Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:37, 11 March 2012

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The initial Misplaced Pages:Civility essay was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by User:Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l. & (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy." Long before the creation of the formal policy, User:Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making more civil," , & (Nov. 2002) after reading User:The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Misplaced Pages" (Mar. 2002). User:Jimbo Wales picked up on Larry's point (the last time they said anything nice to each other), and thereafter User:Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editor's thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009.

This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was ridiculous.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Change to 1a per the perennial discussion of language gags

Per the perennial failure of language gags, I have clarified 1a from:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;

to:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity directed at another or indecent suggestions;

based on the most recent failed attempt to form a language gag, to indicate that the problem with profanity is its direction at others. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Insults and gross profanity don't have to be directed at anyone in particular to be uncivil and disruptive. A recent example: someone telling a crude joke about women being raped at Talk:Pregnancy. I can think of much worse hypothetical examples, but I'm sure you get the idea. Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure you read the closing statement or contents of the discussion you are citing. It was about banning 'foul language', not about whether or not incivility must be directed at specific people. Plus your edit to 1a basically makes it the same as 1b. Kaldari (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this is the lack of definition of "gross profanity"; one person's "gross profanity" is another's everyday drop-in word. Though how one can deal with lack of adequate definitions is a complex project (albeit a much-needed one). Fifelfoo has a point in that or'n'ry everyday swearing in the course of language is not the same as swearing at someone; and there was definitely an agreement that we shouldn't have a "language gag". Let's think about t his, and other areas where there's a complete lack of adequate definition, and see what we can come up with. We haven't even defined "rudeness" here - that's another one to go! Name-calling could be made to cover a multitude of sins; maybe we just need a few examples there. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't have a language gag. I can say fuck and shit all day long and no one cares. If, however, I say something like "All these fucking dumbass idiots need to shut the fuck up and learn to write a coherent English sentence or get the hell off of Misplaced Pages", that's a different story. Context, tone, and intent are what really matter, not the use of dirty words. If you read the policy carefully, it says "The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment." That doesn't necessarily mean that swearing is a violation of the policy. Kaldari (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The dirty words in and of themselves are just letters thrown together. Only a rare few have a real bite when isolated from the millions of other choices. Its the intent that serves them up as a "blue plate special" of incivility...Buster Seven Talk 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I support Fifelfoo's proposal and would go further to say that we also need to emend or remove the 'indecent suggestions' clause. While common sense says that obscenity is likely to accompany some types of incivility, it's not actually profanity or indecency themselves that constitute a problem. Suggesting otherwise in a guideline is a great disservice to the community because it just provides ammunition for equally belligerent and arguably far more disruptive behavior. The discernible intent of an individual is what needs to be addressed here.   — C M B J   02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior is what needs to be addressed here. The discernible intent of an individual is not exactly the issue; we needs to address here, and discern, whether disruption has been occasioned, or an edit war, in which case action by sysops is probably warranted; or/as well as if incivility by or to an editor is occurring, which probably means if unresolved off to Misplaced Pages:Etiquette or Dispute resolution, also same if it is a content dispute. NewbyG ( talk) 07:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between User X who espouses a colorful vernacular, a bawdy sense of humor, or an offensive minority viewpoint, and User Y who engages in flagrant personal attacks that are accompanied by the use of expletives, or User Z who employs controversiality as a tactic to inflict maximum collateral damage while on the fast-track to getting blocked. It is invariably unacceptable for User Y and User Z to disrupt the work of even a single contributor, whereas no amount of disconcertion or popular outcry should necessarily qualify User X for disciplinary action. That's the empirical characteristic I had in mind when referring to intent, and it's important to make such a distinction, because we must draw a line in the sand and reaffirm that we're not going to selectively censor people at a whim.   — C M B J   13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The above clarification, thank you User:CMBJ, is an excellent investigation and summary of some important aspects of this very matter, concerning incivility, disruption, and the need to prevent as far as possible and on each occasion possible the potential disruption of the work of even a single contributor. NewbyG ( talk) 19:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexual innuendo

I replaced "sexual innuendo" by something descriptive of contemporary practice

sexual harassment, for example, sexual innuendo that is directed toward a particular user, particularly after a request has been made that such comments are unwelcome. The distinction between sexual harassment and brief sexual banter among adults (e.g., which may have been humorously interjected to reduce tension) should be clear to an impartial reasonable observer. Of course, frequent sexual innuendo, by a user or on a talk page, is inappropriate.

and was reverted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with KW here. "Sexual innuendo" does not necessarily construe any sort of incivility, indeed an entire series of films were based on innuendo. KW's suggestion that the problem comes when sexual innuendo is directed at a particular user makes sense to me. Worm · (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored the edit. Nobody Ent 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your re-consideration.... The prolixity remains a problem, however.

In the civility enforcement case at ArbCom, one reads more discussions of persons "having balls", i.e. courage---with no objections. I suppose further mention of sexism as a bad thing might be made....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

"Sexual harassment" has replaced "sexual innuendo". This seems to be a consensus decision. Is it?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Too early to tell; certainty it's to open to continued discussion. Nobody Ent 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable, to me. Pesky (talk)

"Disrespectful"

The other change that was reverted was my change of "disrespectful" to "disrespectful to an editor". Is ArbCom member Risker in violation of civility because she voiced disrespect for RfA?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, other problematic areas of disrespect which may border on incivility could include disrespect to a group of editors, to a social group, to a set of religious beliefs, to a good faith wikiproject, to a BLP... Worm · (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Disrespectful comments need not be directed at a specific editor to be incivil. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See this section just above. It seems to *me* that the topics are similar. Currently, consensus seems IMHO to coalesce around a number of positions.

1> Misplaced Pages does not have a language gag.

2> Instances of sexual-talk, or gross profanity directed where and when it is not appropriate towards a particular user, and which a reasonable number of responsible and reasonable editors would also find inappropriate can result in WQA reports, or other action to counter the disruption, or dispute process.

3> Instances of insult or profanity, directed not towards a particular user, but at a social/racial/political group, particularly where there is a pattern of behaviour, also tend to result in disruption, or else an inhibition of our abilities to work together on the project/encyclopedia, and are therefore counselled against, in the WP:Civility policy.

4> As with all policies, there are some tensions between the problems of achieving ALL of our wants and aims, and the ability to expend an appropriate amount of our collective energies to achieve them.

*I* would ask, by way of example, for any insightful comments on the following hypotheticals:

1. a user posts to a talk page I hate admins

2. a user posts to a talk page, and repeatedly elsewhere all admins are

3. a user posts all women are stupid

4. a user posts most men are idiots

5. a user posts F*-- the chinese

6. a user posts if you are poor, it’s your fault, you should just die

Difficult to know, until a level of consensus is discerned, what action could/should be taken; obviously context matters. For *my* own part, *I* consider that general cases of gratuitous invective, aimed at a group can be considered as incivility for the purposes of the Civility policy, however *I* would think the policy page is OK about these matters, and wouldn’t be editing in any changes, though we may find that other editors want to update the policy page, and that is also fine. NewbyG ( talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion-points

Discussion of hypotheticals

That most men (embracing women) behave stupidly is undoubtedly true, so why does it advance discussion to write a triviality. "Idiots" is poor word choice.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Any phrase such as "Some X's are Ys", provided you have a big enough sample of X's, and the two things are not mutually exclusive, basically has to be factually and absolutely accurate. Some cats are white. Avoiding "all" or "most" is helpful. Expressing feelings? Depends. I hate the idea of becoming an admin. I hate admins? I wouldn't say that; there are some I like. Even if I'd never encountered one I liked, I'd (personally) be unlikely to say it unless I had encountered all of them sufficiently to pass judgment on how I felt about each and every one of them. Racism, sexism, all the other -isms which are distasteful, no, not on. "The Brits are too coarse" is not on, but "The Brits are too coarse for our nation's delicate sensibilities" is OK with me, as it's a comparison with a given, not just a generalisation. And anyone saying F*-- the Chinese just makes me giggle, as I'm an HFA. Consider it literally and you'll see what I mean. Here's an HFA one for Kiefer.W; most men (embracing women) are only stupid if the woman / women in question didn't want to be so embraced. ;P Pesky (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"The backward Brits are too coarse for a civilized nation's sensibilities," perhaps? Nobody Ent 18:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh! Yes, that one would be going too far. Could be countered quite civilly, though, with "The emotionally-mature Brits have sufficient insight not to cherry-pick individual words, place the worst possible construction upon them, and then take offence." Pesky (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

1. I am going to throw open the wild conjecture that the page wp:civility is *not* primarily about being “nice”at all. The first priority is to distinguish between disruptive editing, tendentious editing and personal attacks. If it is disruptive then administrative action is required; personal attacks or incivility of that order or ilk and disrespectfulness are to be dealt with through Misplaced Pages:etiquette and if necessary dispute resolution NewbyG ( talk) 13:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I am going to add into the mix that if good faith were assumed more often, there would be less incivility. "Disrespectfulness" triggers my HFA-literal thing; I can hold someone in the deepest disrespect, but provided that I don't attack them, belittle them, demean them, or act uncivilly towards them, then that's just fine. I don't have to respect them; respect is how you feel about someone, not how you deal with them. And I just love the phrase "With all due respect," because basically it applies just as literally if they're not due any respect whatsoever! NewbyG, you have some good points in there, just above. Pesky (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pillars

• WP:FIVE
• WP:5P
• WP:FIVEPILLARS

Misplaced Pages operates on the following fundamental principles, known as the five pillars:

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Misplaced Pages etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,931,515 articles on the English Misplaced Pages to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

1. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be repaired.

Shortcut Misplaced Pages:Five pillars

Discussion of the Five pillars

discussion of the five pillars

Essays on wikipedia civility

• Policies and guidelines  ; How to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance

Feigning incomprehension

Under Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying incivility

• (f) feigning incomprehension, forcing other editors to explain obviously addressed issues to the point of mental exhaustion.

has been added. This seems out of place among the others as it seems difficult to distinguish between actual ignorance and feigned ignorance. Hyacinth (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC) It also seems out of place because the complement, giving a poor explanation, could be added, creating a loop. Hyacinth (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted, for a couple reasons. 1) The implication that an editor can "force" another editor to explain anything is false -- in fact, the best response to feigned incomprehension is to ignore it. 2) This behavior is already addressed at WP:IDHT Nobody Ent 02:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the editor who started this thread (and I am commenting on the contributions, especially edit summaries – or lack thereof – and talk page comments – or lack thereof), I am assuming that the purpose is to "hide" it from the incivility spot, thus making it more difficult to point out their incivility. Hyacinth, you are also dangerously bordering on WP:HOUND. I am reinserting this per last discussion, which I cited in the original edit summary. To Nobody Ent: the fact that it is discussed under disruptive editing does not mean it should not be mentioned under incivility, as the two are not mutually exclusive. Also, WP:IDHT does not cover everything "feigning incomprehension" covers. It could be as simple as asking "What do you mean?" after having every possible angle addressed in the clearest manner possible, in an attempt to discourage the other editor from finishing the discussion that is needed to form consensus – if you simply ignore that, you lose. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How does one tell, and presumably later prove, if an editor is or isn't feigning? Hyacinth (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Additionally, the previous 10 behaviors reference the editor being incivil -- this proposed addition is referential to another editor, the one "being forced to mental exhaustion." So A does (f) to B. 1. we have to somehow determine whether A is game playing or just stupid/clueless. 2. accept the premise that B was "forced" to do something, and 3. determine whether B is mentally exhausted or not. Accordingly I'm taking it out and I'd ask Heafourmewesique to initiate an WP:RFC if they wish to generate more community discussion. The 2009 discussion is not sufficient per consensus can change. Nobody Ent 13:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove in the first place, therefore I am reinstating (the initial removal was WP:BOLD, hence the WP:BRD cycle requires the line to stay). Additionally, when you explain several times, in the clearest manner possible, and get the same questions in return, it is clearly feigned, and if it is not – well, it becomes an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The removal was two years ago - a new status quo has been established. And WP:BRD doesn't require anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Where is that status quo you speak of? The removal did not follow a consensus, therefore it still needs to. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, how does one tell, and presumably later prove, if one is explaining in the clearest manner possible? Hyacinth (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, how does one prove that one has been 'mentally exhausted' by another user? Hyacinth (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, how can we be sure, absolutely, that the individual involved is, well, "faking it"? Particularly regarding matters of belief, both religious and in some cases political, there are individuals, and presumably editors, who might otherwise be apparently competent but are perhaps fanatical enough that they might honestly be incapable of actually believing anyone could honestly disagree with them. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not at all what I was referring to. The example was: you reason yourself over and over again on the talk page, but keep getting reverted without edit summaries, and only after a couple of nudges the other editor bothers replying on the talk page with "What do you mean?". You explain just to be civil, the explanation is ignored with another silent revert, and after another nudge on the editor's talk page you get another "What do you mean?" type of question... and over and over and over again. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The behavior you describe is improper, and it's already covered under "be responsive to good-faith questions. ". If you're stuck in a one on one situation without an uncooperative editor who refuses to communicate it's best to seek assistance via the WP:DR process. Nobody Ent 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite... I am not necessarily talking about non-responsiveness, but rather selective responsiveness that deliberately inhibits the discussion. It's behavior that appears civil according to all the basic standards, but is in fact destructive and meant to cause discomfort to the other editor. It may also include remarks such as "Why are you being inappropriate?" or "I am the one who compromises and cites policies" when the edits in question do not call for it in the first place. In other words, trolling. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't even need a disagreement over a controversial issue. For example, one may argue that one was concise and thus understandable, while someone else may argue you didn't give broad enough coverage. Conversely, one may argue that one gave broad coverage while someone else argues that you where too verbose and hard to understand.

More importantly, no editor can 'force' another editor to "mentally exhaust" oneself. One always has a choice whether to engage or not, and whether to continue or not. It seems like the first response to someone who filed a complaint regarding this issue would be "Why did you keep talking?" not "How horrible for you!" Hyacinth (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So... are you saying that the adequate response to such behavior is to simply revert and ignore (assuming that the editor engaged in said behavior keeps reverting)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am saying this is a poorly written attempt at policy. It is difficult to understand, would be difficult if not impossible to implement, and is out of place. Worst, the complement could be added (both incomprehension and explaining poorly; as if we had policies against posting slurs to another user's talk page and having a slur posted to one's talk page), creating a loop of incivility where both the victim and perpetrator get blamed and punished for the actions of one person, none of which may actually be incivility. Hyacinth (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not what I was asking. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Imagine if we where supposed to impose sanctions on you for every time you asked a question or didn't answer one... Hyacinth (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No weaseling around please, answer the initial question. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it would be wiser to add "forcing users to answer questions" to the list than "refusing to answer a question". Hyacinth (talk) 09:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Answering good faith questions (like the one you still haven't answered) is an integral part of having a discussion. However, playing dumb by asking what 2+2 is and expecting an answer (like you keep doing to me)... well, that's plain childish and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing edits to the civility page, not continuing what appears to be] long standing conflict between editors. Nobody Ent 23:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I added a guideline which was removed without consensus, and Hyacinth came into this article out of nowhere just to challenge that addition. So... to reiterate my intentions: I came to readd a guideline to the Civility policy. What is exactly out of place here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to Hyacinth John Carter, Nikkimaria, and myself have expressed concern with the edit. The local consensus here and now is quite clear -- if you'd like further community input I'd encourage you to open an WP:RFC. Nobody Ent 19:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on content not on contributors

This is really one of the most important concepts about civility to get across. Everyone says it, but very often it gets ignored. This phrase used to appear on this page, for quite a while, in the bit about edit summaries is where it goes. It is absolutely vital to de-personalize our discussions as much as possible. It is unfortunate, but there are cases where praising an editor has led to conflict. We have to avoid conflict, and edit warring, which means we have to reduce every opportunity for conflict to occur. I will be re-adding this long-standing concept as soon as I find the correct spot, and assuming no counter arguments are lodged.

An alternative wording would be "comment on edits, not on editors". That may even be better, since the original phrase has been repeated so many times that editors may be just not seeing it or reading it any more. So let's try that then. NewbyG ( talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There, it has been added. I used italics to set it off in the text a bit. If the italics look wrong, or any other improvement can be made, please update as necessary. Then report back here, say for instance, the edit of such/such has been reverted, or whatever. :Please, do not come back and say Ï reverted your edit" - That sort of language is neither accurate nor helpful, especially when it becomes habitual and is exactly what we want to avoid. Really think about civility - there is more to it than just pouncing on dirty words. The word your has probably caused more edit wars on en.Misplaced Pages than any other word, even Evolution, or Darwin or Global warming. Your is one of the most dangerous words in the English language, for our purposes it ought to be avoided at almost any cost just as we avoid using you or your or I me mine in articles. Don't believe me? Just watch a few edit wars and see how those words contribute to the un-needed drama. NewbyG ( talk) 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello NewbyG, I've reverted your edit for two reasons: first, the section on edit-summaries doesn't seem the place for this type of notation; second, I strongly disagree with much of your rationale for the edit. De-personalization of conflict is helpful; de-personalization of everything is not, because it removes the potential for collaboration that is vital to Misplaced Pages. You should keep in mind that editors are humans, not robots; praise and conversation cannot be outlawed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is where the original phrase was in this policy page for years. Look in the article page history, for instance. There is much discussion in the archives. NewbyG, I've reverted your edit, No, NewbyG, Yes, I've reverted your edit, NewbyG, ''I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit I've reverted your edit. Whatever comment on editors, not editors. Goodnight, sleep tight. NewbyG ( talk) 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about? It was your edit, made by you. Are you seriously suggesting that Nikkimaria should have said "A user account known as 'Nikkimaria' has reverted an edit made by a separate user account known as 'Newbyguesses'"? That increases collaboration how? The thrust of "comment on content..." is that saying "I reverted your edit because you are obviously too stupid to grasp the concept" is the wrong thing to do. Franamax (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not convinced Easy-peasy. NewbyG ( talk) 21:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies are not Law. We do not out-law anything. The talk page guidelines are for guidance.We are expected to use common sense. NewbyG ( talk) 20:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, which is why your above posts are really really confusing - particularly the one of 19:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Do *you* know how to read a Help:Diff? NewbyG ( talk) 21:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Do you know how to indent? You appear to be replying to yourself, and as you're addressing someone else it seems unlikely that that was your intent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Indents are nothing much. Use common sense. No, You *I* am not replying to *yourself*, and as *you're* addressing ... that was not *your* intent$. NewbyG ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

NewbyG, you're getting disruptive again. Please stop it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Five colons. Yes, I mean no, I would like to think about this for a few days. I have no overall comprehension of the topic, and will not need to reply to any further comments here. Have a nice day. NewbyG ( talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless/until LiquidThreads is implemented, indenting is how we can follow conversations - in this particular instance, it was unclear whether you were addressing Franamax or me. And you can stop parroting me now, because I'm aware that I'm using personal pronouns, and I have no intention of not doing so. Now, did you have a reply to the substance of my initial comment? You've argued placement based on status quo, but haven't addressed the second point at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Five? colons) Thank you I would like to think about this for a few days. Um, you did not address the bit about page history and archives. Look in Page History, you will find that the "comment on content" wording lived on the project page, at that spot, for a v. long time. i cannot address all your further points at this time. Liquid threads died didn't it? Or might it be revived? The extent of MY lack of knowledge astonishes ME. NewbyG ( talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"wording lived on the project page, at that spot, for a v. long time" When, specifically? The section appears to have been added here without corresponding discussion that I'm able to find. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good sleuthing! That is 2009. That is a long time in wikipedia space. Now, I am not sure, but I think it came from another guideline page. The concept goes back to before talk pages were available, and all comments had to be made in the edit summaries. Before my time, just. The idea of a new para, or sentence linking WP:FOC to this policy page seems entirely helpful at this point in time, if it ought to be followed up upon. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 02:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems that it should be an entire paragraph at the beginning of the "Avoiding incivility" section. It should summarize WP:FOC and emphasize how avoiding personalizing discussions will avoid incivility. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some history

The box at top of this talk page has information about the early history of this policy page. Originally, it was a page called "Incivility" at the meta site. A poll Misplaced Pages:Civility/Poll was held in 2009, and contains interesting reading, including a section which suggests that "Civility harms communication". And a nearly final comment here : I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. <Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)> Over the years we have worked from the idea of defining a negative Incivility, to trying to define a positive "Civility", however much of the original material remains, since it is cogent to our current circumstances. HTH NewbyG ( talk) 04:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look

How do we feel about putting the below into the policy, in some prominent position, to try to over come the current unjustness of how the policy is sometimes currently used:

Enforcement

In general terms, blocking for incivility should only be considered as a last resort, after all other attempts have failed. Dispute resolution, wikiquette assistance, and community comments on user conduct should all have failed before a block would be considered. Blocks are for prevention, not for punishment. Only in the case where an editor's incivility rises to the level of causing disruption and all else has failed should a block be considered; and then not without consensus from the community. The more established an editor is, the more important this becomes. There will, of course, be some instances where a user's transient incivility may have been caused by intoxication, in which case a twelve-hour block would be sufficient to prevent the immediate problem. Editors are advised not to edit while intoxicated! On occasion, an out-of-character incivility spree may indicate a Real Life problem. If possible, suggest to the editor that they take a short (unenforced) break until they are calm again.

Nobody is exempt from the requirements in this policy. Administrators, in particular, are expected to maintain a very high standard at all times. An administrator should never reprimand, sanction, or block another editor for any behaviour which they themselves have also exhibited, or for any behaviour which they would have tolerated in a different user.

Unfairly-applied and ill-judged "civility blocks", without consensus, can result in sanctions for the blocking admin. The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon.

-Please take a look over at Ched's civility sandbox, where a few of us are talking over possible improvements / clarifications to the Civility policy. It seems to be the case that one of the biggest problems with the policy at the moment is unequal enforcement. Pesky (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I very much admire your democratic and peace-seeking attitude, user:Pesky, and so as per our best principles, I will indicate that your suggestions here may in some cases be a little too idealistic. In some cases, we simply must unfortunately accept less than ideal situations because either we know not how to rectify the matter, or else the effort to obtain a minimal improvement will simply be too costly. EG- in the fourth sentence of the draft – “and then not without consensus from the community” – this is not always going to be possible, in a timely manner. When there is an “emergency situation” (however that is determined), admins are authorised to take unilateral action.

Such unilateral admin action is given positive sanction in advance since the community adheres to a consensus that sysops/admins are required in en.wiki and their duties are specified in community-agreed documentation derived from formed consensus. AND, such unilateral actions, if challenged in a particular case, are subject to scrutiny by the community, and a forming consensus at that later time.

Nobody is exempt from the requirements in this policy. This is the most cogent sentence in the draft IMHO. Thus, I think that the final sentences referring to the responsibilities of admins/sysops are perhaps a trifle over-stated, although not wrong in principle. Thank you NewbyG ( talk) 09:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How about replacing "in general terms* with "In anything other than an emergency situation" ? Pesky (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good improvement. (Of course, we then will somewhere have to "define" what is an emergency situation, in terms of cyberspace that is. ) NewbyG ( talk) 09:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, that would cover things like transient intoxication, or a possibly-compromised account, where behaviour is immediate and ongoing (or the situation is rapidly escalating). In other words, something really bad which has to be stopped immediately. Pesky (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposing bold addition edit

Equity of Enforcement

Blocking for incivility should be considered as only a last resort, after all other attempts have failed. At least one related forum (Dispute resolution, wikiquette assistance, or community comments on user conduct) should have reached consensus that a pattern of incivility constitutes WP:disruptive editing before a block should be considered, when this pattern of incivility has not included otherwise blockable offenses (such as personal attacks).

Blocks are for prevention, not for punishment. An "emergency block" should only be applied in instances of current and ongoing or escalating situations, and should last for no more than 12 hours in the first instance.

The greater the contributions of an editor (in quantity and quality), the greater must be our concern with the first four pillars of Misplaced Pages besides the fifth (civility).

Editors who infrequently but repeatedly display incivility are often reacting to Misplaced Pages stressors, such as spiraling conflicts with unctuous provocateurs or less clue-full discussants, or real-life stressors. A few minutes investigating interactions, particularly on the user's talk page, often reveals that the editor has become focused on a conflict; in such cases, a gentle admonishment that everybody should relax and edit other areas for a few days often resolves conflicts. If no provocation is visible, then it may be useful to ask an well-respected editor who has good relations with the uncivil editor to investigate the problem by email, perhaps after leaving a good-humored but firm comment on the editor's talk page, such as "I couldn't help but notice that you seem irritated. Why don't you write me and tell me what the problem is. In the meantime, perhaps it may be good to take a break from editing and to go for a walk." Good-humored notes often work wonders; admonishments with even a hint of sanctimony or condescension often escalate conflicts and should be avoided.

Nobody is exempt from the requirements in this policy. Administrators, in particular, are expected to maintain a very high standard at all times. An administrator should never reprimand, sanction, or block another editor for any behaviour which they themselves have also exhibited, or for any behaviour which they would have tolerated in a different user.

Unfairly-applied and ill-judged "civility blocks", in non-emergency situations and without consensus, could result in action being taken against the blocking admin. The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon.

• OK, having thought about some tweaks to the wording above, I'm proposing to add the following section into the policy. Please leave comments and suggestions below, and feel free to tweak the wording around. I think that something along these lines is important to overcome the major problem with the policy, which is that it is unequally and unjustly enforced at times. Pesky (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, no!. This is wrong from start to finish. Blocking is not a last resort after all other attempts have failed, it is a tool to prevent disruption. Admins don't need a prior consensus to deal with a problem like an out-of-control editor, we appoint them on expectation that they'll use their discretion to keep order. We do not weigh an editor's popularity and political clout before deciding whether they're allowed to be uncivil, civility policy applies equally to everyone. We definitely shouldn't encourage collateral attacks against admins who enforce civility policy by formalizing a charge of hypocrisy. And threatening admins with sanctions for good faith efforts to deal with problems is just obstructionism. For heaven's sake, civility isn't that complicated. Just behave and don't antagonize other users, if you do you're a disruptive user like many others and we have means for dealing with that. Unequal and unjust enforcement of civility is an empty claim. The only real objective is to keep Misplaced Pages civil, not to apply some kind of parity in the way we get to that point. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)