Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 3

message: Should we mention the use of being polite and using diplomacy in the act of being civil? For example:
"Civility also includes the use of diplomacy, where users are expected to use neutral language when dealing with a hostile or contraversal situation."
--Karn-b 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of Diplomacy?

message: I subscribe to the idea that people are naturally good, but that sometimes people don't know when they're being uncivil. Maybe a template should be created to be inserted into a talk page, on request by admins, which will gently inform a user they have been uncivil, give a relevant example, and point them to this page.
For example:
"Wikipedia subscribes to the ideal that all contributors are editing with goodwill, and are all trying to improve the content of the article. Language which may be insulting to other users maybe counter productive, and focus the efforts of editors from improving the article to counter-productive arguments."
--Karn-b 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncivil Templates

message: How is "fixed sloppy spelling" being rude? If someone takes that as rude, I'd say they either need to learn to spell better or be thankful that someone fixed their mistakes. - JNighthawk 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fixed spelling" is fine.  The judgmental tone caused by the adjective "sloppy" is what offends.  The adjective is unnecessary.
I don't see how "sloppy" is offensive at all.  People should take care when they edit an article.  If they can't take five seconds and run a quick spell check, Wikipedia is better off without them. Modor 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fixed Sloppy Spelling

message: My personal hate is being patronised, and I am slightly disappointed that there is no mention of it in these pages, as a new contributor I have been subjected to a particular user making condescending comments and find this offensive.
These mainly revolve around policys and guidelines, and my lack of minute knowledge of these, allied to being a new contributor.
Any comments on this particular topic(I fully expect the one who is patronising me to arrive on this topic and start their discourse anew). Cheers. Belbo Casaubon 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the right page to complain about how another editor is interacting with you.  You might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.  John Broughton  |  ♫ 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and thanks for your feedback, however I was primarily (perhaps ineffectively) the subject of being patronising in the context of civility, and although I suppose that is how my discourse could be parsed, I was not complaining, except perhaps about the lack of coverage of this topic. Belbo Casaubon 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're saying that the policy doesn't say anything about "condescending" or "patronizing" remarks, that's true.  I'm not sure the goal of the policy is to list all the ways in which language can be used to say negative things.  You might want to take a look at WP:BITE, which discusses how more experienced editors should interact with newer ones.   John Broughton  |  ♫♫ 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being Patronised 

message: I've made a proposal regarding this recently deleted template.  See Tagging uncivil users. --ElectricEye (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered making a  similar to ? Addhoc 14:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|civil}} 

message: Is it uncivil to mention previous editors in the edit summary in the following fashion: "fixed missorting by Suzy Queue" ? Novickas 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. In fact, it would be much better to just say: "fixed sorting". The "mis" part, as well as the name, are really unnecessary in this example. Suzy Queue can be a good potential contributor who is just learning the ropes. Being nice to her will encourage her to try harder and improve her edits. And it's not just Suzy herself - anyone else around gets affected by the bad vibes of incivility, so it's important to maintain a friendly and fun environment that will attract contributors and enhance collaboration. Crum375 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick reply. I am thinking of adding a link to this section on the person's talk page; would that be appropriate? Maybe wait a little while, in the hope that he/she is just having a bad day? Sincerely, Novickas 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. Sometimes just quickly pointing out mild incivility, especially when not part of a clear pattern, may aggravate the situation. I would wait to see a pattern before commenting, and even then very gently, by emphasizing the positives. But if you do see either a clearly offensive remark, or an emerging pattern of milder uncivil ones, it would help to point them out 'diplomatically'. Doing it in a polite and gentle manner that de-escalates the situation is the mark of a good wikipedian. Crum375 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries - civility

message: The worst part of this policy is that this there are no consequences for being uncivil. If you contribute to Wikipedia and accuse other people of completely false things and talk in a degrading way, admins can't do jack all. Look at User:Mais oui!,User_talk:Donteatyellowsnow. There's no point other than to say please be nice. Langara College 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See no personal attacks. Also note that editors that are uncivil in a recurrent manner, can be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless Policy

message: In my personal opinion, the failure of any editor or admin to acknowledge and/or answer legitimately serious questions about contributions, references and WP guidelines to be a case of incivility.  Any editor, but especially new editors are going to make errors.  Those errors are going to result in all types of actions the new editors may or may not understand such as COI, POV issues, notability, verifiability, deletion protocols, reverts etc and require further inquiry to understand fully.  When questions are clearly posed to specific editors or admins on talk or discussion pages in a civil way and there is a clear expectation that the editor/admin will see the question, those editors/admins should do one of two things:
* 1) Acknowledge the question and choose to not answer it. or
* 2) Answer the question with their interpretation of the issue.
Both these actions are the civil thing to do.  Failure to acknowledge a serious question, asked in good faith is just uncivil.  The editor asking the question may not like the answer, and may not even like being told by the specific editor that they choose not to answer, but that’s OK.  But asking a question that goes unacknowledged and/or unanswered is extremely frustrating and very un-collaborative.  I think that Failure on the part of editors and admins to acknowledge and/or answer serious good faith questions by other editors should be included in the list of incivilities.--Mike Cline 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All reasonable possibilities, but that's why I included the following in my comment above: ...and there is a clear expectation that the editor/admin will see the question...  My point, when you KNOW the editor/admin is active on their talk page or other discussion pages then there should be a reasonable expectation that questions will be acknowledged and/or answered.--Mike Cline 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still depends on what is being asked. Maybe the question is incivil and the askee is ignoring it. At any rate, you can't legislate Wikipedia; if you are upset by having your questions gone unanswered, adding a clause here will not actually fix anything. >Radiant< 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure To Answer Serious Questions Is An InCivility!

message: I've go a user who's accused me inventing content/policy, made insulting comments against me, and has consistently been using a very aggressive and accusation tone for about a month. I've informally warned them, and so has another user, but they have persisted. I'd like to cite them under NPA or Civility, but I can't find out how to. Some help would be appreciated (for some reason the incivility etc boiler plates don't seem to be clearly accessible).
perfectblue 07:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing a user 

message: Are there any proposals to creating consequences for people who don't obey WP:CIVIL? It seems people can get away with being a WP:DICK for a long time without any real significant consequences. -- Craigtalbert 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being thought of as a dick can be a real significant consequence in a community where you keep running into the same people.  I've also seen blocks for repeated gross incivility, which usually falls under WP:NPA, I guess.  I don't much like the idea of writing enforcement language into this policy. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with not creating an enforcement policy for this page. See WP:VAN and WP:NPA for more information on that. Alex43223 T | C | E  01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It wouldn't be civil to give this policy teeth :) >Radiant< 09:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving [[WP:CIVIL]] some teeth? 

message: I added this information to the "caution the offender" section.  Radiant deleted it.  Anyone else have an opinion on whether or not it would be appropriate? 
When leaving a comment on a user's talkpage, it is helpful to include a section title and edit summary such as "Civility," which can be of use later if it is necessary to go through a user's history to prove a pattern of ignoring warnings and persisting with uncivil behavior. It may also be useful to look at the history of a user's talkpage to see if there have already been recent cautions from other users.
 
One or two cautions about civility are generally not seen as sufficient basis to take action against a user. But, if it can be shown that multiple users in good standing have been cautioning an editor about civility, then it may be time to escalate the matter, such as via a user conduct Request for Comment. Please note that this step should not be taken for minor infractions or in a simple one-on-one dispute, but only in a case where multiple users have attempted to address an ongoing problem. If a user conduct RfC is not "certified" by at least two users, it will be deleted.
Personally I think it's useful to give these kinds of instructions.  In my experience, when an editor is repeatedly uncivil, they usually react to civility cautions by just deleting them off their talkpage, and this method of sweeping things under the rug enables them to coast without official action for quite awhile.  However, if we encourage the victims to use a gentle but more standardized method of cautioning them, then it makes a pattern of problem behavior easier to spot, and easier to document if it's necessary to dig through someone's talkpage history for an eventual RfC or RfAr. --Elonka 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Seems like policy creep and more like encouragement to gather evidence for DR than actually dealing with civility.  Let's not fetishize talk page warnings.  Using edit summaries and section headers is common sense and isn't unique to civility.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded information about cautions

message: I've got a question to ask about Civility. Let's say there is a discussion that goes very heated that you can actually feel there may be conflict doing on. Would that be considered incivil? I see many disputes around the place where both sides won't compromise, and an awful argument arise.Kylohk 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does overheated debating equal to incivility? 

message: With regards to, "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")" - I was about to go ahead and be bold and change this to something like, "Judgemental tone in edit summaries and comments about [or regarding?] articles." I was going to do this because sometimes in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion (I'm sure this would apply elsewhere) people make comments like articles being "rubbish" or "people wasting their time" (in reference to good faith contributions, and these are just isolated examples), etc. Does anyone have any objections or support or suggestions on how to implement this, or would just being bold be appropriate?
I bring this up in reference to a comment "Seriously, do I actually need [sic] to go into detail as to why this sort of fancruft rubbish [sic] shouldn't be poisoning Wikipedia further?" On this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kenny%27s_deaths. The the user's opinion about the article should be respected, but perhaps to create a more positive environment they should be more sensitive to the editors who contribute to article about Southpark (or any topic for that matter) and who act in good faith. --Remi 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Although the article was unnecessary and needed to be deleted, I agree with you that the nominator could have said so in a less offensive way. It's most likely that such articles are created by relatively new users who don't understand Wikipedia's inclusion standards, and so it's not really civil to WP:BITE their heads off with aggressive deletion nominations. The term "fancruft" isn't excessively uncivil IMHO, but "rubbish" and "poisoning Wikipedia" certainly are. Walton Need some help? 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judgemental tone? 

message: Yeah, so i was blocked because of political beliefs. User:Ymous
this was the parting shot:
"*Yawn. Oh well, perhaps you are right. There, I said it. Feel free to consider your block a pyrrhic victory. At any rate, playtime is over; talk page protected from further trolling"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CIVIL
Yep.
*WP:POT? --Kinu t/c 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked Because of Beliefs 

message: I was told it is proper ettiquette to use profanities like cunt, cock and fuck when making suggestions for changes in articles. I am against this. If wiki wants to appear scholarly these words should not be used. I think there should be a rule on this. For instance I would not want my 10 year old daughter to attempt a conversation on a talk page and then have someone say
== "I don't write the fucking definitions" ==
as a response back to her. Now that happened to me and I asked the editor not to talk like that and he said it was not against the rules.
I think this should be changed. I do not think children should be exposed to that kind of language and actually neither should adults in this type of forum.
ProtoCat 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is using profanity, consider applying peer pressure to discourage them. But don't paint the kettle black while you are doing it or you may just add fuel to the fire. But still, usage of profanity may be a personal attack, and that is another violation, not just in Wikipedia, but in society.--Kylohk 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the seven dirty words, just delete the words or the whole post.  What are they going to do?  Complain to an admin? Haber 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but he has said he has the right to use profanity since it is not prohibited by wiki rules. I would like the rules to say you cannot use profanity. ProtoCat 12:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, profanity in public is frowned upon in society. If you are meant to talk things over seriously, it had better be civil. I believe discouraging people from using it is a good way to deal with the problem. If he utters profanity for the sake of doing it, then it's likely to be a personal attack, or he is causing trouble just to prove a point.--Kylohk 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Causing trouble to prove a point maybe counter-productive - insulting a person "your edit is utter crap so I reverted it" is likely to esclate into something worse. In any case, I do agree that the seven dirty words should be made against the rules, in order to show that it is unacceptable in the wiki society - after all, these guidelines must be changed by concensus, which means they demonstrate that it is what society here prefers.Karn-b 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profanity 

message: thanks for starting it. RodentofDeath 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is the most important article on Wikipedia

message: How civil is labeling fellow editors with nouns based on their work, views and nationality? For example Ive been here for a month and Ive already been labeled as a "meatpuppet" and "problematic Estonian nationalist"(Being called meatpuppet is plain insulting and my nationality is Estonian, but I am no nationalist)... Where does policy stand on such labeling? --Alexia Death 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and labeling any arguments on the specifics of Holocaust an act "Holocaust denial"... It feels like a roundabout but clear way of calling editors nazies...And that is instulting to any thinking person. This sounds like complaining... Heck, it is complaining. This Civil thing does not work...--Alexia Death 05:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing sourced information from Holocause related articles, based on a nationalistic/denialist agenda, can be seen as a form of Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is a special form of hate speech, you do not need to say something "hatefull" to engage in it, it is just enough simply to actively remove and censor factual information on the Holocaust. -- Petri Krohn 11:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah another "friendly" tag to toss around. Hate speech. So nice of you to exhibit it here as living proof. Labeling opposition as speakers of "hate speech"... I must realy thank you for this living demonstration of tagging. "Removing sourced information from Holocause related articles, based on a nationalistic/denialist agenda"  implies so much... "sourced information" is only applicable in the context of the article in question. and accusing someone of having a "nationalistic/denialist agenda" is just a sophisticated way of putting someone down because they do not agree with you...--Alexia Death 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of people are more interested in putting others down in a converstion than in making meaningful progress.  The best response is to model correct behavior back to them, and hope that they rise to the occasion.  When they don't, you can always seek outside opinions. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling fellow editors 

message: I put the essay on the "see also".--Cerejota 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before incorporating such information into the policy, you may want to post a link to your essay at Template:Announcements/Community_bulletin_board to get some feedback and then add to the policy only after consensus on this talk page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:An uncivil environment is a poor environment]] 

message: On my talk page, there is a threat of legal action over Acen Ravzi, from the alleged producer who keeps replacing the earlier text, which he claims is incorrect, with POV copyright (which he claims to own) spam. I'm not losing sleep, but I can't find the policy regarding legal threats. Any ideas? I'm out all day, so for the time being I've deleted and protected the page to call a halt. Jimfbleak 05:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this link Wikipedia:No legal threats of any help to you?Julia Rossi (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: threats

message: Why isn't this a "behaviourial guideline", like WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:POINT, etc? Melsaran 13:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Civility is crucial to being able to collaborate with other editors to produce this encyclopedia. Thus it is in the same league with WP:CON and WP:NPA, IMO. Sunray 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPA is pretty clear: No Personal Attacks. Civility is more abstract, and interpretations vary. This is rather in the same league as AGF, I think. Although important, it does not have any "firm" rules, and therefore looks more like a behavioural guideline than a policy to me. Melsaran 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is behavioral. It is listed under Behavioral policies. You are suggesting that WP:NPA is clearer. I agree. It is also, easier to administer. However, I think that a limited number of things become policies because of their importance to the Wikipedia community. Civility is one of these. There have been debates on this page about whether it is a valid policy. My own view is that it is the behavioral sine qua non.  It is the basis for WP:AGF,WP:BITE, WP:POINT and other, more specific, guidelines.  It speaks to the citizenship of editors in the Wikipedia universe. Sunray 17:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy?

message: I think this essay should also be included in all the other essays at the bottom of the page.  The other essays listed are relevant, and so is this, since it outlines a core philosophy on how to better stay civil. 68.143.88.2 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is a particularly good essay, at least for adding to this policy. It might make a good external link to WP:DICK, which is marginal itself, but it is cited so often that I don't see a reason to remove it. - Dean Wormer 19:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: comment I understand you don't think it is a good essay, however all these people do think it is a good essay.  Additionally, the reason why WP:FUCK doesn't get cited enough is because of the huge censoring issue Wikipedians have simply because of a "taboo" word.  additionally, if more people would adopt this attitude, incivility would no-longer be a problem.  I think the essay is at least worth mention in WP:CIVIL. 68.143.88.2 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not an essay should exist is a completely different discussion than whether or not it should be linked into a core policy. Dean Wormer 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, the reason why I cited the AfD discussion was simply to counter your original response that seemed to justify not including the subject essay simply because "you didn't think it is a particularly good essay".  Many others do think it's good. 68.143.88.2 20:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem with marginal essays existing in Wikipedia namespace, but I do object to lending them an air of credibility by linking them into core policies. Dean Wormer 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously we're going to continue to disagree. We should allow others to express their view. Dean Wormer 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a link 

message: I have suffered from a series of misconducts committed by the user:Brincos. Regardless I was cleared off from the sockpuppetry charge raised by user:Brincos, he keep calling me as a sockpuppeteer in my user talk box [user talk:patriotmissile] and [talk:korea university].
In addition, he called me as a dog in the [[talk:sky (schools)] box. Moreover he threatened me without any clear reason in my talk box. He claimed that I did misconduct rightafter I replied to the sentence made by [User:Boromir's Regret]. All I have done was replied to user:Brincos remark, 'Please try to think before writing something. Brincos 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconduct

message: I've been working with User:SJ to get this user to realize the basis behind WP:CIV.  A few hours ago this comment was made where SJ made a statement (which has been made before) that "your edits make articles worse" and followed it with a statement that I should get off Wikipedia and stop editing.  I responded with a kinder note  but am requesting a neutral person contact this user and state that it is indeed the case that such comments are unproductive and not in the spirt of WP:CIV.  I am not asking for a block or any kind of punishment, just someone unrelated to comment.  Thank you! -OberRanks 03:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: One of the problems that I've seen has been a tendency in some contentious areas to engage in casual libel, usually not actionable in a US context but IANAL so don't take that as legal advice. I would find such libel to be remarkably uncivil but the only mention I find here regarding the problem is an admonition that even when accurate, one should not call someone a libeler. 
This seems remarkably incomplete. Is this covered in a different document? How *is* one supposed to deal with libel? At the very minimum, I would think a link to the proper document would be needed. TMLutas 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, the way to 'deal with libel' is to hire a lawyer and sue the person who libeled you.   Am I missing something here? Dlabtot (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  libel and other attacks on reputation 

message: WP:ICA says that unfounded accusations of impropriety are incivility.  Well and good.  But three lines down it says that accusations of slander are incivility.  Which is it?  If someone complains that X has unjustly accused them of impropriety they are de facto accusing X of slander.   To read this document, complaining that one (or a third party) is the target of incivility is itself incivil. Egfrank (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The operative word here is 'unfounded'. Unfounded accusations of impropriety are incivility. But just as truth is an absolute defense against slander, truthful accusations of impropriety are not incivility. Dlabtot (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory messages? 

message: I'd like to add a line or two to the policy indicating that even justified warnings must be worded with care and civility.
  
I recently observed a WP:WQA where a user complained about the civility of a warning.  
Rather than deal with the civility complaint, one or more of the Wikiquette volunteers began attacking the complainant.  They justified their behavior by claiming that the wording didn't matter because the warning itself was justified.  
Common sense (and parenting/teaching/management 101) says this kind of reaction is unhelpful . The goal of a warning is behavior change.  A warning's message is most likely to be effective if the warned editor is not distracted by overly emphatic, rude, disrespectful, or otherwise impolite wording. 
I don't have a specific wording in mind, yet.  Any suggestions or discussion? Egfrank (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility in user warnings 

message: While many consider word ignorant to be uncivil, proposing articles for deletions is somehow always a civil act. 
It happens so often that people propose articles for deletion on topics they know nothing about, or think they know something. 
Maybe suggestion of civil behavior could be before AfD, try to add what you think is missing. 
Thanks for considering adding something along these lines into the policy. 
Lakinekaki (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this applies to the policy on civility, which addresses the way in which editors interact with one another. Perhaps, take a look at deletion policy and see if it isn't covered there. If it isn't, you might wish to make your proposal on the talk page of that policy. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposing articles for deletion without attempt to improve them is uncivil