Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Hang on please, folks

Can people not start unilaterally rewriting policy without consensus? It's fine to work on the policy, but why not try doing it in your user space, then linking to it from this page so we can discuss? I see much that troubles me already in terms of edits recently made, but have no desire to edit war over it -- I may, after all, be in the minority. But please, this is a policy page. Discuss first. IronDuke 13:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't discourage good faith contributions. Everyone is free to edit. There is no requirement to obtain approval. If an editor feels that a change reflects consensus, they can proceed. Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually: no. IronDuke 13:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with edits, you can revert them and discuss, or better, you could discuss them and see whether a reversion is needed. Which recent edits do you disagree with and why? Jehochman ^Arrr! 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like to see people being bold on policy pages -- it makes policy close to meaningless. For major changes to any policy or article, it is necessary -- not good, necessary -- to get consensus first. Not to "feel" the change reflectsw consensus, but for it to actually do so. I have a lot to say on this particular topic, to the point of boring everyone to tears, but I don't want to comment on a pell mell of unsupported edits. I'd like to see people put forth a specific proposal, e.g. "I think editors shouldn't be able to strike other editors' comments, except in cases of X, Y, and Z," and see what people say. Or userfy and rewrite from scratch. Either way works for me. IronDuke 13:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anyone is afraid to revert edits to the policy they disagree with. We should avoid rapid fire changes that make it difficult to follow what is happening, but otherwise... What we normally see is that policy changes, left unrevised for a period of time, are considered de facto consensus because of the lack of objection. This page is certainly visible enough and trafficked enough that the community can't be considered "in the dark" on substantial changes. Avruch ^T 14:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing should be changed on this Policy page, without consensus for it. There should be no exceptions. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should this page be different from all others? Avruch ^T 14:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Then all others should also require consensus for any changes. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following. I see general resistance to the idea of changing this policy, but no specific concerns about the changes that have been made. In what way do they make the policy worse? Are they at odds with current practice? In this summary diff of the recent changes, they actually seem fairly minor to me.

The only potentially significant change has to do with discouraging removal of others' comments. I think this is a worthwhile change: active removal of perceived incivility directed at oneself invariably worsens the editing environment, in my experience - it leads to the material being reinserted, then an edit-war, then a lengthy disagreement about the letter of WP:CIV. There are much more useful and productive ways to deal with incivility, and I think these changes are a step in the right direction. In any case, specific concerns or objections would be more useful than "don't edit the page". MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do as you wish, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes range from okay to neutral to very bad. Here is the diff of all that was done today. [1]

• We no longer have to be civil, but "reasonably civil". I can see no purpose in watering this down.
• "persistent rudeness" was taken out as a definition of incivility. What? Why? Persistent rudeness is somehow civil?
• "Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern." was removed. In other words: troll-enabling - ON.
• The part taking away editor's rights to remove uncivil or NPA posts is very bad, I think. You can insult me with impunity, but I may not remove your precious insults? I don't get that. Nor do I see how terribly disruptive it's been for people to remove comemnts -- certainly less than allowing gross incivility to stand.

I'll also say this is entirely bass-ackwards: I'm happy to talk this out with everyone, but changes that a lot of Wikipedians might well object to shoul always always always be discussed before, not after, they're made. Unless people want to support the idea that major policy changes can and should be made by just one editor, just throwing any old idea into an argument and see if it sticks. Anyone? IronDuke 17:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

I agree with original diff by MustCell. Looks like a visible improvement. A practical question: would certain userboxes be considered as a violation of WP:CIV? For example, this user displays an image of a hanging rope at his page with a title (Russan): "Mikhael [apparently Saakashvili], where are you? I am waiting for you". Or, for example this user displays a user box that tells "This user ..believes that polonium is a valid sugar substitute.", apparently hinting at the Litvinenko assassination.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page." Chillum 18:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It actually said "reasonably civil" for years, just in a different sentence. When copyediting, the phrase seemed to read a bit better with it that way - and, after all, we don't want to stifle debate about content, which may require the occasional heated disagreement. As for rudeness, it is still the first item on the list of example incivil behaviours.

Frankly, you're reading far too much into these changes by not paying enough attention to what remains. That said, you are right that the edit left out one of the big exceptions to the generally accepted standard that you don't remove comments (and seriously, it is a standard: people have been warned or blocked over it in the past): users are generally given wide latitude over what they keep on their own talk page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainly, the changes were to reduce redundancy. The policy had become bloated. By writing more concisely, the meaning is clarified and more readily understood. Feel free to adjust things as needed, or to suggest changes here on the talk page, or object to any changes that have been made. Criticism is welcome, the more specific the better. Jehochman ^Arrr! 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

↔ Biophys: Those userboxes would violate WP:UP#NOT; civility is probably superfluous there.

Chillum, we are discussing the changes on the talk page, as the box suggests.

IronDuke, I think "civil" and "reasonably civil" are semantically equivalent. If you'd like to remove "reasonably", that would be fine with me. "Persistent rudeness" can go back in; that is virtually synonymous with "incivility" and I don't feel strongly about its inclusion or exclusion. Egregious personal attacks and threats have always been potential grounds for a block, both by WP:NPA/WP:HARASS and more importantly by standard practice; this is not dependent on WP:CIV, and removing it here does not constitute "troll-enabling". Finally, I mentioned above that removing perceived incivility directed at oneself rarely, if ever, improves a situation. That doesn't mean you can be insulted with impunity, just that there may be better ways to deal with being insulted. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Egregious personal attacks and harassment" is still in there, paragraph 2, as justification for a block after a single incident. That was not removed. It was merely merged into a different sentence. Jehochman ^Arrr! 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Short is sweet

• This is a policy page that had with no community support as it was written. Such is abundantly clear. Ergo, it is perfectly appropriate for these improvements to take please: everyone was pretty much agreed that something had to be done. Moreschi (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The page had plenty of support, before the re-write. It still has support, with the copy-editing. But no matter how much support there is from the community for the concept of civility, each editor will continue to have their own internal standards, and to interpret any set of words in an individual manner. And when it comes to "enforcing" policy, circumstances and contingencies always come into play. That's where the difficulty lies. People get upset by rudeness, or mis-understand each other and escalate disagreements. That is the human condition, and it can't be cured by writing words on a policy page. Just ameliorated. /NewbyG (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- there's broad support for the concept, but lots of disagreement over the implementation. I'd rather this page was dramatically shortened into a statement of principle rather than going into a lot of details and inclusions and provisos and such to be argued over and wikilawyered around. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The policy page has already been shrunk by 45%. There are many fewer hand holds for wikilawyering over common sense matters. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather turn that 45% into 90%, but yeah, I'll take what I can get. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, short is sweet. See below Keeping the nutshell in mind. /NewbyG (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Other things to do?

One things I haven't seen anyone do yet, and that is summarise arbitration cases and civility. I've seen several people quote a standard arbitration principle somewhere. Should that be covered in some way as a de facto principle? Maybe saying what the long-term effects and results of incivility can be might also help. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that there has been so much activity on this page, even if I didn't have time to contribute much myself. The hardest parts still lie ahead, of actually sorting through all this and getting something usable and that has a new consensus, out the other end. The Workshop page could really help here. The one other thing is advertising this discussion. I don't think that has actually been done yet, so that is rather urgent, IMO. I didn't want to do that until some discussion had taken place, but events have rather overtaken this. I also think that WP:COMMON SENSE, although only an essay, should <not> be forgotten in all this. so:

• Summarise arbitration principles and remedies as regards civility
• Look through the talk page archives and extract some useful points
• Advertise this round of activity and focus efforts (on the Workshop?)
• Make the overall aim clearer (what exactly are we trying to do here?)
• Don't forget WP:COMMON SENSE (seems to have some bloated section tacked on the end...)

That should be enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more user essays to the category (Category:User essays on civility), and linked back to Fayssal's page. I've also left notes for the users who wrote the essays (apart from one who last edited in 2006), but that is enough individual notices. What is needed now is centralised, neutral notices to bring people to this discussion. Anyone want to do that? Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? One of my management principles IRL is that the person who makes a suggestion is responsible for doing the work to implement it. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The other side of the coin

The lead currently states:

"This policy is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive."

Does this need to be expanded upon in the main part of the page? One of the concerns expressed about the civility policy is its tactical (unintentional or not) use by those involved in a dispute to accuse the other side of incivility (whether justified or not). This just causes drama and distraction from the original issue (i.e. a low-level form of disruption). Is there a way to say this succintly and ask people to, while not excusing continued incivility, to look at the arguments being expressed with possibly incivil, but also constructive criticism, not the manner in which it is delivered? Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The essay Don't overlook legal threats may provide inspiration. I agree: just because somebody is rude, does not mean that they are wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of off-Wikipedia disputes, etc

In regard to my revert [2]:

Editors may well know other editors in other contexts, and have views on them in those contexts. But when discussing them as Wikipedians, or in a context of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editing, civility is the expected norm. Matters related to off-site views, disputes, or activities, should generally be either left off-site, or handled in a manner that does not breach this policy.

The most relevant discussion is WP:OUTING. Given the absurd lengths that some highly experienced editors will go in order to cry "incivil", I think that anything beyond WP:OUTING is asking for trouble. Of course, we expect editors to be civil. Discussion of editors actions outside Wikipedia should always be approached with care.

The real problem is that some highly experienced editors will go to great lengths in order to cry "incivil", ignoring what is actually written in WP:CIVIL. Some of these editors even refuse to discuss the problem. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy or guideline

I changed the wording to reflect some commonly understood ideas better [3]. Also, made the statements aimed at minimizing abuse stronger. Finally, this seems to be more of a behavioral guideline now and I updated the tag on top to say that. --Irpen 23:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent edits have made the project page shorter and clearer.

The page wp:civility functions as a <subcat> behavioural guideline.

Tagged as policy, tagged as guideline, whatever.

It functions as a link page to WP:POL WP:NPA WP:DR WP:AGF WP:CON WP:ETIQUETTE ...

There is and always has been an unmistakable demand from the community for reaonable and calm discussion, no personal attacks or harassment, irrespective of whatever words are on this project page, or any page.

The page should say more than that.

Try reading it, bit by bit.

Remember, it should be comprehensible to new users. /NewbyG (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Social Infomatics

While it may be obvious it should be mentioned that all we have available at Wikipedia is words. Words are what carry our meaning and our intent. Somewhere, I'm not sure where, I came across the following. It has to do with this discussion and the future Civility Policy.

• Cues-Filtered-Out theory suggests that some forms of computer-mediated-communcation are less personal than face-to-face activity because of the reduced number of contextual and nonverbal cues available in text-based online social interactions. It asserts that the diminished available cues available in computer-mediated-communication creates a heightened sense of anonymity, which leads to a more impersonal communication exchange than is present in face-to-face interaction.

Is the absence of the "cues" the reason why Incivility is so obviously detremental to a "reasonable and calm discussion"? In real life we might be more accepting because we have the hints that harm is not the intent...maybe it's just sarcasm, for instance. The smile tells us that. Here--no twinkle in the eye can be seen! I have run across many editors and admins that are not civil but are the first to cry "UnCivil!!!!". It can be a weapon of silencing an in-experienced editor. Or sending them out the door...we have all seen that! Good Luck! We need to be civil to each other. Manners are the lubricant between people. Even moreso here!--Buster7 (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thought for your consideration..."Treat other editors like they are in your home, not in your way".--Buster7 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If I found some of the people around here in my home, I'd call the police. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL...Now, consider that, to the wrong editor, your joke may be considered uncivil. But no. It's like Porn. We all know it when we see it.--Buster7 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a really important point about civility and on line conversation, although I'm not sure how it can be implemented except for editors to realize that that when physiological cues are missing misunderstanding can easily follow, and thanks for the laugh, SBH Boris.(olive (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

Good points, all.

There's a book, The Psychology of the Internet (Patricia Wallace) that covers this admirably: she dissects Usenet flame-wars from the 1990s and shows which communications were misinterpreted, and how the participants probably interpreted each subsequent post.

Abrupt communications are the easiest to misinterpret. When someone responds with just one or two words, a reader is more likely to "hear" it as angry, dismissive, sarcastic, or disrespectful, than one that is framed with an introduction, content, and close ("Hi Littleolive oil ... how about blah blah ... cheers, User") Electronic communication is difficult, and it is one of the reasons we have the AGF policy -- to get people to try to "hear" the words with the most positive possible tone-of-voice. Of course in practice it doesn't happen that way as often as we'd like. Antandrus (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. As an off-the-charts introvert, one of the hardest lessons I've had to learn is to use far more words than necessary when communicating with others. Instead of an emailing a student "Check the notes" I've learned to say "Well you know, I'm not a hundred percent certain about that. I think I remember what chapters you're supposed to read for next week, but since I'm teaching two classes this term and I get confused about things, the best thing would be if you took a look at the notes." The content is the same but somehow expressing oneself more verbosely comes across better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

But...Long Elaborate Discussions that create walls of words are also considered by some to be uncivil. Or, there length is the reason another editor "throws the first stone". And thats is where it begins, How can we prevent that first stone from being thrown?--Buster7 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do your best to set a good example. Model the behavior you'd like to see. If someone does throw a stone, don't pick it up and throw it back. That will go a lot further than blocks, civility parole, or enumerating every conceivable type of incivility. MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Alert

I put an alert at the Village Pump about the recent changes. It seems to me, 1) that no one but a very few editors have been watching this and 2) the changes to this point have been very very controversial, and have had the effect of weakening the level of civility which Wikipedia expects/requires of editors. So we'll see what the community at large has to say about it diff. Compare this and this.

Just as an example:

Changing it from a policy to a guideline, and a guideline, remember "is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Changing this

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable.

to

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. These principles reflect the commonsense expectation of civility and apply to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with fellow Wikipedians.

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. This page is merely a guideline that outlines the very general principles of conduct. Since the concept of civility is interpreted very widely in the society, particularly in different cultures, there cannot be any strict and enforceable "standards of civility" and this page on itself should not be used as a justification for sanctioning editors or cited as the reason for a block. However, some types of egregious behavior are universally considered inappropriate, such as threats, severe personal attacks, or harassment that are addressed in dedicated policies and may result in warnings or blocks.

This page is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors. To insist that an editor who did not display any such egregious conduct addressed in the policies described above be sanctioned for violation of "general civility" or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive.

In short, does the community at large wish to edit the page in such a way that it must, indeed, be downgraded from a policy to a guideline, with correspondingly less obligation to adherence? Whatever the decision, I think no one has been paying any attention, and they should.

Please note that the diff above is an intermediate version, and the second example of change is taken from an older version [4]. Also, I bolded some text which I thinks captures some of the flavor of recent changes: basically, the expectation of civility is being lessened. It has been changed from "be civil" to "some types of egregious behavior...that are addressed in dedicated policies." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting changes that might be considered controversial is one thing; but you went far beyond that and made a massive rollback of enormous amounts of material, including a number of uncontroversial writing changes. Wholesale, indiscriminate removal of others' hard work strikes me as -- dare one say -- uncivil. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then revert- I expected to be reverted, and I'm not here to edit war. However, I think the community hasn't been paying attention. I will live with whatever a broad consensus of editors believes to be correct. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you do realise that all that was done was a summary of WP:NPA added to the lead, and the fourth paragraph moved up a little. This is from the lead of the version you restored to:

“ Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow. It is, perhaps, easier to define its opposite, however: incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere it creates is detrimental to the project, and is therefore to be avoided.

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern.

This policy is not meant to be used as a weapon against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks.

”

I believe that all that happened was that long-standing parts of the lead (and a reference to WP:NPA) got added to the body text. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to it more tomorrow. However, the differences between this and this are likely to be very great. I believe two things: first, that there was a good reason for downgrading it to a guideline, as noted above. Especially,

this

However, some types of egregious behavior are universally considered inappropriate, such as threats, severe personal attacks, or harassment that are addressed in dedicated policies and may result in warnings or blocks.

coupled with

To insist that an editor who did not display any such egregious conduct addressed in the policies described above be sanctioned for violation of "general civility" or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive.

Define away most incivility. I think some of the changes have been good. But the question for the community is: do you want to weaken the policy?

Second, I think that the changes were made without broad community input. I think that the policy has likely changed drastically, and should therefore now be subject to a broad review. That's all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except, as I said, those restrictions have been there, right in the lead, for ages. We can certainly quibble about the phrasing, but to insist that the entire edits be thrown out due to things that are explicitly there, in almost identical phrasing, no less, in your preferred version... I just don't see your point about how retaining material from the original weakens policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, is this still an issue after Dreadstar's changes? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes- as above. Also, compare:

Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

versus

After that, we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others

The policy has been weakened greatly, and positively shouts "Aw shucks, it's just civility." So look, Shoemaker, this isn't about what I think. I've given some diffs and a rundown, and I think others will carry it from here.

The changes are large. They weaken the policy from "must be civil" to "request a reasonable degreee of civility." [5] [6] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martin that the "requests" language is too weak. We also spend too much time describing incivility rather than civility; some of my recent edits have tried to focus on the positive behavior we want to encourage, rather than the negative behavior we'd like to whack people for. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pertinent comments from Jimbo's talk.... "I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) ........As he says, we need to STRONGLY insist on proper workplace behavior and prevent a mindset that allows provocatively worded responses. It must be a [policy] to have any forbiddance. There must be consequences for crossing a line that the community sets. Quite frankly some editors need to be domesticated. Somehow this site, Civility, needs to clearly state the social skills needed to maintain a "pleasant work environment'.--Buster7 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

Despite Martinphi's alarmism, I think this policy has been due a top-to-bottom rewrite for some time.

I propose we restore the version that was come up with over the last week, [7] keeping it as policy.

[Better phrasing, since the threat of edit war seems to have blown over] - I think that the large-scale revisions found in [8] should be accepted. The page will probably undergo a certain amount of copy-editing and debate before it settles back down, but can we accept that the shorter, more-focused version of the page is a good start?

Comment: We need to get a broad community input. I think such a poll is a bit premature. But downgrading the content, as I outlined above, but keeping it as policy doesn't really do much. What we need is broad input. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, that content has been in WP;CIVIL for ages. See the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead. Certainly, I agree with Dreadstar's revert to improved phrasing, but right now, I want to just get a broad consensus that the structural changes are fine, so that work can continue on improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, although a slightly later version may be a bit better with the added paragraph or two and a tad more emphasis on the Five Pillars. And with Brigade's added tweaks, natch... :) Dreadstar † 06:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

   Point taken. I've tweaked the phrasing a bit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

3. This version of the page (the linked "slightly later version" in particular) is remarkably sensible, and I support it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this as a Lead

• Civility is necessary to provide ALL editors with a pleasant work environment. The Wikipedia Code of Conduct together with the principle that states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view are core mandates. The production of an Encyclopedia require(s) conditions that maintain order and calm.

The Lead should be strong and clear. It should express why it is absolutely necessary to be Civil.--Buster7 (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The way that's written, it's neither strong nor clear. It would take some serious rewriting, and I'd say it's not worth it because I prefer the current revision. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which "Wikipedia Code of Conduct" are we referring to? It's inexistent as a "code". -- @fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I must have read an older version. I see now that it is drastically different than 1/2 an hour ago. Nevermind! Thanks for the supportive words of encouragement--Buster7 (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

@Fayssal..The Lead that I worked from referenced a Code of Conduct. I assummed that there was one. Surprised there is not--Buster7 (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIV IS the code of conduct (along with WP:AGF and a few others. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This may find a place somewhere I believe, no?...An environment of mutual respect and civil conduct between and among Wikipedia editors is critical to the achievement of a respectable encyclopedia. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please review my my three edits. fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, "Code of Conduct" in WP:5P links to WP:Etiquette. That should probably change. I do wish that we could have a few less of the meaningless stock phrases, though. No other core policy sees the need to spend two paragraphs talking about how respected the policy is. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't phrased very well, but you know what I mean. I'd rather change the name of the page to something obviously important and core, and just clearly say what we expect from users. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Some very relevant stuff (Code of conduct and civility)

• A measure of civility - A Washington Post article - Caustic Commenters, Rude Fans: Why We Still Need to Be Told to Make Nice (Sept. 18, 2008)

• The Importance of Civility - From Google books (by T. S. Bogorad - ISBN 1-4259-5894-X)

• Civility 2.0: Should Bloggers Adopt a Code of Conduct? - 26 pages

• Here is a summary of the Blogger Conduct Code draft by Tim O'Reilly:

1. We take responsibility for our own words and reserve the right to restrict comments on our blog encyclopedia that do not conform to basic civility standards.
2. We won’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.
3. If tensions escalate, we will connect privately before we respond publicly.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
5. We do not allow anonymous comments.
6. We ignore the trolls.
7. We encourage blog hosts to enforce more vigorously their terms of service.

• But bloggers reject "code of conduct" - A Sydney Morning Herald article of April 2007.

• Offline or Online, Civility Depends on Each Community’s Tolerance - pbs.org

• Disruptiveconversations.com / Civility

• Rules of the game and the survival guide @ americasdebate.com

• Northwestern University Civility Policy - This is the pdf.

And of course, this is for uncivil edit-warriors; Warrior code.

Enjoy -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is great, maybe we should put it in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed name change

How about we rename this to Wikipedia:Code of conduct (keeping WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Civility and so on as redirects)? It might help keep things a bit more focused. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea - it would lead to a more objective "this is how we have agreed we will do things here" than the very subjective "act civilly". -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think, though, that civility is a more overarching concept that includes not just a code of conduct or way of behaving but larger issue in terms of collaboration. I would think code of conduct might be included inside of civility but don't think it can stand alone as a replacement title/theme for the policy. It really means something different than civility.(olive (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

I'm not entirely sure that everything on this page is, strictly speaking, Civility. With a little expansion, perhaps, code of conduct would probably work. And it's a better name for the core conduct policy =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Isnt the "collaboration" ideal covered under WP:CON? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking more in terms of collaboration as an overall Wikipedia environment rather than to specific discussions.(olive (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

So we'd add a brief summary of WP:CON. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

* Unnecessary People who choose to feign ignorance about what constitutes civil behavior will do so no matter what we call this policy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Assuming that not all of the issues surrounding CIVIL are based on "feigned ignorance" and that some are based on actual cultural differences of civil behavior, do you actually oppose or do you simply think it unnecessary? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I have no desire to defend ideas, viewpoints or sentiments that I don't hold and didn't express, I'm not sure how to respond to your comment. But let me give it a try. Certainly there are people who are not feigning ignorance about what constitutes civil behavior, but rather truly do not understand concepts that are clear to most of us, such as "Insults are rude". However, I think the percentage of editors who fit into that category is vanishingly small. Also, there certainly does also exist a potential for people from radically different cultures to understand specific words or phrases as rude or not depending on their cultural background, but I think that the vast majority of humans from all cultures understand the difference between civility and rudeness, and don't really need a 1000 word essay to explain it to them. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but in practical terms we may as well whack a beehive with a baseball bat. A name change would provoke so much controversy that it would make substantive changes such as those we've recently discussed much more difficult. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, a code of conduct would refer to all responsibilities of or proper practices inside the project. It is not merely a question of etiquette as it is referred to at wp:5P. It is meant to refer to the way one has to act within a group (project, organization, school, club, etc). In our case, that would involve all behavioral policies and guidelines: wp:CIVIL, wp:Etiquette, wp:AGF, wp:NPA, wp:COI, wp:BITE, wp:Harass, wp:3RR, wp:Edit war, and wp:CON.

I, therefore, suggest we create a seperate page for [wp:CoC] where we can have a few lines talking about the above policies and guidelines very briefly. After that, it can be linked to from [wp:CIVIL]. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense; civility is just one part of a code of conduct. POV-pushing, ignoring consensus, stonewalling, filibustering, et al, are all harmful behaviors even when conducting in a civil manner. Besides, that's the bullet point in WP:FIVE: Wikipedia has a code of conduct. Yet we don't have a singe policy that describes that code of conduct - instead that links to here. Simply renaming this won't solve anything. Dlabtot (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, on further reflection and research, I see now that the WP:FIVE bullet point actually links to WP:EQ which already does what you propose. Dlabtot (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

First, we don't want it to be a "code," as a code must be spelled out. Spelling it out would miss most of what is truly uncivil. It just invites wikilawyering. Per Short above (Brigade Harvester Boris...... dude, don't expect people to write that out). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Name being Comrade Short Brigade Harvester Boris to you. Capitalist lap-dog! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you be fine with Comrade Boris? --NewbyG (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Seven words (WP:7) in honor of George Carlin? Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You and Comrade Short Brigade Harvester Boris funny. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)