Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 2

message: Something ought to be said about throwing WP:whatever at people.
Probably WP:V is most abused, since many things are verifiable only with great difficulty — and people throwing around WP:V know this. (perhaps my source is a college textbook that I sold back to the campus bookstore, and now I don't remember the title or ISDN number — am I to buy and re-read books until I find the source???)
WP:NPOV is another one that gets severely abused, though at least that one is easier to defend against.
AlbertCahalan 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't remember the name of the book, then how accurate would the recollection of the content of said book be? Andjam 11:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  abuse of this and related pages 

message: This article doesn't have a section for related links so I'll post this on talk.  Wikipedia:No angry mastodons covers informal ways to resolve disputes and encourage polite collaboration. Durova 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New essay page 

message: I am starting to think this policy is suboptimal.  Don't get me wrong, civility is much nicer than nastiness.  But the thing is, profound frustration is possible even in cases where all parties remain civil.  And it's certainly possible to be petty or condescending from behind the veneer of civil language.  I just don't think civility is a high enough standard.
Users should be friendly to one another.  It wouldn't kill us to be generally positive in tone when talking with people who disagree with us.  I like to think I would be really, really surprised if someone were to get angry or frustrated over something I've written on a discussion page.
Every sentence you write in a heated discussion will affect how the reader sees you and your ideas.  When you write something to score points on someone in an argument (rather than to explain your point of view, or to try to ask the right questions to understand the other point of view, which is what you ought to be doing), people pick up on that.  And they either lose respect for you, or they start doing the same thing.
Ideally, a discussion is a search for enlightenment--about your own views, as well as others.  And, of course, an attempt on all parts to make a better encyclopedia.  Anything less makes Wikipedia less than it could be.  (This means you, smartypants.)
Seriously--if you can't maintain an honestly friendly attitude while writing to someone, it means you're frustrated, impatient, or ticked off.  It happens.  What is one to do?  Well, it depends.
#Did the other chap write something genuinely provoking, or are you just a little too emotionally invested in the argument right now?  (Careful, it's important to get the right answer here.  Assume good faith.)  If you find it's the latter, the good news is, there's a miracle cure.  Take a break, get a cupcake and a little perspective, and read it again tomorrow.  Chances are, in your mood, you haven't made enough of an effort to understand the other chap's point of view.  The entire universe will be better off if you exhibit manful restraint and reply later.
#So they're really being provoking, are they.  Alas, it happens.  The question then becomes, is this person a pretty good guy who slipped up?  Or have you got a genuine jerk on your hands?  If they just slipped up, the instant you realize it you'll feel better.  Genuine friendliness should be within reach.
#Oh, dear.  Well, if they're just a jerk, and (whew) sometimes they are, it's okay to reach for dispute resolution after a few exchanges, rather than waste time making civil but unproductive arguments.  Teams of highly trained masochists are waiting to parachute in and bang their heads against the wall so you don't have to.
Despite the slightly silly language, I really am quite serious about this.  People with good humor and a friendly tone are shining examples to the rest of us--somewhere deep inside, we know that--and the effect they have on mobs of opinionated people is like magic.
As long as civility is our standard, that's all we'll get.  If we can bring ourselves to ask one another to Be friendly, Wikipedia will be pleasanter--and more productive.  Jorend 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Today, after recieving a "suboptimal" (and verbosely harsh) review on FAC, I went in search of a Wikipedia guideline for WP:Be nice but came here instead.  I totally agree that being civil is not enough to keep editors happy, tempers cool, or diffuse a difficult situation.  Friendliness or niceness is required.--Will.i.am 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aim higher

message: I like to start an article about civility. It was an important concept in the history of Europe and humanism. It surprises me that there isn't an article about this topic. Civility has to do with  discipline, etiquette, living in the city, civilized conversation (Stanley versus Livingstone: 'Dr. Livingstone, I presume?'). It was derived from Roman and Greek antiquity.
I have found a similar topic: Civic virtue. So a special article on civility is not necessary.--Daanschr 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about Civility 

message: I keep making a small section on the South Park page about how some people Critisize South Park, and people keep reverting it, what is the problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Park&diff=56852774&oldid=56852519
I think this is a perfectly fine section of it.  People need to know about these kinds of things, and I am staying 100% neutral with my opinions, im just laying down the FACTS of what other people believe.
::You need to discuss this on the Talk:South Park page, not here.  Exploding Boy 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park Criticism

message: Indeed. Take a gander at these words of wisdom:  -ZeroTalk 09:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't put those words on the level of "wisdom". They are ones view on how they are able to react to everything well. Without the civil policy communities do not grow. They get bogged down by a small few who know they can handle everyone telling them off because they give just as much back. I say the person needs to think a bit longer about the implications of making something this major less than a basic necessity. If people want to say something that violates the policy it is likely they are doing it in hot blood and really just need to calm down and think about it without using emotive uncivil terms. Ansell 10:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was being facetious. I don't believe wikipedia would be as productive without the level of civilty and behavior required of us. -ZeroTalk 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should warn someone before you do that :-P Ansell 11:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but... was facetiously mocking the guy the best way to demonstrate the importance of civility? :] --CBD 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It didn't strike me as uncivil. A joke made in bad taste, perhaps. -ZeroTalk 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy must be destroyed for the good of Wikipedia! 

message: I had an editor admonish me today: you should not be refactoring the talk page when you are the target of incivility. Is this correct? --ScienceApologist 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ignore that, especially if you are refactoring to remove personal attacks against yourself. People must be civil, that is why this is policy. Ansell 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmm.  Interesting discussion. I think it depends if there are other editors around or not. If someone burns you it looks bad. Others may copy. If nobody is around just remove the flame. Or am I being too hypothetical? Matlee 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this correct?

message: Is incivility just words? Or actions also? If an editor annoys another with an action (eg placing a counterargument between the lines of your talkpage comment, or rearanges your comments or re-titles them). Then makes 200 of the same actions in the week - is that not uncivil? It seems the only solution in that possibly hypothetical situation is to have a will of iron and to stay frosty. Matlee 11:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Active goading

message: repetitively labels me as "uncivil" & deletes every comment & complaint that I write, particularly if I write about Scott.
So, I've decided to write about it here.
Shall Scott delete this as well??
Is there some law against wiki improving??
If not, then why delete my comments,
& my pages??
Hopiakuta 06:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott >

message: discussion regarding its improvement.
Thank You.
Hopiakuta 06:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: civil

message: from the article: "There is a case where Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of contributions, since anyone can edit freely." <-- could someone explain or re-write this sentence. I do not understand it. --JWSchmidt 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for re-write 

message: I am looking for a little guidance here. Let's say that group x says group y is supported by the Communist Party, and a link is provided to where the group makes the argument. Would it also be okay
to include links to the Communist Party's website if they substantiate group x's claim for the sake of verifiability?
--146.145.70.200 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct citations supporting controversial arguments

message: This is not generally how merges are done. Typically we vote, explaining rationale if opposing:
:*Comment Why not explain rational for merging? And no this is not a vote but a poll to help test consensus(not determine it). HighInBC 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: The merge tag has been on the article for three weeks and a total of ten people have made a clear statement one way or the other regarding a merge.  My tally is: seven opposed and three in favor of merging.  Thus consensus is no merge. On the other hand, there have been some suggestions for additions/revisions to the policy (see previous sections). These can easily be pursued here.  In the meantime, I will remove the merge tag. Sunray 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result: No merge

message: I was notified that my warnings about WP:3RR violate this policy. Could someone confirm or deny that for me? Thanks, Ansell 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks civil to me, warning about 3rr are better done on the users talk page. HighInBC 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR warnings

message: In the debate above under the heading "Policy --> essay," GT suggested a positive statement of the policy: "Participate in a respectful and civil way."  I think we should add this as the basic statement of the policy.  Thus the policy would state the expectations of what users should do, rather than only what they should not do.  As I said above, I think that the elaboration currently in the policy (e.g., "being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly...) is fine to give background to those who want more information. However, we need a clear statement of what the policy expectations are.  Comments? Sunray 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing none, I've added the statement "Participate in a respectful and civil way" to the "Policy in a nutshell" box. Sunray 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive statement of policy

message: Obviously sarcasm is far worse than edit warring, because an edit war can be stopped by clicking on the 'protect' button (which I have just done), and conversely, at the moment user pages have no such button to stop them from being sarcastic. I shall have to ask Brion what would be the best way of implementing that; I think there was discussion earlier of mandating Pavlovian helmets for editors with an electrical feedback mechanism. Any volunteers to test it? >Radiant< 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the five hundred volts through the user's chair feature which inexplicably is not only not in Mediawiki, there doesn't even appear to be an open bug for the feature - David Gerard 14:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As I noted, this can only work if you also outlaw smarminess and passive aggression, and is likely to work about as well. I agree with every word, but it remains that adding a line about sarcasm to a policy page does not address an addressable problem in any manner whatsoever. - David Gerard 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep hearing that sarcasm is not a good form of communication because it causes confusion, then how do you make a rule against it, if you dont always know its being used. It was said above that its all about the intent of the person, however that person can simply deny it, so you get 2 admins to look at it and decide ... so you are basically now telling an editor what he meant ... The same is true with passive agressive behavior, I dealt with an editor who was tagging images and made another editor upset about tagging his for deletion, he brought it to AN/I and they had a little spat ... next thnig you know a day later the guys is tagging the other editors images again, while he had every right to since they needed copyright tags, it was obviously passive agressive behavior, but you cannot punish or cite him or anything because its all on what he says his intent was. Sarcasm exists in a void, if after a heated exchange, I say "You know I think you are right, you seem to know lots about everything and probably are always right", now that can be sarcasm or a compliment, its a lesser form, its not at the point where I am saying "Wow so god has come down to bestow his knowledge in digital form for all of Wikipedia", but its still sarcasm. I think we should avoid making baby rules for things that in the end we really can not say for sure why they did or said it. --NuclearZer0 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  We actually have a rule against passive-aggressive behavior -- WP:DISRUPT -- & I think it works about as well as any conceivable rule on the matter. It won't discourage every possible act of passive-aggressive behavior. For example, the ultimate passive-aggressive act on Wikipedia would be to stop editting entirely -- the editor packs his or her bags & goes home in protest. Not always an effective tactic. But in those cases it becomes a philosophical problem, much like the tree falling in an uninhabited forest: if someone attempts to behave disruptively, but no one notices, are they truly being disruptive? And there is the corollary that has been raised several times in this thread: just because someone says an editor is disruptive (by being passive-aggressive, sarcastic, or smarmy), it doesn't always mean she or he is.  -- llywrch 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally ignoring disruptive editors would IMO be at odds with Assume good faith, because it would mean that even before your interaction with them, where you would discover the Passive-Agreesive tendencies, you would have judged them. Ansell 01:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random section break

message: I probably started all this. User:Sbharris came onto WT:BLP comparing living bios to torturers and despots. The most coherent response I could formulate was to post links to Uncyclopedia articles. He then claimed I had broken Godwin's law. No really, it's all there. Go look. - David Gerard 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - torturers, then Hitler, then Godwin, then Uncyclopedia, then more torturers - David Gerard 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this whole discussion is pretty torturous (snap!). Oskar 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Audio version coming soon. I do think that if we have a line-item listing of "sarcasm", we have to have one for comparisons of fellow editors to torturers - David Gerard 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confession

message: I'm not going to mention his name here, because I don't want any premature bias, but the user is confrontational when anyone gives him any warnings, even going as far as to edit my userpage to express his displeasure at being warned.  Is it something I bring forward to the administrators or what?--Vercalos 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Try Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. But his posting on your user page does not look like vandalism as much as a mistake. What other incident are you referring to?  --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 13:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having a problem with another user.. 

message: There is a user who refuses to discuss anything, and yet continues to revert edits.  While some of them are vandalism, there are several, such as this and this, which are reverted, apparently constructive, edits without explanation, or response when the reverted user asks for a response.  Additionally, he is virtually impossible to contact for anything, as his policy is to delete anything on his talk page.  I personally haven't had my edits reverted by him, but he's causing other users distress, even to the point to threatening to ban users for 'messing with the article', even though they were making constructive edits that were fully discussed on the talk page.  Anyone have any suggestions regarding him?--Vercalos 03:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with user reverts 

message: OK.  I was trying to improve an article, making some copyedits, and trying to fix a really messy part of the article where several images and templates were crowded into one spot.  Another user reverted most of my edits, with sarcastic, snide, and overall rude remarks, and when I asked him to be civil, he only responded with more sarcasm, and accused me of being rude for calling an article sloppy, specifiying I didn't mean to offend the contributors.--Vercalos 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is about the actual policy of civility, not about specific infractions. In your case, it seems you should try a little good faith and give it another shot. It seems to me your colleague is trying his/her best to do the same. Crum375 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to have move past the sarcasm phase, and reinstated most of my edits..  I think he thought I was a sockpuppet or something.--Vercalos 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why WP:AGF is so important - it helps you get past many minor hurdles. Crum375 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having a problem with edits 

message: I'd like to add the following paragraph under "Caution the Offender":
Incivility alone is rarely a reportable offense. Every effort should be made to ignore or work around incivility without citing this policy, resorting to warning templates, or requesting admin intervention. It is inappropriate to threaten to have someone's account blocked except in the most egregious cases. The following process should be considered a last resort.
Comments? Haber 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO this would dilute the entire WP:CIVIL policy into near-oblivion. The whole concept of this policy is to promote a civil and enjoyable atmosphere, where contributors can work together to create an encyclopedia. By diluting it this way, it sounds like anything goes, except perhaps extreme personal attacks which have their own policy already. If we allow this uncivil atmosphere, as I noted above, we would lose many good contributors and hurt the project. Crum375 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The addition is incorrect. It is a "reportable" offense in that we frequently see reports about it; it is also something that some admins are willing to give short blocks for. Even aside from that, your phrasing needlessly weakens this page, in effect asking people to ignore it. (Radiant) 08:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What these admins miss is that a short block is a gigantic escalation, far out of proportion to a little bit of incivility.  If you're trying to lose contributors that's exactly how to do it.  Haber 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about short block for a lot of incivility? (Radiant) 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our definition of a "lot" will probably differ, but I think NPA alone provides sufficient protection for people.  Things like "rudeness", "judgemental tone", and "belittling" are minor, and far more disruption has been caused trying to eliminate them using the process than if they had just been left alone. Haber 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *If your aim is to discourage a certain process, I'd like to see some evidence that this process is in fact harmful. (Radiant) 11:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I generally disagree with considering it a non-reportable offense.  Incivility is the basis that leads to personal attacks.  Of course editors should aim to assume good faith but treating the first signs of incivility as not enough basis for at least issuing a message or minor warning seems a bit redundent.  I would think that as fellow users of Wikipedia we would aim to abide by this policy by encouraging others to do the same.  The only problem that could possibly hinder the civility of the process falls on the editors themselves who issue the warnings.  If an editor warns a user by issuing the general templates or writing a brief message, it addresses the user in a respectful tone and informs them of what offense might the incivility implicate however, if the editor leaves a message like "you mean jerk" then that's where the interpretation of this policy fails.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have it your way, chumps. Haber 15:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Haber is correct that, in general, if someone is being uncivil, it's misguided to get all litigious on them and start talking about WP:CIVIL "violations".  A much more effective approach that de-escalates the situation is to just be very polite back to them, and address them with such a high level of dignity and respect that the bar is raised and they respond in kind.  Too many people don't even try that, and are too quick to cry "foul" and go call the cops when someone is rude to them.  This is indeed a "chumpy" way to deal with conflict. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that I agree is the failure in the interpretation of the policy.  But this still directly falls on the editor.  I still think that downplaying the wording is not exactly the best way to communicate the concern he is addressing.  It is an edit however that is beneficial to add in some form in or another in the near future.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific suggestion