Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 4

Since the Death of WP:PAIN have this policy and WP:NPA lost their teeth?

I've made, and seen made, several complaints to ANI about users behaving in an uncivil manner. This often happens in article disputes where one person just feels too strongly and can't remain civil while trying to make their case. Most of these complaints have come with a host of examples, including warnings, and often other editors will indicate that they agree with the complaint, and yet they seemingly often just fade in to the archives and nothing is done about these disruptive editors. What is the point of this if editors can repeatedly behave in an uncivil manner even after warned, if there are no repercussions for their behaviour? How can you resolve a dispute if one person is continually making wild accusations and hurling insults. You can't, yet I've seen it happen over and over again since PAIN went away. There were all kinds of claims made when the made was removed that all people had to do was to report it to ANI instead of PAIN and it would be handled, yet I don't see that happening.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You can. You need to keep a calm head and remember there are administrators. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}☆ 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition proposal

Can we add another entry to the examples section? This sort of thing has increasingly become more of a problem:

• Labeling and describing other editors with negative characterizations such as "POV-Pushers" "cranks", "idiots", "woo-woos" or other similar derogatory names.

Dreadstar † 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely object. I started an RfC on the subject at WT:POVPUSH. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is here, Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#Consensus needed. Dreadstar † 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith that this is a genuine suggestion for a change to the policy rather than the laundering of a dispute, here is my comment: A policy should not get into such detail as to list the infinite variety of ways one can insult another editor. Sunray (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the faith, Sunray. Sounds like this might actually be classified as a personal attack instead of just a civility issue, per " Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Would this also fall under one of the WP:CIV Examples or some other part of WP:CIV? Where exactly do you see something like this fitting? Dreadstar † 09:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my previous comment wasn't clear. The policy generally does not give examples of ways that one can be uncivil. The reason for that seems clear to me: The ways of being uncivil are infinite. Thus, I think we have to be cautious with examples or everyone will want to add their own favourite case. This is not the function of policy, IMO. I do have some further thoughts, but would like to wait until the RfC has settled. There may be further guidance from that discussion. Sunray (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC has settled, resulting in additional wording re: civility in WP:POVPUSH. I'm looking in WP:CIV for where this type of insulting name-calling and labeling is covered. Can you identify it? Vague generalities about "rudeness" or seemingly very specific ones like "Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove vandalism" don't seem to cover this issue of calling others "pov-pushers" "cranks" "woo-woos", and etc. Many editors feel it is merely "calling a spade". What about "giving users derogatory names.." period? Or saying "via pagemove or by direct name calling or labeling. That sort of thing? Dreadstar † 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, does it really fall under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Personal attacks instead? Change the wording in WP:POVPUSH from "uncivil" to "personal attack"? Dreadstar † 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that most of those who commented in the RfC considered the epithet "POV-pusher" to be uncivil, I think that it should go under "Examples" in the policy, thus:

• Name-calling (e.g., "POV-pusher" Note: Comment on the actions (POV-pushing), not the editor).

As the conclusion of the RfC was decisive, I will add this change to the policy. Sunray (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome, Sunray! Thanks much! Dreadstar † 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

&bot=1

I don't know what "&bot=1" is, but it is used without link or explanation on this page. Could it be added by someone who knows? Pdbailey (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Acronym

Before signing up for my user name "Bless sins" I didn't realize that when abbreviated to "BS" it can mean an English expletive. Since then I have had a problem with a user over this.

Previously I asked the user to refer to me as "Bless sins" and not "BS", to no avail. Recently the user said: "BS, stop your BS."[1]" I don't find that sentence to be appropriate.

Is it reasonable for me, under WP:CIVIL, to expect the user to refer to me "Bless sins" the user name I signed up for, and not something this user finds convenient?Bless sins (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While this is not a discussion about the policy per se, it is a good example of something that occurs frequently, and does relate to the how this policy may be interpreted. Two users are engaged in an edit war. One user says: "Stop your false accusations." The other responds: "Stop your BS." The choice is always whether to follow the policy on dispute resolution, or to cool off and let it go. My response to Bless sins is here. Sunray (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is sometimes necessary

Discuss.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All the extra templates make this page an eyesore in my opinion. I catch flack for having too much in my term papers. I'm taught on the principle of "keep it simple, stupid". Just state the policy without all the pazazz. All I have to say for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.131 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your point and please, just because you think templates are "eyesores" doesn't mean you have a right to remove them. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Never. Ever. There are no excuses for lack of civility in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only that, but the ad hominem logical fallacy is generally the first sign that the attacker is unable to defend his/her position otherwise. I think it was my high school debate teacher who told us that "the Ad hominem attack is the first refuge of the incompetent and the last refuge of the desperate". In short there should never be a "need" for incivility -- even if we cared nothing about a pleasant work environment. WNDL42 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is defined as "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" according to the page. An atmosphere of greater conflict and stress I personally feel is okay if it leads to something productive in the long run (our aim shouldn't be to smother all conflict but to gain from it). Personally targeted behaviour isn't acceptable - ad hominem attacks don't further arguments logically and only serve to obscure the arena of debate. ----WPholic 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I Could not disagree more. Conflict and stress are probably the least productive methods of collaboration, if collaboration is even possible in those conditions. There are better ways. That's what civility is about - the better way(olive (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

There is such a thing as healthy conflict, and stress can be motivational in small amounts. Conflict that helps clarify an issue, correct an incorrect point and/or improve content or policies in some way is productive and results in improvement, much better than having no conflict at all as that leads to groupthink and causes the wiki to stagnate. And the motivational effects of small amounts of stress are long established, as small amounts of stress provide a pushing force without overstressing users. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A healthy conflict is not possible because the word conflict carries a negative connotation.I would agree that a healthy discourse is more attuned to what the readers and contributors of Wiki would prefer and accept. Incremental stress, if induced properly can lead to better results, but the meaning of stress is subjective relative to the side taken on the debated topic. Furthermore, introducing any stress factors can in fact be the reason why their is conflict , rather than civility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapshot24 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears we disagree on the meaning of the word "conflict"; what I was trying to say was that cognitive conflict (as described on the page I linked to), a disagreement in the cognitive sphere, can be positive as it leads to improvement in content and/or policies. Of course affective conflict leads to incivility and is best avoided; but cognitive conflict is actively good because it stops the wiki from stagnating. While the former rightly holds a negative connotation, the second should not and only does because of confusion with the first. Also, what do you mean by "the meaning of stress is subjective relative to the side taken on the debated topic"?

In reply to your last point, I don't believe that civility was designed to squelch all conflict, rather it was designed to prevent affective conflict - I could be debating with you, yet without rudeness, sarcasm or personal attacks. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lies

Obuibo Mbstpo removed "lies" from the list of examples of incivility, with the edit summary; "since when is lying a breach of civility?" Dreadstar thinks that lies should remain in the list. However, Obuibo has a point IMO. If "lies" is to remain in the list, we should explain how lies are a breach of incivility. Sunray (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A lie is defined as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" and "to create a false or misleading impression", if doing such things aren't uncivil, I'd be very surprised. Dreadstar † 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your definition says nothing about how lies might be uncivil. The policy defines incivility as: "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." We surely need some statement that puts lies in the context of personally targeted behaviour. The next statement on the list ("Calling someone a liar...") does that. If I lie about something on an article or talk page, it may not be uncivil. How do lies become uncivil? Sunray (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility has a wider definition that might at first be indicated.... "intent to deceive", creating falseness or misleading are all indications of a lack of respect for other editors-incivility. One big problem on Wikipedia right now is the too narrow application of the term civility. IMO.(olive (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Sunray, you've quoted a "rough" definition of the civility policy, a definion which is clearly incomplete. Telling lies causes greater conflict and stress, no matter what the lie. Once you start "definining" how a lie is uncivil, then you open the door for those who would tell a lie but try to do so in such a manner that it escapes whatever definition we come up with. Lying is uncivil, period. Dreadstar † 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with Dreadstar. Defining lies is a Pandora's box endlessly defining meaning and always more as food for loopholes. Good communication and collaboration do not happen with "lying" and that can only create a nonproductive environment . Its all about developing the article. People have to behave... seems pretty simple.(olive (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Neither of you have yet explained how lies connect to being uncivil. Incivility occurs between users. You need to explain how lying is uncivil, because lying is not necessarily uncivil. Keep in mind that the policy says: "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." I can tell a lie without it being directed towards another person. Sunray (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to make a comment directly towards a apecific person to be uncivil, the policy clearly states: "Our code of civility states plainly that "people must act with civility toward one another." and "Civility is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable."

Civility is defined as "civilized conduct; especially: courtesy, politeness; a polite act or expression", "characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint", and "consideration, cooperation, and generosity in providing something". Does lying fit this definition? I think not.

Lying is unacceptable conduct; there can be no dispute about that. Secondly, when someone tells a lie, they're misleading whoever is reading that lie (e.g. other editors). Misleading someone by lying is not acceptable civil conduct, it shows disrespect for those being lied to and it foments distrust in the community. I can find no argument that lying is civil behavior, unless perhaps you're sparing someone's feelings...but that's an entirely different moral question. Dreadstar † 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'd be really interested in your explanation of how lying is civil conduct. Dreadstar † 02:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to editwar about this. There is something useful on Dreadstar argument, related of uncivil behavior as casting aspersions in the form of "lies" about another editor. Let's explore this in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar that lying is not civil within the context of relations within wikipedia (it may be fine and good in other contexts)-- but to do so in wikipedia to your fellow editors in discussions about article content, is a clear breach of the implied trust and respect we are expected to afford and receive from one another. To deceive an editor in this context violates the civil norm of social discourse, and breeds strife, conflict, mistrust, and undoes the assumption of good faith and mutual respect that is necessary for cooperative editing. These are not luxuries they are requirement. So how is lying adhering to these norms of polite social intercourse within the context of what we do here at wikipedia? I think we need to look at the expanded meaning of civil, its practical meaning within the context of what we do here. In this light, we can see it is a rather clear violation of those social (civil) norms, and ergo uncivil. Ask yourself: Can lying here be marked by benevolence, and respect? That is, within the context of editor relations within and among wikipedians? I don't think so. Quite the contrary. Hence, lying in the context of work within wikipedia is an uncivil act.

The form of lying that I have seen here are related to other violations of policy, such as to POV push, pretending not to know something, by continuing a line of argument that he/she has been shown is false, or falsely claiming that a source does not say (or does say) what he says he thought it did--but later comes back to making that up, again, hoping the other editor will not go back and read the source, after being pointed out the he/she was wrong. The assumption of good faith as an honest mistake is predicated upon a norm the rejects lying as an acceptable norm; thus repeated attempts with new editors is disruptive, and stems from this violation of a civil norm (deceptive practices, lying). That is bad faith editing, a manifestation of deceptive practices, i.e. lying. Same goes with using socketpuppets, or making false reports knowing they are false. So really the practical effect of lying turn out to violate other policies already. But the act of doing so is uncivil without a doubt. I have therefore restored this long standing aspect to the page.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It might have been preferable to continue this discussion until we had rephrased the entry in the article as suggested by Jossi, above. That is also what I was trying to get at. Giovanni33 gave some context: "deceiving another editor." I'm fine with that, so I have added it. Sunray (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I already happened to remove what you added before your message... But I thought it sounded like "you can lie if it's not misleading". Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well argued, Giovanni. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question: Supposing someone has written a fraudulent article and it makes its way to Wikipedia. The article is a lie and the author repeats the lie on the talk page. The lie is criminal in this case, but how is it uncivil? I still do not think that anyone has dealt with my concern that lies are not invariably uncivil. Therefore, all I am suggesting is that we explain how lies my be used in an uncivil way. Sunray (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your example sounds like uncivil behavior, perhaps even libelous depending on the content. How are criminal acts civil? Since you're so focused on lies that you believe aren't uncivil, why don't you write something up and present it here on the talk page. To be honest, I'm having difficulty imagining civil lies. Dreadstar † 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This policy focuses on the behaviour of one editor towards another. Thus a lie that is not directed at someone is not incivility (as defined in this policy). I already gave an example: A deliberate attempt to mislead another editor through a lie. Sunray (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the policy focuses on the behavior of editors, whether towards a single editor or towards a group of editors, and even extends to offenses against anyone who may read the lie. Incivility isn't limited to comments directed to a single editor. Uncivil behavior doesn't even have to be directed towards any editors to be consdered uncivil and actionable - even though such behavior may break other behavioral guidelines and policies, it can still fall under WP:CIV. My suggestion is that you propose wording to clarify the simple entry "Lies". As I've stated before, all lies are deliberate attempts to mislead. An untruth that isn't always meant to mislead is generally referred to as a "falsehood". Dreadstar † 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In a larger context .... collaborative communities are in constant flux and are growing quickly everywhere. Redefining the paradigms that support the structure of these communities not only happens but is a necessity if the community is to maintain healthy growth. We must define and redefine civility in a larger sense of the word ..... more holistically. Wikipedia is not the same place it was even six months ago, and what worked them may not and obviously isn't working now. As the community gets larger so must our definitions to include multiple, and ever expanding possibilities.Getting trapped by an older definition of the the word may be counter-evolutionary for the encyclopedia.(olive (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

You certainly got my attention with that comment Olive. What do you think the parameters of a new definition would look like? Sunray (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't thought that far still thinking in terms of the underlying paradigm, but I suspect as is often the case once the paradigm shifts the rest is easier.... parameters and the more specific elements.

I think most of us think of ourselves as standing outside of Wikipedia right now trying to fix the problems,trying to make it work well. Now turn that inside out or "inside in" and put us all ... all of the editors, inside Wikipedia. We are now Wikiepdia, its "heart", and as the heart we create the articles. Wikipedia flows outwards from us. We also are the problems. Outside of Wikipedia, we separate ourselves from the problems, and from each other, isolate ourselves, our thinking. Inside of Wikipedia we are the functioning unit, and are responsible for having created whatever happens in the encyclopedia including its problems. This isn't a physical shift obviously. Its a shift in our own habits, in the way we view the encyclopedia.

At the heart of the encyclopedia are also the hearts of the editors ... at the risk of sounding trite or schmultzy...damage one heart and you damage the whole. If we think as Wikipedia as this whole that gives rise to the parts of the encyclopedia....that's the picture. Dreadstar's point about lying, is so much larger than telling a lie given this paradigm, not that I am putting words into his mouth, but rather how I extrapolate from what he is saying. The heart of the encyclopedia, and the hearts of the editors are influenced by every single aspect that protects or damages it. Damage one heart in any way, and lies of any kind are a lack of openness in the heart, and you damage the whole. Editors lying, for whatever reason, whether the lie is found out or not , damages the editor's heart who tells the lie at least, and possibly the editors who deal with the lie, and that damages the whole larger heart of Wikipedia. This isn't just about lies obviously, but is about anything that damages or supports.

You can't tell people this necessarily. Many would scoff.... but you can begin to shift the paradigm, by saying lets look at ourselves as the functioning "heart" inside of, and of, this encyclopedia.

This paradigm is becoming known in other collaborative environments, and is an obvious movement toward the better functioning of a global sustainable world where we are connected to each other and to the world we are destroying/creating.

Parameters then have to be as holistic as we can make them I suspect, and based on the sense that every editor is an important functioning aspect of the encyclopedia just because they are inside there with us . They are part of the heart. We have to begin to design parameters based on this paradigm, it seems to me. Aren't you sorry you asked?!(olive (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Wow...Olive, one of the best posts I've seen on Wikipedia (actually, you made a few!). What amazes me is that anyone here could speak in defence of lying. WNDL42 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"What amazes me that anyone here could speak in defence of lying." No one has spoken in defence of lying. Sunray (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that saying "lying is not uncivil" is certainly "speaking in defense of lying", at least in regards to civil discourse.

Ah, but that is not what I said. No matter. You missed my point and there is absolutely no reason to think that you will suddenly get it now. Sunray (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither I nor Wndl42 said that you said "lying is not uncivil", that statement was implicitly made by another, contrary to your statement above that "No one has spoken in defense of lying". Dreadstar † 15:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You get the last word on this. Oh gosh, now you don't. Sunray (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)  ;-)

And Olive, that is truly an inspiring post, you've hit on the true heart of the matter...the very core of the nature of the effect of lies on any collaborative effort, whether it be a personal relationship or in a larger project. Lies are also destructive not only to others, but one's own self. This is the truth behind civility itself, without it...we're far less than we can be - if we're anything at all. Thank you Olive.. Dreadstar † 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Olive. Civility isn't about refraining from cussing people out, or avoiding hate-speech - naturally those are part of it - but civility is about the whole atmosphere that we maintain here. Are we being excellent to each other, and treating all other editors as we would like to be treated, or aren't we?

This policy page bugs me in a way, because why would anybody read WP:CIVIL? What, didn't you already know what it means to be civil? It means always showing respect, and respect for oneself and for others doesn't leave room for lying. The point isn't to classify lies as a form of incivility according to section 3, subparagraph b, item (vii)... this isn't court. The point is, why would you lie to someone you're trying to collaborate with? That makes no sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there should be an over arching essay that encompasses the ideological components of Wikipedia as a holistic collaborative community ....Yes, I am starting to bore myself with that phrase but not sure how else to say it...that would include within itself notes on civility,for example. Within civility, then, would be more specific notes as we have now. Layers of understanding, but with a larger holistic view than we have now.(olive (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Name calling

I dispute the bit about name calling recently added to this policy which suggests that somehow warning users that an editor is a POV pusher would violate our policies.[2] Until mid-January, it has always been our policy that the benefit to the community of being able to simply call a spade a spade far outweighed the contortions of having to call a spade a "manual geomorphological modification implement." We're here to write an encyclopedia, not kabuki dance. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Name calling as it's being used here is more accurately described in the insult article than it is in the article you linked to above on name calling. Feel free to open another RfC on this, Kendrick. The earlier one is here. Dreadstar † 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BURO, an RfC on the WP:NPOV_dispute how-to guide does not automatically create WP:Policy on this page. That RfC doesn't apply here. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:BURO doesn't override what I've stated. Reread WP:CON. Consensus was that name-calling such as calling someone a "pov-pusher" is uncivil, so it certainly does apply here. That RfC was directly related to WP:CIV, as illustrated here. Dreadstar † 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody has a POV. Every time I've seen an editor calling someone a "POV pusher", it was always (to some extent) a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If an editor is tendentious in a disruptive way, why not just say "based on the pattern of edits you've made here, you might want to review WP:TEND". That way you are criticising the behavior and not the person, which is the essence of all effective behavior modification. If continued disregard for WP:TEND is seen, then we have channels for dealing with it. WNDL42 (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Straw man" and other discrediting attacks

I've written extensively and gotten some encouraging comments on my discriptions of the extended and persistent use of the Straw man discreditiing attack and the "corrosive" effect over time. I'd like to invite some input here. WNDL42 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict smothering?

• Balance each uncivil comment by providing a soothing or constructive comment.
• Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (an individual approach)
• Alternatively, respond to perceived incivility with greater civility and respect. Many editors will rise to the occasion and moderate their tone to match yours.
• Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community.
• Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box)
• Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.
• Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.
• You do not have to like an editor as a person, to appreciate that they are also working for the good of the project. If you do not like a fellow editor, try not to hold that fact against them.

This seems to invite conflict smothering. "Soothing comments"? I would have thought that the issue at hand was more important, unless actual hurt feelings were expressed. "Do not answer offensive comments"? Right, let's just ignore comments that express issues or statements that may be offensive to some people. Anything can be offensive if a sufficiently hypersensitive person reads it. Maybe, just maybe, it's worth examining why the comment was written offensively before jumping the gun.

"Operate as if the offender does not exist" sums it all up. Ignore a fellow Wikipedia editor trying to express strong emotions, reducing him/her to the dehumanised label of "offender" and thus justify his/her treatment as nonexistent. How can a policy justify treating others as nonexistent? Forgive me, but I actually thought that addressing the editor as a person with emotions who makes mistakes sometimes would solve an issue better than operating under the illusion of a fellow Wikipedian's nonexistence.

The third-from-last point (walk away) also seems to encourage conflict smothering - walking away and returning when tempers have cooled is quite different from trying to cool tempers yourself. Suddenly dropping out from a conflict and returning on your own time has far-reaching consequences (e.g. other editors can grossly misrepresent your arguments and you won't be around to rebut them).

Basically, I am against ignoring fellow Wikipedians and treating them as if they were nonexistent. Forgive me if I was inadvertently uncivil. ----WPholic 11:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. My sense is that although the acts that might be considered "smothering" in isolation, are here placed in a larger context of what civility/incivility is and how to manage it, and so are meant to be used together with a larger understanding of how to treat other people in a collaborative situation. Possibly an even larger context would be a good thing, but not sure.... have to think about it.(olive (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! :) I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that we should follow the spirit of these guides (i.e. don't let it get to you etc.)? If so, I agree. ----WPholic 06:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Indecent suggestions and cursing

Your point is exactly right. These are two different things entirely. Indecent suggestions are often sexual in nature, and are generally considered offensive to normal good taste. Cursing is considered to be use of words that are offensive rather than suggestions per say. Because these are quite different they should, if they need to be included at all, be in different lines rather than together in the same line.(olive (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Cursing in and of itself is not necessarily uncivil behavior. Cursing is temperamental, and usually best avoided. Cursing in a way that escalates a dispute is certainly a bad idea. But an unqualified prohibition against cursing is not advisable.--Father Goose (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing this word, and didn't add it .... Although, I do think at the point when editors are cursing and loss of control is apparent, the environment is not going to be supportive of collaboration. I don't know. Maybe the word should stay.(olive (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

There have been several discussion here on certain kinds of behaviour that although not incivilities in themselves can help to create a less than optimal collaborative environment. I think this is worth considering here.(olive (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

*Opens eyes, notices it's already on the list as "Profanity directed toward another contributor"* That says it fine, we can leave it at that.--Father Goose (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, you said above, "an unqualified prohibition against cursing is not advisable". First of all, I would agree, but I'd go further and say that unqualified prohibitions are not advisable. This policy would be more effective, I think, if it presented civility, not as a rule you have to follow, but as a reality with which we live. It's not "you must be civil". It's "choosing not to be civil is pissing in the wind. You'll be covered in piss, and we told you so."

If it's presented as a rule, people will look for exceptions, or claim that they're improving Wikipedia by ignoring it. However, nobody claims they're improving the world by ignoring the law of gravity. Civility is just as inevitable in human interactions as gravity is in physics. We should present is as an inevitability, rather than as a rule that one may follow or not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be that it's structured this way to permit blocks for certain forms of unambiguous incivility. The subject of this page is not actually civility but incivility. (I seem to remember that was the name of the meta page from which it was derived.)

It did strike me several months ago, though, that we don't have a "be civil" policy, just a "don't be uncivil" policy, since the latter is enforceable. How could we go about improving that state of affairs?--Father Goose (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... if it's worded the way it is to "permit" blocks for certain forms of unambiguous incivility, then it's wrong-headed. Our policies shouldn't permit, they should observe. "If you're blatantly uncivil, you're likely to be blocked for it," is better than, "if you commit one of the acts listed here, then an admin is permitted by policy to block you."

I don't know, am I making sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are to me. Making a list of things that constitute incivility only invites Wikilawyering and the calculated abuse of WP:CIVIL as a tactic to gain advantage over an opponent. We see far too much of that already. I would replace this whole page with your sentence "If you're blatantly uncivil, you're likely to be blocked for it." As it presently stands the page is too preachy and verbose. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think another good use of this page is to advise editors how best to respond to incivility in others. Accusing them of a "WP:CIV violation" isn't actually the most de-escalatory move one can make. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Or here's an idea: have a bunch of pages on Wikipedia:How to react to trolling, Wikipedia:How to react to vandalism, Wikipedia:How to react to incivility, Wikipedia:How to react to wikilawyering, Wikipedia:How to react if someone climbs the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, Wikipedia:How to react to POV-pushing, Wikipedia:How to react to a clueless newbie, Wikipedia:How to react to an accusation of bad faith, etc. Take all of the behavior related policies (WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:NPA) and recast them as a how-to guide, with the advice that not following the guide is unproductive, and may eventually lead to blocks, depending how unproductive it is.

It's a terrible idea, but kind of fun to think about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That was my intent with WP:BAIT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not all bait, though. A clueless newbie isn't baiting you, and an irate POV-pusher isn't either. There are, however, better and worse ways to react to them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible change in paradigm

I agree with Olive in that there does need to be a new paradigm for the way editors interact in Wikipedia. It might be useful to consider who is editing Wikipedia. In my field, what I refer to as etheric studies, the association my wife and I run has a discussion board closed to the public. Only about 1% of the members regularly post there, yet the stats indicate that a much greater percentage visit the board every day. People willing to "put themselves out there" are too few.

Many of our members represent other organizations--usually hauntings investigation groups, and our website averages 1,400 to 1,700 unique visitors a day. I have attempted to recruit participation in Wikipedia from the larger community of interest in the paranormal but perhaps only one or two have tried and then quickly left. The most common response I receive is that the people who know this field have looked at the way I have been treated and tell me they do not want to subject themselves to the same.

I have stayed with EVP and Spiritualism with an occasional venture into other subjects, even though I have a lifetime of study in most things paranormal. It is just too painful to have someone who read a book tell me that EVP is singular (it hase many forms)or that it started where it did not. So who is editing in the paranormal articles? The editors with the most tenacity have proven to be the ones most certain that things paranormal are not possible and are determined to make sure the world understands as much. Since by their own admission, their knowledge of the subject is from reading a book or the equivalent, this amounts to an ideological point of view that dominates the paranormal subjects. Those who hold the view are slowly driving off or banning those who disagree--with little regard for fact or truth.

The people who are able to contribute in a meaningful way would probably have some difficulty adjusting to wiki rules. I know I did, and of course, I still find such rules as the omission of virtually the only meaningful reference material because of original research to be beyond comprehension when it leaves only skeptical reference to explain the subject. New people would probably not realize how sinful it is to claim they think something is real, so they really need advisors to help them understand balance, not punishers.

A possible solution might look something like this:

• Develop a zero tolerance policy for incivility.
• Establish a class of editors known as mentors with the experience to guide editors, especially new editors. Mentors could adopt an article from the perspective of seeing to it that the article is balanced via the talk page, but would not edit the article themselves.
• Keep the admin appeal system, but establish a tribunal system patterned after the American legal system, with a few judges and a stable of advocates from which appealing editors can select to represent them to the tribunal. The appealing editors would not themselves address the judge. The tribunal system would hear appeals from all forms of disputes and have the authority to make final decisions.
• Develop a policy to have articles say what the subject is without attempting to certify it pro or con. It would be good to test articles for effectiveness by occasionally asking teachers to use the article as a classroom lesson: "Read the article and tell me what you learned."
• Rules concerning original research, fringe and reliable sources effectively defeat the ability of knowledgeable editors to even neutrally describe paranormal subjects. The rules are good in mainstream subjects, but frontier subjects are virtually all described via original research, so a "frontier" category needs to be established to allow for this.
• After all of these changes have been enacted, actively recruit subject matter specialists to act directly as representative editors or as advisors to experienced editors.

Most of the people in my field I speak to know that they are working at the fringe, and do not expect to have their views represented as fact. But at the same time, they (we) do expect our subjects to be honestly represented and this is not happening as often as needed to maintain Wikipedia's good reputation. These suggestions are just ideas, but they do offer a way of keeping Wikipedia from being a platform for ideologues. Tom Butler (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rules concerning original research, fringe and reliable sources effectively defeat the ability of knowledgeable editors to even neutrally describe paranormal subjects." No response necessary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hummm ... meet constructive comments intended to further discussion with sarcastic dismissal. Interesting tactic on a civility talk page. Tom Butler (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought you'd embrace that, Arritt, after all how can the scientific position on fringe subjects of which scientists have not spoken be presented, except by OR? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no response necessary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why. There was a specific vote on doing OR in that context over at the wtbdwk? article, and SA, Fyslee, and a few others were for it. If they didn't think it necessary, why'd they vote for it? I believe I properly represented their reason- science hasn't spoken on certain notable subjects. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If science hasn't spoken on it, then whatever is written about it is likely real world OR and Wikipedia is not the place to publish OR and speculation. There could be several reasons for why the scientific world hasn't spoken on it. If it's not about falsifiable reality, then it is of little interest to science. If it is, but is not dealt with in the scientific world, but is ignored, it is likely considered so absurd as to be unworthy of comment. IOW they consider it absurd OR, and Wikipedia should not give it mention in any sense that could be taken to mean it is a viable idea on a par with other well proven ideas. It should be clearly labeled as a fringe and scientifically unproven idea. -- Fyslee / talk 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dare I say this conversation is not about civility or WP:CIVILITY?--Father Goose (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Father Goose. This page is for discussion of improvements to the WP:CIV policy. I feel like I just walked into a room marked "Speculation about why we shouldn't have a policy on OR so we can write what we want about anything." Sunray (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Consider it a demonstration then.

The problems with Wikipedia are systemic and any solution is going to be more comprehensive than simply modifying a policy a little. For instance, I see increased support for the idea that we should be even more lenient about civility and that it is the responsibility of the offended editor to tell the offending editor that he or she is offended before taking any other action. [3] So okay, I expressed the fact that I found Raymond Arritt's response to be "sarcastic dismissal." Both mild incivility, and he responded with more sarcastic dismissal. But please do not respond to that. I am just saying that such modification to the rules seldom have the desired results.

The line about OR, fringe and such are flash points in Wikipedia. You can do all you want with civility, but if the encyclopedia is not changed from a platform to push ideologies--on both sides--then it will both be a target for people who think it is a misleading source of information and a truly nasty place to spend time trying to do good on the Internet. It is up to you.

Before you decide, however, take a look at the growing understanding of what is often called the "perception of danger" as a modifying influence in behavior. See Hazard and Risk Perception among Young Novice Drivers [4]

Hiding behind screen names has given you the Lord of the Flies [5]. How can such an environment produce great reference articles? Tom Butler (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As a demonstration of civility, it is fine. As a discussion on changes to this policy, I'm not sure that it passes muster. However, I do want to reply to your statement about screen names. I think it is clear that most serious WP editors realize at some point that their credibility (their "name" if you will), 'is based on what they write and how they interact with other editors. Thus policies like this one are crucial. Sunray (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)