Wikipedia talk:Civility

The initial Wikipedia:Civility policy was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history) before being copied here. -St|eve 19:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• /Archive 1 - old discussion to December 2005.
• /Archive 2 - 2006, including discussions on whether WP:CIV should be policy.
• /Archive 3 - 2007
• /Archive 4 - January - March 2008
• /Archive 5 - Exercises in civility (rather than policy discussion)
• /Archive 6 - March - April 2008

Accusations of vandalism

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

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

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

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

How should we deal with it?

I have seen too many great editors leave Wikipedia because of harassment. There does not seem to be a working policy against personal attacks and stalking, and that is IMO unacceptable. WP needs all the hard-working editors it can get. What can be done about it?--Berig (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would agree with you that the behavior guidelines need some better method for ensuring even-handed application. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that WP:NPA and WP:HARASS are deficient. Are you sure the problem is with the policies themselves, and not with a lack of enforcement? Dlabtot (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably the lack of enforcement that is the problem.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with it (documents)

There's been some tidying lately, of CIVIL, some headers were re-named, this was added to CIVIL :

Outing and harassment

See also: Wikipedia:Harrassment

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

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

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

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

There is this guideline with this particular wording --

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

External links

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

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

Footnote, Footnotes

[2] No, I don't think we need worry about two lists. There won't be many additions, I am betting, and we can weed out the ones that aren't any help. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the edit I reverted there were already two lists, one with the behavior and one with the examples of the behavior. No reason not to combine them instead of making footnotes out of the examples. It only follows that if that's the style, then not only should the examples of "insults" be footnoted, then so should the rest of the behaviors' examples. It would have ended up in two lists, making the reader go to the bottom for each one to see examples of each behavior. A consolidated list is better, including the examples with the behavior. Dreadstar † 02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This was the most recent addition to the "list", which was quite a good one.[3] I would like to see more additions like that, then any excess ones camn be culled. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to splitting the current list into two parts, keeping the "behaviors" in the body text, and putting the "examples" of those behaviors in the footnotes; as was started here with "insults". I think it's better to keep the examples with the behaviors.Dreadstar † 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a good point; however, I think there could be also good reasons to separate some stuff out; (e.g.) "technical", stuff, and "jargon" might be best in the Footnotes [4], the text ought to have as little jargon as possible, for the sake of the general reader, and new Wikipedians. But what goes where could be in a state of "flux" as new ideas are submitted by editors, which is OK, I think, as long as CIVIL maintains stability. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It got reverted

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

Disgusting.

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

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

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

You've spent months working on WTBDWK? And here you claimed that you didn't work on paranormal topics, getting me to back off from identifying your conflict of interest in editing this policy. I feel duped. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentleman: WTBDWK is a movie, and I delivered many arguments in attempts to have the article treated as an article about a movie and nothing else. Do not even begin to imply dishonesty. That would indicate a serious lack of discretion on your parts and a desire, to, as we say where I come from "drag a bush". I support Dreadstar's positive involvemnt in Bleep. I was there. Attempting to accuse him, or any editor of something that did not happen is anathema to me. Attemtping to then imply that I have somehow been dishonest in my statements is unfair, inappropriate and the very worst kind of incivility for it infairly attacks another editor's honesty, integrity and shows a lack of inclination to truly understand collaboration. You might note that I did not name SA in my comment on Bleep and Dreadstar but you however, did not pay me the least of that courtesy in your attacks. (olive (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

You and I seem to have a remarkable ability to misunderstand one another. To me, "calling a spade a spade" is telling the truth, even if that truth is uncomfortable for someone. I'll come right out and admit that I have no idea what you mean by "calling a spade a spade" in this discussion. My latest hypothesis is that it equates to name-calling, though to me that's a separate issue from uncomfortable truths. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that first sentence, and I hope I understand it :). I'm not against telling uncomfortable truths. I'm against applying labels to people, and that's what the phrase "calling a spade a spade" is often used to justify. I'm not aware of anyone who's decided that telling uncomfortable truths is uncivil, and I'm frustrated to see people say that the community is somehow against telling the truth. If that's not what you meant above when you said, "we've decided that calling a spade a spade is uncivil", then I don't know what you meant. I don't think anyone's decided that any variety of spade-calling other than off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil, so I guess I'd ask if you could clarify what you meant by that assertion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Which means that off-topic ad hominem attacks are uncivil.

Off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil.

Also, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are uncivil, neccesarily.

That is, no variety of spade-calling other than off-topic 'ad hominem' attacks are necessarily uncivil.

That is, instances of name-calling of any kind directed towards any user or editors are likely to be uncivil.

Other than all the indents, does that make sense? --NewbyG (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

GTB, your statement seems to imply that there was a dishonesty here. I don't know if that was your intention or not. However there was no dishoesty, and I am dismayed by the way in which Speere's misguided comments and I suppose R. Arritt's, have come to seem like truth, while tainting my reputation as an honest editor. This is truly remarkable especially given this page. I would like to reiterate that the Bleep article is not about the paranormal as many other editors pointed out at the time, nor did I ever consider it to be about the paranormal. It is, quite simply, about a movie. If it is possible for this kind of accusation to be made and seen as truth, then Wikipedia is indeed broken, and much work will be needed to mend it. Just a clarification.(olive (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Huh. I'm not in any position to say that someone is being dishonest. I can't distinguish, in another person's typed words, a mistake from a lie. Therefore, I don't try to. Your reputation, Littleolive, as far as I'm concerned, is impeccable - I've only ever seen you say intelligent and helpful things. I don't believe that "falsehood" = "lie". I was really just replying to Raymond's suggestion that anybody has ever suggested that pointing out falsehoods in uncivil - as far as I know, that's false. I doubt he's lying. I'll bet he believes what he's saying, and I'd like to disabuse him of that error. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's a good example to look at, it seems. I am curious what "basic implication" it was "obvious" I was making. What exactly does, "well, duh" say? Do you think I was accusing Martinphi of acting in bad faith? I have personally made enough good-faith errors of judgment that I can't really do that. An error of judgment is very different from bad faith. Bad faith means you're not here to help but rather to disrupt. I have never doubted that Martinphi is here to help. Every POV warrior is here to help, because they think their POV is correct, and that it will help people, by enlightening them or whatever. Am I perhaps misunderstanding what you were reading from my frustrated remark?

Very high probabilities of bad faith should be dealt with as good faith anyway. Heck, even outright bad faith should be dealt with as good faith. That doesn't prevent us from responding effectively, and it keeps us clean, whether we're right or wrong.

Check out this example: a user asked a question at AN, and a senior Wikipedian removed the question with the edit summary: 99% chance of trolling. Rather than revert, I just answered the user's question on their userpage, and they seemed pretty content with the answer. The next few edits there, as well as some chat at another talk page, make for an interesting case. There was a very high probability of trolling, and yet treating it as good faith was the most effective way to deal with it. Even if it had been trolling, a clear concise answer would be the quickest way to neutralize it.

I'd like to see one example of a case where "calling a spade" was useful. My argument is not that it's rude, or even necessarily incorrect, but that it's invariably unproductive. I've seen the argument that it's "honest", and it's clearly satisfying on some level. Some argue that you have to be able to identify a bad editor to warn others, but I don't think I've ever seen an example of that leading somewhere good. Have you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is not a battleground

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

"Leave this page alone". What are you saying? You go to Bleep draw your own conclusions, and do not assunme any kind of good faith. My contributions to the talk pages, which by the way you have no right to say, stay away from, have been to add something on a paradigm shift on civilty, comments on lying which led to thought on a new paradigm, and to respond to a unjust attack on another editor. The paragraph I wrote was not accepted, so I have removed myself from that discussion. I stand by the unjust attack on another editor.

Speer, I work very hard at being a neutral editor. You might have noted on the Bleep article the multitudes of times I agreed to changes I did not agree with to allow progress to be made. I am flabbergasted at your assumptions. You know nothing of my Point of View, and I do not air it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Please do not presume to know anything about it.

If this is a battle ground it is created by assuming to divide editors into two camps according to some presumed POV. Can editors, or people for that matter, be divided so neatly into paranormal believers whatever that is, and scientists.

If one deals with what is actually going on here, and on the edits, rather than attempting to label other editors at any time for any reason, things would move more smoothly. Such labelling might be construed as true incivility, and highly destructive to any collaborative environment, and that, if anything is my Point of View (olive (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

I am dealing with the edits, which is to note that they are being made against consensus. Fine, you're doing your part with "bold", but then you release these long diatribes when other people do their part and apply "revert, discuss".

It is a very important fact that you can't just divide people into "scientists and paranormalists". In the normal state of this page, you could not do so and there would be no need to. However, the way this discussion is currently going, you basically can, and it would be detrimental to Wikipedia not to notice the pattern. I am pointing out the pattern so that, hopefully, we can move on past the issue, and this talk page can once again be used to discuss actual shortcomings of the policy instead of electronic ghost voices and misleading movies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again

( Repeated from section above for being a most pertinent observation ) --

But to get back to the central discussion, this behavior is certainly disruptive. But is this page the place to be describing it? (--per--Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes, that is a good point to initiate discussion, surely. --NewbyG (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Role of examples

See also: Role of examples

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

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

Apology: edit summary

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

Recent deletion

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

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

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

Uhh, the terms are uncivil regardless of who you use them on. I don't see this undue weight. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I would not apply the term "woo-woo" to anyone, it would be uncivil. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

2008 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both of the points raised here by User:Martinphi are in fact adequately covered in existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --

The sanction against nastiness ostensibly leveled against groups, is covered by the normal process of reading our "rules" in a broad manner, if that is reasonable.

And -- Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of conflict and stress. -- is currently policy; the poisoning of atmosphere is not mentioned, that metaphor is not needed.--NewbyG (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this -- In broad policies like this one it helps to keep things general. [...]-per- Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC) --

However if editors keep adding examples, the helpful ones will be kept by consensus.

Yes, I agree with User:GTBacchus that examples can be useful at this time, especially since there is an impetus for adding them, it is a list, after all. If they are helpful, they stay in by consensus.

I think I prefer for stylistic reasons that such "jargon" terms as POV-pusher and other all-caps links go into the Footnotes section maybe. It may be that such lists, or extensions of such lists are more properly in guidelines, rather than the CIVIL policy page. (this could also be discussed, see Wikipedia talk:Civility#WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again.)

There are options, that is good. Re-writing of little snippets of info. is easier if there are options, such as the Footnotes section., I think. --NewbyG (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[6] DIFF --NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Copy edit

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

Well said

See Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 6#Changes to this policy. The Rfc has been open all month (April). --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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