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What I like about this proposal is that it outlines a clear solution for when users do not reform. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bowing out (sort of)
OK, so I'm spending too much time on this for now... if someone else wants to take up the mantle that would be grand. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to have conflicting feelings about how WP:CIVIL should be applied. Someone else, will have to take the mantle. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Given that I have clinical depression, I think it best for me to bow out of this one. Sorry fellows and ladies, I know we were making progress to get the text up and we were almost about to take it to be formalized and agreed upon - who knows if the general community would accept this? I can see that there are those who don't like the proposal, and a number of them were pretty nasty about it, but I guess that's life eh? I'm hoping one of you can move it forward - that would be good :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, it looks like things are progressing! Awesome. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank opinion
I believe that civility blocks in the abstract are a legitimate use of the block button. I also believe that civility bans might be justified in extreme cases.

That said, this proposed policy is rules creep and starkly punitive. If such proposal doesn't appeal to someone who is generally on board with the concept, it does not have a snowball's chance of becoming policy. I don't think proposals like this are a good use of time. If you must work on shaping policy, please start with something modest and more broadly appealing than this. I like must of the language before the "general process" box. Cool Hand Luke


 * Sorry, I don't see how it is punitive. It involves warning the user to prevent the need for a block, only if the behavior continues can a short block be used to prevent it from continuing. If short blocks fail to prevent the problem then they get longer. This is not about punishing someone for being bad, it is about preventing the victim from experiencing further abuse. How would you suggest we change it to make it less punitive in your eyes while still protecting the victim? Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, like I've always said, none of the text is set in stone. My main concern is to have some consistency in blocking policy around this area. I thought an escalating blocks policy was a good idea and not punitive at all as it gives editors a chance to correct their behaviour. For instance, I think this could have been applied to Wiki Greek Basketball fairly successfully and caused a lot less drama than we have now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think civility blocks should be handled the same way as blocks for say, OR. At the extremes, people should be blocked for this reason. However, this proposal is an attempt to impose 3RR-style absolute sanctions for incivility. That doesn't work! The 3RR can be confirmed by anyone, while incivility is subjective and open for gaming. For this reason, I think blocks should only be imposed on the extremes&mdash;when nearly everyone can agree that user is unrepentant, as with Wiki Greek Basketball. This proposal, if actually implemented, would cause insane problems&mdash;probably wheel wars&mdash;in any controversial topic, where one side might seek to ban the other for dubiously uncivil cases. Unless there's a way to make incivility more objection, 3RR-style systems of blocks are inappropriate. Cool Hand Luke 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Licence to run amok with a block button
Until there is a very clear and completely unequivocable definition of what constitutes incivility, any resolution gained from this page can grant a free licence and serve as encouragement to certain Admins (I don't think its unreasonable to actually name Chillum and Sandstein as just two of several) who appear to have made it their life's crusade to become guardian angels of their own interpretation of incivility. Their actions merely add to the disruption and distress. Until incivility is defined, there is no point discussing its treatment.  Giano  07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see above. This talk is quite chaotic. Isn't it time to bring some structure and separate threads, and don't mix them? Mukadderat (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, We do have a proposed definition of incivility, here. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do not, or I would not have to labour to have people banned for calling others "cocksucker" while others are blocked for far less. It is chaotic and confused.   Giano   18:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Favouritism & inconsistancy, has become a problem. Thus the CDA proposal being prepared (follow my contributions, if interested). Better yet, contact Matt Lewis, as these 2 things are kinda connected. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "You have to 'labor hardly'" is exactly the reason under this whole proposal. As with all other policies it takes time to fleshen them out, so while you are right, it is not the reason "to run amok" scared with big red block button. It cannot be worse than now: just as you say, I have already seen people blocked for 2 weeks for "your version is moronic". Mukadderat (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * De-sysopping bad Admins is not an option, there are too many of them and they stick together like excrement to a dog's blanket. The existing admins need to have firm rules defining civility, not guidelines, firm rules. That will make it far easier to get rid of them and also make Wikipedia a safer place for the rest of us.  Giano   18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe (for starters) the F-bomb should be banned, except for personal talkpages (here's alright, as we need them for examplers). GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for administratros? We've elected them, we should be able to recall them. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What pray is the "F-bomb" do you mean flatulence? Please don't beat about the shrubs. As for "should" be able to get rid of them "should" is not good enough.  Giano   19:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The f--k bombs, the universal word. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO all admins, who are harassing users, who are making PA against users, who cannot assume good faith towards users should be de-sysoped after the very first offense. I am not saying that admins cannot make mistake. Of course they are humans too :) I could understand and forgive an unfair block, an unexplained article or image deletion and so on. Those could be treated as mistakes. Yet harassment, PA, assuming a bad faith is not a mistake. It is a choice, and it should not be tolerated, when it becomes an administrator's choice. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to parse that first sentence... are you saying that all admins are harassing users and making personal attacks, or all admins that are harassing users and who make personal attacks? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Escalation and descalation
The escalation as it is suggested reminds me the three strike rule, when a previously convited man gets life for posession of a pinch of weed. It was already mentioned that blocks are not punishment, but prevention of disruption. It was also mentioned that many people are rude in the heat ot the moment, out of frustration, out of bad habit picked in other chat sites, out of false understanding of free speech (forgetting that wikipedia is not Hyde Park), etc. It was also mentioned that mechanical blocking may be easily gamed to oust good but "temperamentally unstable" people. I may list a number of other reasons for the following proposals.


 * Escalated blocking must be combined with other means of harm reduction:
 * (R1) Unblocking rules must be set, so that a person is unblocked if xe:
 * (a) agrees to refactor his offensive comments:
 * (a1) remove personally-directed offensive remarks not related to article content
 * (a2) rephrase remarks related to article comments into:
 * (a2a) neutral tone (stupid opinion-> wrong/baseless/erroneous oponion)
 * (a2b) and, more important, into a disputable form ("stupid opinion" -> "wrong opinion because...").
 * (b) Explicitely promises to watch their tongue.
 * (c) Gives a permission for opponents to edit xis future comments in the current topic in compliance with (a2a) and (a2b). For example, in (b), "watch their tongue"->"try to be civil".
 * (c/a2b) For (a2b) only synonymic replacement is allowed, without changing the overall sense;
 * (c/a2a) For (a2a) complete deletion is allowed; however the offended has a right to put them into a separate section clearly titled "personal remarks" and formulated in civil way.
 * (R2) Time and space limits must be set, analogous, but not similar to US traffic violation point system: "severity" of next blocks decrease aver "non-offensive time" and possibly separation of offences for different article categories (I understand this may be an unnecessary bureaucratization, but I listed it just to consider an option)
 * (R3) There cannot be two consecutive blocks by the same admin. There cannot be more than N blocks by the same admin during M days. We have over 1K admins now; no need to create an imression of personality clash as is seen in this talk page betheen Giano and TBSDY. The goal is to educate an incivil person, not to harden him in his (possibly false, but not always) conviction of being a victim of manhunt. Being blocked by several people gives a stronger signal that it is from community (some may say "ruling clique", but ).
 * (R4) Profanity is considered offense regardless the context, if an opponent says so. I know that American TV is full of "s***" and "f***". I know that as an emotional outburst, "WTF" comes firat. But really, guys, is it really an "outburst" 6 hours later? It may be hard to believe but some people are offended by offensive words (what a surprize) If an opponent says he is offended, and you disregard his feeling, it does not mean "free speech", it means you intend to harm his feeling, rather than improve the discussed article. However "nonpersonal profanity" cannot be base of blcok escalation.
 * (R5) There should be no "drive-through" blocking. If an admin occasionally runs into a page with a battle of words, hist first act should not be blocks left and right. A prominent warning must be placed in the article talk page, so that everybody see it at the same "psychological time". (An option would be to put warnings in all user talk pages, but (a) you may miss someone (b) you may hit someone innocent (c) the first thought when seeing a warning in my own talkpage is quite often "why me??? He started first!!", rather than "OK, OK, cooling down".

When discussing the points, please preface the thread with its index, e.g.:
 * (R2): This item will allow the offender roam endlessly. Mukadderat (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it will not, because of (c). Mukadderat (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (R4): Just to pock up one of your points: This is 2010, whether we like it or not Profanity is not considered offensive regardless the context. The degree of profanity and context is paramount.  Giano   19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, disagreed. (BTW, you probably meant "context", not "contest".) Article talk pages are to discuss article content. I fail to see how profanity may help this. Its only purpose is offensive emotion. I am well aware that bros from da Hood editing articles about East Coast rappers may just as well not know better synonyms. But I strongly suggest that the prime goal of this policy is education in civility, not simply blocking. The person why easily says "this f..ng text" just as easily say "your f..ng text", and in admin's shoes I am not going to spit hairs whether the first one is an exclamation of surpize and the secons one is attack. IMO the only context allowed for profanity is the context of citation, as above. (Although I am aware that some ingenious smartasses will write "Dr. Dre would say 'your f..ng text sucks' " and make a straight innocent face :-) Mukadderat (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (R4):There is nothing wrong with a bit of profanity. You can say shit or fuck without it being an attack on someone. "That was a fucking difficult article to reference, but I made it through the shit and finished it!" Not a violation of personal attacks or civility, perhaps not what some people like to read but not abusive. You could use no profanity and be very uncivil and engage in personal attacks, for example calling a user excrement would not be profanity but would be an inappropriate personal attack. The essence of the idea of civility is not to have flowery language suitable for children, it is about being decent to each other. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling a user an excrement or making a typo "user:Guano" is irrelevant to (R4). See my answer to Giano above. I say if you say "shit and fuck", you are demonstration disrespect to readers and, not that you mentioned it, providing an argument to those who want to block wikipedia in schools, despite it being 2010. Mukadderat (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt you will get consensus for R4. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we are almost in agreement Chillum, now would you be very kind and go and protect Blenheim Palace where I am being tag teamed over an info box. Then I won't need to call someone a fucking nuisance. :-)  Giano   19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks like a content dispute, not something to use admin tools over. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well shall I change it to something you are equipped to deal with?  Giano   19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see a few issues with that article, and actually I may be able to help. I've got some time free on weekends, and I've been looking for an interesting article to work on. Now I know you said on my talk page that "I mistakenly asked Chillum for some help [and] that wil never happen again", but I'm confused how that can be. How does one "accidentally" ask for help? More confusingly, I'm not entirely sure where I can "put &#91;my&#93; olive branch", but it sounds really quite excruciating so I'll probably pass. However, your suggestion on reading up on Baroque architecture sounds pretty interesting to me, so I think that's a good idea. I definitely think content is extremely important, and as I say, I've been really looking for something to focus on, so this sounds ideal. I look forward to collaborating with you :-) As always, I'm quite a fan of your work, even if I don't like you particularly much. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm now the subject of ongoing ban proposals on this article! We've already had this one, which got closed down fairly early. I'm frankly gobsmacked, given that Giano is the one who mentioned the article at all here, I now see to ostensibly win an argument/pick a fight/insult Chillum. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't want anything to do with it. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have realised - it's content isn't it? - not really your area.  Giano   19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to using my admin tools, that is correct. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is precisely correct. Your use of userspace is a bit of a problem Giano, you can't just slap on an inuse template and expect that others cannot edit the article. See this article for more info on this long standing policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(R4): While I let it fly for a while, since it seems I hit a sensitive spot, however please notice that the intention of (R4) was in the last sentence: However "nonpersonal profanity" cannot be base of block escalation, so while our attitudes to profanity differ, it seems we agree in terms of the scope of the discussed policy. Please notice the title of this section: "Escalation and descalation". Mukadderat (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Offensive words
What's offensive to some, is not to others. We need a list of these suspect words, as part of this page's presentation. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Words alone are not important what is important is the intended or likely to be perceived meaning. Salty language does not make something uncivil, the intent behind the sentence does. I don't think our civility policies should attempt to label certain words as "bad". Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where the whole thing falls down. We can't turn treating people right into a flow chart.  Yet without a flow chart it's all going to come down to what a certain admin feels is uncivil on a certain day.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... that's what happens anyway. I routinely see admins blocking for civility issues, and I'm almost always in agreement with them. This is usually done by gut feel though, and while it can be explained it can be controversial. Nonetheless, the editors are almost always disruptive. Unfortunately, the block length is different, often depending on what sort of admin blocks and what sort of day they are having! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Howabout a list of 'em in phrasing examples? One can say it this way, but not that way. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You just need a list of really serious nouns and adjectives than cannot be said in seriousness to another editor.At least then we would have a basis.  Giano   19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most 10 year olds can tell when something is meant to be nasty, I don't think the problem has ever been recognising such comments. Listing a set of phrases will only open up gaming. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Defining civility on Wikipedia is proven tougher then I thought. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Talking about them fucking exams is far different from talking about that fucking admin... I don't mind salty language, others might, but what matters is in what context is it used (starting profanities in a heated discussion = bad idea) and towards what it is directed (as WP:NPA clearly states, comment on content, not contributors... you can disagree with someone, but you should do it collegially and focus on their argument substance.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet I've seen shocking behaviour defended as funny and funny behaviour cited in block explanations. I agree it should be easy to tell the difference but apparently it's not.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree here - now I know that some people don't like ANI as they feel it's a dramafest that achieves little, is it best to discuss a block here before actually doing the block? I note that a few people do this, but others block and then note it at ANI. Is there are preferred way to counter disruption of this sort? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I thought the solution for this would be quite simple: if someone civilly objects to the use of a given word or phrase, then it is considered offensive in that situation. To give an example, if an established user is exasperated & drops an f-bomb (for those of you who don't understand, that means saying "fuck" gratuitously) for the first time, I doubt any reasonable person find offence. On the other hand, if someone routinely drops f-bombs & continues to be a potty-mouth despite repeated pleas to watch the language, that person deserves sanctions for incivility. This applies to other words such as "queer." (And if we get someone who makes her/himself a nuisance over complaining about other people's choice of words, then I believe that person deserves being sanctioned. The idea here is to write an encyclopedia, not to quibble over behavior which should be more properly ignored.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Er... didn't MzMcbride get an ArbCom case based on letting fly when he got frustrated? I think we should be careful about rude words - for instance, if I get called a bastard in Australian culture by a friend, then that is actually seen as a term of endearment. In other cultures this would be the height of rudeness. If I got called a "fucking bastard" during an argument, this would be different. It's all about context - contrary to the popular belief of some (I'm looking at you here Giano) I don't really mind swearing if it's not with hostile intent. So I think that the whole swearing issue is a bit of a red herring here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If somebody is told that a particular term offended them, and the person kept using it then that would speak volumes as to their intention of using it. "Queer" is a good example as it has multiple meanings. Saying someone has a "queer way of making inline citations" may just mean it is strange, but if the person makes it clear they take offense at the term then it would probably be a good idea not to use it towards that person again because now you know it is offensive. In this case there is a legitimate case as the term does have a derogatory meaning. In other cases someone may say they are offended by something as simple as saying the Earth is older than 6000 years old, in such a case I don't think it is reasonable to accommodate the person.

I don't think we will every come up with a system that does not require discretion and common sense. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the way that the community has leaned in the past but I would support an adjustment of expectations to discourage the use of "salty language" as Chillum puts it, especially in pages intended to have a wide audience like article talk pages and project pages. I think using language consistent with a professional environment (read: post as if you are writing to an audience of 5000 strangers, with whom you would like a long-term positive interation) demonstrates respect for the project and one's collaborators, and would promote a generally more courteous environment. It's difficult to demand people to interact courteously when in other regards they are free to act with a level of discourtesy more associated with a web chatroom than the world's #1 reference publication. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the list compiled by an admin Jac16888, who claims he's  an adult, yet leaves one wonder, if it is the case--Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the likes of Chillum and Sandstein have abused their positions and fed their egos; they have not used their discretion and common sense (as Chillum claims above). They have blocked in a bullying, gratuitous and vile fashion. Sooner or later rules will be imposed to curb their disgraceful and overpowering behaviour. Whether they like it or not. The community just has to decide if that will be sooner or later.  Giano   21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You accuse and accuse me of such abuse, yet I stand up to scrutiny every time. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * you know, Giano, I'm starting to get tired of hearing you whine. I get that you don't like the idea, you've made it sufficiently clear.  now you're just trying to bully people.  stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose edit is the above? Why is it unsigned?  Giano   19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, let's avoid incivility towards each other in this discussion of incivility. ("There's no fighting in the War Room!")   Will Beback    talk    22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This Incivility blocks page, has gotten too expansive for me. I don't know if we're repeating ourselves or not. I don't know if we've agreed on anything or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We haven't and I'm tired of it and am going back to mainspace. You all seem perfectly happy with the chaotic state of the civility policy and its police knocking you about at whim, so you must get on with it and muddle through the best you can.  Giano   23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's become impossible to reform WP:CIVIL. If we can't come to any agreement here? we're spinning wheels. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we are doing a fine job of finding a solution. We just need to ignore the noise and pay attention to the signal. If you look closely you will find that while there is an abundance of text disparaging this idea, it is mostly from a small group of people(very small) being vocal(very vocal). I suggest we ignore the disruptive influences on this discussion and try to move forward(that means not responding to unproductive comments). We get that some people disagree with this, and if they make up far more volume of text than those presenting ideas and solutions then that is annoying but it does not stop us from carrying on. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can come up with a javascript snippet that will help filter out unhelpful commentary. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, as I'm easily confused when these topics get overly long. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Chillum, I am leaving you to it. Your glorious powers will remain undiminished. There my last comment. Civility is all yours gor ever and ever.  Giano   23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have an amazing ability to tell us all that you are bowing out of a conversation or talk page but yet I still see you here. Which is fine I suppose, but really don't say it if you don't mean it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression from your comment at 23:05 that you had left this thread, Giacomo. -- llywrch (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strawman section, yes? Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of where we are up to now
OK, here is a summary of where we are up to now.

There is a proposal to block over incivility. Currently the policy text as it stands consists of two sections, the first is an abstract as to what the policy is for, and the second section is how to enforce policy blocks. The second proposal is something I put forward, which is an escalating block policy, with an inbuild safeguard that allows for escalation resets through ANI discussion.

There is some controversy over the following areas:
 * 1) How do we define civility? Issues raised are:
 * 2) * Swearing - do we count this as incivility? Some opinions are no, it's too hard to do this; only if we take into account the context of where it is said; and yes, there is never any need to swear.
 * 3) * How do we deal with those who let fly because of wikistress and frustration.
 * 4) How do we enforce blocking without being punitive
 * 5) * In particular there are concerns about the escalating blocks proposal, as this seems to be too prescriptive. Some, like myself, don't believe this as it is a way of gradually allowing editors to correct their behaviour. However, others have expressed concerns that this has the same issue as cool down blocks - it will not deescalate the situation.
 * 6) * How do we stop people from gaming any system we put in place?
 * 7) * How do we get consistency in our blocking arrangements for civility issues?

Things that are good:
 * 1) Folks think that we either need guidelines around blocking in this area, or a policy
 * 2) People largely like the abstract.

This seems to me a fair summary of where this discussion is heading. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Circumlocutions and abbreviations
Just dropping in a point here for discussion. I personlly find the use of certain abbreviations to be incivil even though the phrases in question are not being typed in full. For example, when someone says "FFS", the level of exasperation is clear, but the offence possibly caused is no less than if the phrase had been typed out in full. Ditto when people talk about a "load of BS" or (moving away from abbreviations to circumlocutions) "horse excrement" (or even cleverer ways to say what you mean, but using different and "OK" words). It's just a way of swearing while trying to appear not to be doing that. Which is silly. I would include in this things like "f**k" and "you can't be effing serious". Typing swear words out in a different way doesn't make the action any less an action of swearing, and raising hackles. Note that I'm not personally offended by such swear words, but I am annoyed at the way they distract when dropped unexpectedly into normal discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true, but don't we already have Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument and WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! to cover this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative enforcement
OK, so I am cognizant of general feeling that the escalating blocks that I proposed is either too easily abused, too prescriptive or not within standard practice. Therefore, I propose, with general agreement, that I strike this proposal and we work on another way of standardizing or making block guidelines more easily understood for civility issues. I have made an edit to remove the text from the proposal already until we can get some clarity as to what folks think is best. As I've always maintained, nothing has really been set in stone at the moment and if further discussion is needed then this should occur.

So far, aside from a vocal minority, I think that there is general consensus that Ludwigs' and FT2's abstract is excellent and not so specific that it would get in the way of commonsense. From my side of things, it seems that a detailed procedure is not really what is wanted or needed, so I'm happy to go with overwhelming consensus and see if we can work through another way of standardizing on blocks.

What are some better ways of blocking?

My major concerns, and judging by the comments above I think this is agreed by many others, when it comes to blocking on these issue there are many different block lengths, depending on the administrator who blocks, and often these block lengths are inadvertently less than consistent and dependent on external factors, such as the mood they are in at the time. There are many non-admins who are also concerned about this area of policy and enforcement, and I think we should be careful to listen to them, even if some of them (no names mentioned) tend to either be on the fringes of our community and/or have unpopular opinions. There is a kernel of truth to their complaints, and while I don't think that most admins are abusive or make poor decisions, we all make mistakes and there are always areas that we can do better on.

Put more simply, I think that there is a general feeling that justice is not always served when it comes to enforcing this policy. Sometimes we don't block for long enough, yet other times we block too early or for too long. Regardless, I think that general consensus is that there needs to be some better guidelines around this area.

Another thing I've noticed in the general discussion is that most people have some concerns about what exactly is civility. Now I'm not sure that is really that this should be our focus here, because Civility is actually fairly clear as to what constitutes incivility. It reads:

Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern.

However, I still think the abstract is still useful in this policy.

Therefore, so far as I can see, we just need define a mechanism to standardize on blocking policy. It may be that this is something descriptive and specific, or it may be a more prescriptive guideline that allows admins more leeway. I think that the latter seems to be the case here, so I'm opening this discussion to find out what sort of things we can do to improve in this area.

What are people's thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * well, at the risk of sounding like a bore, I think we should revisit the 'parking ticket' model I advanced a while ago: one 30 minute shot across the bow block for first offenses, a flat, non-cumulative, unappealable 24 hour block for any later offenses. I might expand on that to throw in a 'trouting' phase: first trout them, then a 30 min block, then a 24 hour block, with the option to revert to trouting again (can I legally use the word 're-trout' in the state of Florida?) if, say, the user hasn't done anything uncivil in the last month or so.  basically it's a 'cut the drama' approach - incivility means you sit on the sidelines for a day, and there's not a darned thing you can do about it.  this removes any sort of psychological validation someone might get from being uncivil.  remember, the only reason people get uncivil is that they want to express something and they feel thwarted and frustrated.  make it so incivility itself becomes a thing that will thwart their ability to express themselves, and that will give them an incentive.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that this has merits, but there was quite a bit of concern that a 30 minute block is a bit like a cool down block. While I disagree, I have to say that upon thinking about it further there is probably some truth to the fact that it won't really help and might just rile up the editor. I think with blocking we need to take care that it's only done to prevent disruption and to protect the project. Would a 30 minute block do this? I think it might, but there are others who disagree and I think they have valid concerns.
 * I certainly think that discussion should occur with the editor, and if they show no signs of changing their ways then we should start implementing shorter blocks earlier. Whether we should formalize this... I don't know now.
 * Perhaps we can think of a more creative way of definining blocking periods, or maybe we need to consider that the admin should make their best judgement to block for incivility but be forced to report it to some noticeboard for review by other admins. It could be that blocking times start sorting themselves out naturally with a general consensus on how long to block. Perhaps this is the way forward... certainly it would be much more flexible than my escalating blocks proposal.
 * Is there some merit in this idea? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point. we could drop the 30 min block idea and just leave it with a trouting followed later (if necessary) by a short block of some standard length.  I am resistant to the idea of institutionalizing the 'talking to the editor' bit, because in my experience whenever you try to talk to someone about incivility, the result is a ream of fruitless, barely civil self-justifications about how they weren't being uncivil and everyone else was being mean to them and they were just doing what they had to do...  that just perpetuates the problem.  I think we need to borrow the logic of wp:DNFTT here, even though these are editors in good standing.  angry people are hard to reason with, no matter how sensible they are in most cases.   -- Ludwigs 2  18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good point - perhaps if those who aren't the target of incivility should not be required to start the discussion. As you say, this is often fruitless - an uninvolved editor would be better. I think we do need to give an editor who is being abusive some lattitude for things such as wikistress, etc. However, it could be that we have the victim report the abuse on a noticeboard, and if it determined by others that they don't understand how their incivility is an issue then we just issue a straight block. In this way we do keep the lines of communication open, but we don't force the editor to do the communicating, which is often counter productive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Demographics, Environment (Profanity)
What isn't discussed (explicitly) is that the WP environment implicitly filters the demographics of the contributor base. [] reports that only 13% of contributors are women. [] reports that WP had a net loss of 49,000 editors the first three months of 2009. While you can't prove a negative, the environment and what's consisdered acceptable has a lot to do with that. There are simply valuable contributors who we're going to lose because the environment is too hostile. Some might call them overly sensitive, others merely civilized.

I think the simplest example of the issue is profanity. A common opinion is that we're adults and saying fuck is no big deal. It's not for a lot of people, but it is for some. What strikes me about it is that is is unnecessary and adds no value. Does That's not a fucking reliable source convey more information than That's not a reliable source? In real life, profanity can be communicative. Some people use fuck like some people use like, hearing fuck from them doesn't mean anything. Others only use it extreme situations -- if a friend who never cusses says I'm fucking pissed the I'm dropping everything to talk to them. The important point is: in real life, it can communicate something; in Wikipedia there's rarely sufficient context to make it meaningful.

So we're losing editors. On the other hand, instituting a "no profanity" rule would drive other editors away. So, yes I understand there is no simple solution.

More importantly and more abstractly, there's frequently an underlying tone of don't be so thin skinned, ignore the insult. While the barbs thrown my way don't usually bother a man with my self-confidence the general population isn't necessary the same way. So the question the community must address do we really want to be the Encyclopedia anyone can edit or the Encyclopedia of thick-skinned editors?
 * "Ignore the insult"is absolutely out of question. We work on encyclopedia here, not on porn film (er... sorry, this is included as well :-). The itention is to cooperate. If I tell you "please don't use offensive speech" and you tell me "bug off, this is free country", I know your attitude towards me. Blocking is not for your speech, it is for your attitude to fellow wikipedians. Mukadderat (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been dealing with an incivil editor (a defrocked admin) who routinely drops f-bombs. Perhaps undergraduates find profanity acceptable, but once an editor reaches middle age, one stops hearing language like that.  Profanity  indicates a lack of self-control and a deliberate attempt to be shocking, disrepectful and disruptive. Racepacket (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Profanity rightly or wrongly is used frequently in everyday speech at the highest and lowest levels regardless of age, social class or even current temper. I have had conversations (on the same day) with a right wing senior government figure, a taxi driver and my eldest son - all have said "fuck" in general conversation. None of them were intending to be outrageous or direspectful. I raised my eyebrows at my son, with the other two - I barely noticed. It's not remarkable.  Giano   13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty extraordinary claim. What's your source for your information? Gerardw (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In instances of quoting someone, for factual accuracy purposes, I can understand the use of profanity as the person quoting is not the on really saying it, but rarely if ever could I imagine an instance where it is helpful if directed at anyone specifically or used as a reply out of frustration to someone else. For example, Giano's use of a particular word in quotation marks above for example purposes and not directed at anyone else in this discussion seems okay as it is used solely to illustrate his point and I could not imagine anyone giving him any guff over it.  But if used in any situation on Wiki other than to quote someone else's comment, it tends to be taken as needlessly imflammatory as it is hard to not imagine things escalating once anyone starts swearing at someone else.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Special users, lack of consistency
My WP:OR includes knowing a Marine Corps Staff Sergeant who once told me You can be an asshole, but as long as your a consistent asshole, the men will love you. What I see users most upset about is not community standards for civility but perceived inconsistency in how they are applied. There's too often an attitude, yea, they're a jerk but they contribute so much to Wikipedia! What is unknown and difficult to impossible to measure is how many editors are not contributing due to the hostility and perceived unevenness of community sanctions. (Sanctions running the gamut from lifetime bans to other editors commenting Dude, that's uncool.) Personally I suspect the loss of many occasional editors outweighs the contributions of a few. Again the community most address the vision -- do we really want to be the anyone can edit or the some editors are more equal than others place?
 * Ditto. also, if a person is a jerk, he is a jerk in many ways, and wastes other people time on unnecessary bickeringn in talk pages. There are difficult editors, but if he is a normal person, arguing with him (even endless and tiresome) is an intellectual challenge, but with a jerk it is frustration. Mukadderat (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The next step
We already have a standard and a road map in WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." What's needed is the community to come together to: Experienced editors need to convince other experienced editors that it is important.
 * reduce the hostility
 * apply the standards uniformly
 * support the victims of the attack

Existing enforcement mechanisms are sufficient. The first, underused sanction should be us thick-skinned types politely intervening to encourage more positive behavior. The more the better. Obviously some editors will need more persuasion than that; we have mechanisms for that -- it's the universal community standard that is lacking.

I anticipate many editors believe Wikipedia is too widespread to achieve such an ambitious goal. That may be true, but to fail to try is to accept the status quo. Gerardw (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this. I know I've had my own etiquette notification, so I'm probably partly to blame for some of my actions in the face of provocation, but Gerard makes an exceptionally good point. I have often wondered what would happen if the exceptional editors who are so extremely rude and insensitive were to drop off the mortal coil. Would Wikipedia continue? Well, the answer is that it would. In fact, more than likely another interested individual or individuals would come in and start editing the same articles as that exceptional editor. So it's not like there is any editor here who can not be replaced.
 * Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we want to replace them if they are indeed exceptional. But I think we really need to draw a line on the sheer and downright hostility that is being generated, as GerardW says. I was hoping that this discussion would help us come to some sort of consistency when it comes to blocking, which I see as one of our greater challenges. It's not really an easy thing to achieve, but that's why I was suggesting the escalating blocks. This has proven fairly unpopular, so I think it's back to the drawing board - I'm hoping we can hash something out that, even if not perfect, gives us a guideline for us to apply fairly across the board and that shows no favourtism. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible test run
Here's a thought. When the language is hammered out to your liking, begin by applying these standards within the admin community. Demonstrate that these standards can be impartially and consistently applied among yourselves, and if you can do that, then extend it out to the community as a whole.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any admins in mind when you say this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "any" admins, "many" admins.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand the frustration, but I don't see how targetting admins is very helpful. Admins are meant to be ordinary editors with a few extra rights. I realise some of them don't see it that way, and that's sad (power does tend to corrupt). However, we need to be consistent across all editors, not just admins. I don't really support this proposal. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this as targeting admins, rather admins demonstrating they can fix their own behaviour before asking us to trust that they can fix everyone elses.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh... I see. I would have no objections to this, so long as it doesn't become a free-for-all pick on an admin day. Adminship can be pretty stressful you know. For every incivil admin I see, I notice that there are at 10 unreasonable, nasty or downright insane editors who must be pulled into line, which really takes a lot of time, energy and patience. I rather don't blame some admins if they snap, but I do agree that there are indeed some admins whose civility is sorely lacking. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You've just verbalized by biggest concern perfectly. I rather don't blame some admins if they snap...  How long till this becomes the standard for enforcement.  Admins empathizing with their poor downtrodden bretheren yet dropping the hammer on the nasty and downright insane editors that must be pulled into line.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold on a sec. That's not really what I was saying. I don't agree with admins snapping, perhaps I should have been more careful with my words. I'm merely saying that adminship is actually a difficult job to do - first of all these are all volunteers who devote a lot of time to the project when they could actually be doing other things. All the admins I've known have not done it for anything other than the love of Wikipedia itself and all it represents. As you are not an admin, and you've never had to enforce a difficult decision I don't think you quite understand how nasty and difficult some editors really are. It's all very well for editors to sit back and heckle from the bleachers, but the fact is that adminship is by and large a nasty and unthanked job. That's why a lot of admins aren't really active - we currently have 1,718 admins and only 883 of them are officially active. I can assure you that I don't see even a fraction of this number on WP:AN/I, WP:AN or the other admin noticeboards, so that leaves a fair amount of burden on a few dedicated and foolhardy souls. These few are frequently attacked by outsiders such as Wikipedia Review, or perhaps added to Daniel Brandt's (oh he of the hallowed privacy brigade) "Hive Mind" list, totally violating any privacy they might have enjoyed. And what for? Why, because they have tried to protect the project. I know of at least one of them who lost their job because of harassment, and I know of another who was slandered in the most horrible way you could imagine, which caused her a lot of unnecessary grief and mental anguish.
 * So I'm sorry if this has turned into a bit of a rant, but when you say that we should apply our standards to admins, I agree. But some understanding of the difficult job they do might be nice. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but if that was supposed to make me feel more comfortable with this proposal it did not. You're continuing to take all my fears and post them in this thread.  I'm sure that's not your intent, but if you were sitting in my chair you'd see it.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to disagree with your proposal. Of course we need to apply civility blocking to admins, but I don't think we should be using them as guinea pigs. Why should an admin be blocked before a regular editor who is incivil? I say apply it equally to admins and non-admins alike. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposal was not about holding them to a higher standard, rather a request to demonstrate that they could apply this standard evenhandedly. However as long as admins view non-admins as hecklers and those who "just don't understand" there will be two standards applied. As you can not support my proposal I can't support a proposal that strengthens the concept of editors being second class citizens.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see editors as second class in any way. In fact, for quite some time I was happily editing without admin rights, certainly not as involved as I once was but I didn't see the need for the admin bit even though I was asked a number of times. It's only recently I got them back, as I felt there was a place for my particular skills. To say that I don't understand what its like to be an "ordinary" editor is, I feel, rather unfair. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to know you, I only know what you wrote, and it's frankly chilling to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be useful as a trial run. The stipulation would have to be that only admins play -- that is, only another admin would discuss with another admin not following the newly understood civility guidelines. Otherwise it would degenerate into pick on admin week. Gerard PFA W 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is my concern. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Incivility should be seen as a symptom, rather than a punishable offence
The problem with this proposal is that it addresses symptoms, rather than underlying situations. There is no substitute for an intelligent look at a situation to find out why an editor is, or has become, incivil. This is harder, and impossible to legislate for, but irreplaceable.

For example, no one here should reproach a BLP subject and newbie that has been repeatedly libelled by Wikipedia for expressing their righteous indignation. Yet where such a situation has been allowed to develop, it is quite possible to come across a talk page where that person seems to be grossly abusing someone. Promoting a symptom-based approach increases the likelihood that such situtations will be grossly misjudged, adding insult to injury.

If we have to have an "incivility blocks" policy, it should oblige any admin considering an incivility block to first take the time to investigate the underlying situation, obtain both editors' input, and talk them down from their positions, or refer them to dispute resolution. Incivility should be seen not as a crime deserving punishment, but as a symptom of a situation that requires outside intervention, be it by an administrator or the community at large. An editor should only be blocked if they persevere without any apparent interest in having the situation resolved.

We should also look at the way in which we seem to discount editors' emotional responses as invalid. The work place comparison has often been brought up. It is true that I cannot keep calling my boss, colleagues or customers names in their presence and expect to get away with it. However, I believe it is equally true that all of us have discussed the perceived failings of colleagues, bosses or customers in unflattering terms, on some occasion or other. We are in danger of fostering a culture where any such discussion anywhere on the site is considered a punishable offence. Editors are human beings with feelings, not robots. The fact that spoken words fade away, while written words endure, has something to do with this, but we have to accept that even the enduring written word may simply have been the reflection of a fleeting emotion.

I am not against promoting civility standards. It is very important that editors assume good faith and all the rest of it. People can't work together otherwise. When negativity is allowed to bounce back and forth without end, the working climate becomes intolerable. However, it is equally true that AGF and civility are gamed. One editor may be wilfully deaf and uncooperative and accuse another editor of POV pushing until the other editor blows a gasket, only to then take them to ANI for "incivility". Likewise, there is a vast difference between someone being justifiably angry, and someone aggressing another simply because they have a chip on their shoulder and want to take their bad mood out on someone. What all these situations have in common is that you need to look at the underlying dispute to understand what you are dealing with, rather than punish those through whom the first symptoms manifest.

Lastly, people are different. Some have a delightfully flamboyant way of expressing themselves, and enjoy hyperbole, colloquial idiom and humour. Others are calm and matter-of-fact. Both types may be making essential input that enriches this project.

Punishment itself often exacerbates and prolongs disputes. I understand the good intentions behind this proposal, but the way to hell is paved with them.  JN 466  14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, heavens. look, in response to this, I'm going to come straight out and say something that I've been avoiding saying to this point.  Yes, people have all sorts of motivational and personality differences, and they are important to consider. but there's really only one reason for incivility: childish self-indulgence.  Now a little bit of childish self-indulgence in natural and unavoidable - tweak anyone one just enough in just the right way at just the right time and their inner child will come out to bitch-slap you - but wikipedia has gotten in the habit (through the misunderstanding of some very high-minded ideals) of indulging fits, tantrums, and other forms of childish petulance.  If you go to intelligent design, global warming, or any of the other contentious articles on wikipedia (or look over some of the pseudoscience debates I've been involved in) what you will see is endless arguments in the unrestrained style of spoiled second-graders, and you'll see admins acting like annoyed grammar-school principles (i.e., ignoring everything until it can't be ignored it anymore, and then handing out semi-random punishments designed to shut people up more than to address the problem).  I mean, can you imagine a board of directors meeting for a corporation, or an academic colloquium, where people behaved that way?  I've only seen one case where a professor leaned in that direction, and as soon as it became obvious that it was ongoing behavior, he was politely but firmly asked to consider retirement, which is ultimately what he did.  There is no way in hell wikipedia will ever be taken for a serious encyclopedia so long as talk pages look like they are written by 8 year olds.


 * The worst part of it, however, is not that it's indulged, but that it's taught to all new editors. to give you a typical trajectory (it happened to me, and I've seen it happen to dozens of others):
 * A new editor arrives at a page of interests and starts to edit
 * The page happens to be a contentious page (pages are contentious because they are of interest to large numbers of people, so many people end up at one, fairly quickly)
 * The new editor is stuck in the middle of someone's dispute with someone else: his/her edits are reverted without explanation, s/he's called names, s/he's told s/he should edit somewhere else until s/he 'gets the hang of' wikipedia, or worse.
 * this is enough to put off most sensible editors, who will walk away thinking that it's just not worth putting up with that crap to edit some stupid encyclopedia.
 * Any new editor who persists will find him/herself under increasing pressure, including:
 * more offensive language
 * warnings of administrative punishment (and remember, new editors are not savvy enough to distinguish between normal users and admins, so every specious warning they get sounds official, and threatening)
 * accusations of being disruptive, tendentious, SPA, trolls, vandals, or anything else from the wikipedia 'ghost and ghoulies' repertoire
 * possibly even be gamed into being blocked (with or without cause) by experienced editors who know sympathetic admins (every good grade school bully knows when it's the right time to call for the principle).
 * the result of this is (a) sensible editors walk away, (b) less sensible editors learn that the only effective style of editing articles is to be a spoiled, pugnacious brat.


 * when I read what you wrote above, what I hear is some indulgent parent saying "well, that was bad, but he's really a good boy, and he didn't mean to be mean..." I'm inclined to agree with you that most wikipedia editors are good people with good intentions.  But sometimes even the best child needs a slap on the wrist or a sharp word to keep them in line, otherwise they become insufferable, and where there's one insufferable person, there will soon be two, and then ten.  If we want to rid wikipedia of its current "Lord of the Files" aspect, we're going to have to rid ourselves of that tendency to indulge.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I agree with most of what you say. The problem is that "warnings of administrative sanctions" or "accusations of being disruptive, tendentious, SPA, trolls, vandals, or anything else from the wikipedia 'ghost and ghoulies' repertoire" are not generally held to be "incivil" here: on the contrary, they are exactly the sorts of warnings and accusations that sway some admins – and remember, one is enough – into blocking editors. These behaviours – which I agree are not helpful and indeed give civility a bad name – are not what this policy, as currently formulated, is able or designed to address.
 * Write one that is and I might support it. -- JN 466  19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * actually, I don't think that's true. I think those behaviors are generally considered uncivil, it's just that no admin wants to enforce them, because the few admins who try get caught in a collective tantrum that can last for weeks or months (look at the mess of hysteria around WIlliam M Connelly from his supporters at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.  From my own experience, I know that being calm, reasonable and persistent will always provoke uncivil behavior, because uncivil behavior is the only option available to editors who don't want to deal with actual reasoning.  The block strategy is designed to force people to use reason rather than incivility.  Trust me, with a civility block policy in place, I could break any page-ownership issue on wikipedia, just by sitting myself down in the middle of the talk page and being reasonable.  other editors would have a choice between being uncivil and getting blocked (which would leave me free to edit the page) or actually communicating with me (which can only work towards NPOV).  can't do that now because all I'll get is an endless stream of uncivil comments and misdirections.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly with Jayen466, above. Incivility is a message and it often means that the other guy, frankly, deserved the cussing-out that he got. I'm not sanctioning personal attacks directed at anyone, even the deserving. Anyone reviewing some situation needs to filter through the noise and sus-out what's going on. It will rarely be as simple as Editor:A said 'fuck' and he's blocked. Ludwigs2, I'm please that you mention Lord of the Flies; there *is* that aspect to this project. There are too many littluns running about with pointed sticks. When they need blocking, it should be for being disruptive little shits, not for how many of George Carlin's words they said. In some cases, the two concerns will track the same and there will be a class of incivility that warrants an immediate block, but that bar is high. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, I think that misses the point of both the discussion here and of the novel. Lord of the Flies wasn't about a bunch of kids running around with pointy sticks; it was about how a society without cultural ballast will rapidly devolve to reasonless, superstitious, tribal antagonisms.  No one here cares about someone saying a few bad words; we care about one editor trying to use intimidation, bullying, or other non-reasoning forms of control to attack, silence, or dispose of editors they dislike.  If you want to oppose the idea, that's fine, but please oppose the idea that's been presented, not some strawman position.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, I am familiar with the novel. I know full-well how the themes map to this project. You did recognize Jack Merridew, right? There's a thread at ANI now about a littlun poking a bigun with a stick. What you're talking about is not 'incivility'. Fact is, 'incivility' is commonly used as a reason for prissy, puritanical blocks. What you are seeking to address is, frankly, not as big a problem as the thousands of immature editors that have beset this project in recent years; it a question of scale: too many anybodys editing wo/clue vs serious people. The death of this project will be marked by a mob of idiots. Jack Merridew 04:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry, I missed the reference - bit silly of me . but actually, part of the problem I'm having here is that I am talking about civility in its proper sense, it's just that the term has gotten watered down by the wikipedia fixation on individualism as a panaceae.  The original use of the word 'civility', mind you, was "the state of being a citizen and hence [denoting] good citizenship or orderly behavior" - it's take on on a modern meaning of being polite, but that hard core of good citizenship is what I'm after and what I think is important here.  to my mind, there's no class distinction here - no 'serious people' opposing a mob of 'clueless anybodys'.  these 'anybodys' are usually people who have a perfect right to help build the encyclopedia but haven't yet learned the ropes, and the reason they haven't yet learned the ropes is that most vocal of the experienced editors are mostly trying to harass newbies off the project.  The point of civility is to build a functional social environment, not simply to be nice to people, and if we reduce it to 'how editor X talks to editor Y' we miss the point of it entirely.


 * P.s. I've gone ahead and refactored my unpleasant words above, by request - probably best if you do the same. they don't really add anything to the conversation.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
On a number of articles, I've noticed one thing that always seems relevant to civility - people aren't assuming good faith. Is this something we should take into consideration in this policy? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't they sorta mutually exclusive? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You'd think! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thought
You know, I think that part of the problem might actually be that we're trying to do something!!!1!1!! about this subject. If editors see that they can go running to the dramaz boardz and try to get someone "banned" (because they don't understand that we don't normally ban here), then they usually no longer need to address the actual issue which started the dispute. I'd guess that something like 99.999999% of stuff that lands on AN/I is the direct result of some content dispute. I like above because I can agree with most of the points made by everyone there, for various reasons. The thing is, I think that we may be creating more of an issue then there is by immediately jumping to address every minor complaint ASAP.

What about something like this idea: we set up some sort of procedure, similar to the way that RFC/U is supposed to work, where anything posted to AN/I needs the endorsement of others (or something). Exceptions for obvious emergencies could be made, of course. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 18:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is that too many threads on AN/I take the form of one editor complaining about another, who then responds, which then leads to several thousand words of accusations & vituperation between the two until either (1) one or both parties are exhausted, or (2) a third party offers an opinion. The responding party by her/his action ends up endorsing the issue, even if the matter boils down to something trivial such as a preference for spelling (or the inclusion of an infobox). Then there is the problem where someone has an appropriate complaint, but it doesn't get endorsed because no one is available to investigate & endorse it -- which is how Wikipedia works, unfortunately: no one makes anyone here do anything -- even help one another. But somehow it gets done a surprising amount of the time. That said, I wish there could be some kind of procedure similar to what you propose -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to re-merge this fork
At this point, there is nothing much to this proposal except for a rewording of Civility. I propose that this be reintegrated back into that policy. The clue that this is needed is that the text of the proposal doesn't even mention blocks, despite the title of the proposal. Incidentally, the nutshell isn't accurate either, as it refers to "consistency in blocking" which is, again, not present in the text itself. Risker (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The blocking section was removed pending ongoing discussion - it's there, just in the aether for a bit. that being said, we could consider uniting this with the main civility policy, but I suspect that trying to do that before this idea is established on its own will just result in a minor conflagration.  it might be best to keep the ideas of giving that policy some teeth and changing that policy separate for the moment.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I support this, for different reasons. I think it was an incredibly bad idea from the jump. Scott  aka UnitAnode  01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No reason to merge. While I agree that this is part of Civility, it is a particulatly well-defined subtopic, and may well be in a separate subpage. Mukadderat (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's a difference between being a general dick and not showing anyone any respect versus hounding a new user who made an edit someone didn't like. Both get a scolding under WP:CIVIL, but it gets to a gray area after that. None of the others at WP:5 are anything that could/should/might ever lead to a block. This is, or seriously needs to be. I'd argue that the unique nature of needing teeth behind one of the 5 warrants a separate page/policy. Would it be better if we billed this as "enforcement of 'do no harm'"? *Shrugs* I know the meta nature of civility makes things fuzzy but there's at least overwhelming consensus that the current "system" really sucks when it comes to ad hominem incivility. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of a merge, mainly because this further dilutes discussion. As if there weren't already enough places to discuss this sort of issue...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just mark it rejected. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rude but rule-following?

 * No, I'm not narcissistic. I'm seriously offering my former (and potentially, future) behavior as a test of the water of what people are concretely thinking here. Anyone here know my history? In the past (and potentially in the future) I have been very harshly dismissive of anything or any behavior that smells fishy. I have little time for idiots who think they aren't. I most especialy have no time for people who throw crap up on the board and then demand that people treat it like caviar. I have ranted nd raved on many an occasion. I have been insulting, and deliberately so. I have thrown fits, and on rare occasions, they were huge. BUT. I back off (sometimes in a sudden 180-degree turn) when I see I am wrong. BUT I refuse to back off when I do not see I am wrong. BUT I often just stop... walk away from things that piss me off. I can be very excitable, but I never go to peoples' talk pages to harass them. In short, it may be fair to say that I am "distinctly rude but consistently rule-following." So, what about me? Is some doofus of a WP:Randy from Boise admin who has been on-wiki three months (all of which was spent spent vandal whacking, working on one or two video game articles, and chatting on IRC) gonna speak to me in a faux-polite Adminly VoiceTM and use  this project as justification for blocking me because I don't play nice??? Where do you draw the line? Do you know? Should you know? &bull; Ling.Nut 09:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can be whacked not only by Randy from Boise, if you will be deliberately insulting, as you say, and rightly so. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Insulting people will not make articles better. Mukadderat (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. Facebook is thataway --> &bull; Ling.Nut 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this conversation has officially hit bottom. I don't see any forward progress here, especially not in this particular thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well, the problem is that a lot of people are having a hard time distinguishing between being crusty and being uncivil, and are worried they will get zapped for being crusty when they haven't actually been uncivil. I have the same worry, actually - I have some decidedly crusty moments in my wikipedia life - but I'm rarely overtly uncivil.


 * me, I wouldn't mind taking a couple of hits as a reminder to play nice if I knew that the hits were being parceled out equally. One of the big problems that civility has on wikipedia is that there's a strong impression that civility is actually a tool for punishing people with 'bad' ideas: Right now I'm getting the short end of that: got an editor assaulting my character in every single post - accusing me of pov-pushing, edit-warring, incivility, the whole gamut - and I'm having to be very careful to hold my tongue (because he's one of those pseudoscience mavens, and I damned well know I'll get sanctioned by someone if I make an incautious retort).  fortunately he's not very good at it, so I can hold my own fairly well, but I have a hard time imagining what extremes he would have to go to before one of those same someones cautioned him about it.  as long as that kind of thing exists on wikipedia there will be no civility anywhere - that's why I like this idea.  make it even, make it fair, make it strong, and then that kind of gamesmanship won't be able to get any traction.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ludwig, though I also say that if you just ignore the uncivil remarks and let them brush off and dont retaliate then Wikipedia would be a better place. Just like in grade school bullys want the attention and for the drama, we are giving in to them with the discussions and the processes and the AN/I and ArbCom and wikittiquete noticeboard and all the "rules" and all this does is give them an opportunity to evolve into the type of bullies that stay just barely within the "rules" and STILL find ways to harrass. In the end "innocent" people who are pushed over the edge and say something they shouldnt because of harrasment from a bully's actions such as edit warring, refusal to adhere to consensus, wikihounding, etc; as opposed to words and insults; end up getting blocked and other sanctions. The stricter we make the punishment and the broader (or even if stricter) the definition the more we end up just creating more drama and the opportunity to hurt good editors who contribute good content. For those in Criminal Justice, Poli Sci, or from the state of NY may know the folly of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. That's where we're heading with all this talk of uncivil actions and incivility.Camelbinky (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start
I agree that this is similar to gun policy in the US: if you ban guns, thugs will still have them, and decent people will be in disadvantage. At the same time no rules is bad rule. Therefore I suggest to restart the discussion from the very beginning.

What is blockabe
The very first issue to be decided not how to punish, but what to punish. Most objections are based on the worry that people will be judged rather arbitrarily whether some expression is insult or simply careless or colorful speech.

I suggest to beging from the most basic considerations:
 * c1. Blocking is to prevent disruption.
 * c2. Rudeness and insults tend disrupt cooperation.
 * c3. In some cases rudeness is unintentional, misundertanding, lack of language skills and other cases easily handled if reasonable goodwill is present.
 * c4. Therefore we have to identify situations where rudeness cannot be handled by goodwill
 * c5. In addition, we have to outline some guidelines / FAQ how to handle cases of #c3. Unfortunately too many people respond to rudeness either eye for eye or crybaby, or "I'm calling my lawyer an admin".

Here is a first shot:


 * Degrees of rudeness


 * ex1 You are (user:M42 is) a liar (hipocrite, anti-Semite) -> personal attack
 * ex2 What user:M42 says is bullshit.-> rude, bordering personal attack, baseless, broad ofensive: puts M42 in position of difficut defense (what he can say? "No it is not!" Why would he bother? The phrasing suggests that M42 will not be heard)
 * ex3 What user:M42 says is a lie. -> rude,  insulting text; baseless offensive
 * ex3-1 user:M42 lies when he says that [...] -> personal attack, but may be remedies by choice of words
 * ex4 What user:M42 says is hipocricy. -> rude, insulting text, baseless offensive
 * ex5 What user:M42 says is anti-Semitism.-> grave accusation; baseless offensive
 * ex6 What user:M42 says is bullshit, because... -> rude, but contestable; dialog is possible, since while the person is rude, he seems willing to talk
 * ex7 Fuck you, there is nothing to talk about
 * ex8 ...

I have to respectfully disagree with items "Lacks project benefit" and "Improper character" items from the proposal. Paradoxically, gthey are both trivial and subjective. 'Trivial' because it is hard to imageine how incivility may otherwise benefit a project or be of proper character. 'Subjective' is because the main problem is to identify when incivility turns into disruption (ses also my suggestion to distinguish long-term and short-term/local disruption below).


 * How to handle rudeness
 * Tell the person politely that you would not like to discuss the issue in rude manner, that his rudeness distracts you from the question at hand.
 * Remind the person that they must discuss particular statements, not particular personal traits of editors.


 * Which rudeness is blockable
 * Basic rule, never too bad to repeat: blocks are to prevent disrtuption
 * Long-term disruption must be handled by existing procedures, up to ArbCom
 * An admin must handle only short-term/local disruption: the one which happens during particular interation of a given pair (or group) of users in one or more articles during reasonably limited time interval (TBD)
 * The defendant must repeatedly asked to ease on rudeness, since it is perceived as disruption
 * The rudeness is of grave type: kind of #ex1 (personal attack); #ex2/ex6 (foul language) ; #ex7 (heavy expletives)
 * The defendant ignores repeated requests of self-moderation
 * The offended person themselves must complain: we don't want someone run around and censor heated discussions: it will bring more harm than good.

Are the colleagues willing to move the discussion along this line? The idea is to block only apparent disruption, after reasonable warnings, WP:AGF, and attempts to moderate.

Mukadderat (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you mind throwing in more rationale for "The offended person themselves must complain: we don't want someone run around and censor heated discussions: it will bring more harm than good" ? Apart from ethics (e.g. yours truly comes from a culture were squealing to the authorities is avoided and discouraged) there may be instances when the offended party cannot respond (absent, sick, dead etc.). Right now it reads like a blank permit to crap on the pages of users who announced wikibreaks: now a vandal can rightfully argue that what was vandalism yesterday is now merely incivility... NVO (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

 * Support.174.3.110.108 (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll about straw polling

 * Oppose arbitrary straw polls at the moment. Straw poll about what? Nothing is shaped out and the discussion seems sizzled. Mukadderat (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. If you read through the kilobytes of incivility conversation above, you will realize that this proposal will not get off the ground in its current form.  Polling will just get the brick pie fight started again.--Father Goose (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the whole thing. I thought there was support.174.3.110.108 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only consensus I see forming here is to mark this rejected. We should have a straw poll to determine whether we should have a straw poll to mark this rejected.  I hereby support the meta-straw poll. Gigs (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I  think this is just temporarily dead. The persistent opposition is for the uncivil editors who want to continue in that manner. Some of them know it's wrong, but don;t want to stop, and some of them actually think it's the right way to do things here. I think in a year or do, when more of them have moved on to other things, we'll have a pretty firm consensus.    DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Prerequisite
I'm all in favor of this, but...

Before giving admins a nebulous, codified rule -- that some admins will ignore, and others will willfully misinterpret -- I think something needs to be done about admins that ignore and willfully misinterpret the rules. There are way too many of them doing this with impunity, and that is not to say that there are a lot of them.

How can we address enforcement, while never doing anything about corrupt enforcers? -- Rico  22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is in fact a problem, I think the first action should be talking to the admin. Do you believe in talking with people you are in conflict with? AniMate  09:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)