Wikipedia talk:Civility: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 365 days

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

The initial Wikipedia:Civility essay was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by User:Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l.[1] & [2] (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy." Long before the creation of the formal policy, User:Jimbo Wales wrote his Statement of principles, wherein certain points echo the idea of civility. User:Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making [WP] more civil," [3], [4] & [5] (Nov. 2002) after reading User:The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Wikipedia" (Mar. 2002). User:Jimbo Wales picked up on Larry's point [6] [7], and thereafter User:Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editors' thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009.

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

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 365 days

What's our current policy on "unparliamentary language"? Has this changed recently? My perception is that our practice, or at least our acceptance of it, has shifted of late. Is language itself a breach of CIVIL? A contributing factor, or something irrelevant to be particularly ignored? Should it be, or become, such a factor? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley: I'm unable to comment on what our current policy might be, but I think our policy should take into account the extremely diverse nature of the body corporate that works on Wikipedia - men and women, young and old, highly educated and not-so, those who are white-Anglo-Saxon protestants and those who aren't, those whose self esteem relies on display of unparliamentary language and those whose self esteem doesn't, and so on. Abrasive and offensive language doesn't build content. What is worse is that abrasive and offensive language has the potential (I assume) to drive away new contributors including potentially strong contributors. It is unlikely we can legislate for the sort of behavior we want, but we can model it, and draw the attention of those who display unparliamentary language that there is a better way to get the job done. Dolphin (t) 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Vox recently published a pretty convincing article arguing that notions of profanity in the English language have shifted significantly over the last couple generations. Words like fuck, shit, and damn are no longer considered very offensive (e.g. even the prudish New York Times now feels comfortable printing "shithole"). Instead, language that denigrate particular groups is now considered the most profane: nigger, faggot, cunt, kike, etc. Not sure if this deserves mention in the policy, but if anyone ever wants to cite it: [8]. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently adjusted the text in this section ([9]) so that editors are not instructed to always adopt a wholly passive response to incivility, though it has been reverted by Andrew Davidson. Considering that the WMF's policy on civility is inconsistent, editors should not be instructed to behave in a certain way. My wording emphasized that editors can choose how they deal with incivility, while still offering up the view that some responses may be more productive than others. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Several changes were made and none of them seem to have been discussed here. This is not acceptable process as this is policy, not a personal essay. And the changes do not seem to be an improvement. For example, advice to be "calm and reasonable" was removed. That is not passivity; it's sensible advice to react moderately rather than in kind. I oppose the implication that editors should escalate or react hotly instead. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't discuss anything because I chose to be bold. I figured this page is being closely watched and people can easily revert if they object, which you did. Now, we are discussing.
In certain situations I do not believe it is sensible to react "moderately". There are editors here who are bullies - they use intemperate language in order to intimidate people and get their own way. This does not benefit the encyclopedia, and it does not benefit individual editors if they believe that they have to just sit back and take it. Sometimes a few strong words used back at bullies can make them stop. It doesn't always work like that, but editors should not be steered away from that option if they believe it would work.
I removed the "calm and reasonable" instruction, but I did not replace it with "react hotly", therefore there is no implication; editors can choose how they wish to conduct themselves. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The main point of our civility policy is that editors should not just act as they please. Instead, they are expected to act in a "respectful and considerate way". If editors behave otherwise then they may be sanctioned and that may still happen if they were provoked. Our enforcement of this is quite haphazard but that's another issue. I still oppose the wording change. Andrew D. (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The civility policy states one thing, but how it is implemented is another. My viewing of ANI and other pages shows me that editors are allowed to be quite uncivil to each other; as an example (that I am sure you are familiar with), it has been stated several times recently that telling another editor to "fuck off" is not considered sanctionable. If this is the case (and I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the current position), editors (and new editors in particular) should not be given the impression on this page that their only acceptable response is to accept it and then pursue it through dispute resolution, because ultimately their complaint will just be thrown out. If my alternative wording is read carefully, I think it will be transparent that it does not advise one type of response over another, it merely reduces the imposition of a passive response. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: as you have not responded to my last post, can I assume that you acquiesce to my position? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Getting the last word is not significant. My bold !vote is still there and still represents my position. Andrew D. (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making the policy consistent regarding the spelling of "behavior/behaviour". My edit was reverted with the reason project space is agnostic WRT Engvar. If it's agnostic, there's no reason to revert, and there's reason to keep the edit for consistency. Bright☀ 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seriously think it would be desirable for editor A to change all "behavior" to "behaviour", while editor B does the reverse? Would it be helpful to have an RfC and spend a month battling over which spelling to use? (Answer: no.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully there's a policy that says "don't revert a change if it's neutral", which should have been followed here since the revert reason is claimed to be neutral ("agnostic") while on the other hand, the edit was made in good faith to improve the page and make it consistent across policies. The correct thing to do would have been to leave the improvement alone and not revert, or give a reason why the edit is detrimental. Either way saying "let's not discuss this" is not helpful and reverting a neutral edit is not helpful. Bright☀ 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we understand that you didn't understand, and it's admittedly not obvious, but exactly because Engvar choices are arbitrary on project-space pages, and there is no objective criterion by which we might choose one alternative over another, the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change. Yes, that means pages will be mutually inconsistent, but that's the way it is on an international project. EEng 03:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change The choice of this page's early editors was "behavior". It was years later changed by a single editor to "behaviour", probably in the name of consistency though we may never know. Either way "stable version", "status quo", or "the choice of early editors" is not a valid revert reason. You should in the future avoid revert reasons such as "not needed", "status quo", "choice of early editors", "agnostic regarding change" and so on. Bright☀ 04:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and maybe that change should not have been made (perhaps there was some discussion about it) but given that it was made -- five years ago -- it should have been let lie; though MOS does not apply outside article space, we do follow the principles outlined at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety pretty much everywhere.

I hate to pull this on you, but (1) when you have more experience you'll understand, and (2) you should probably be directing your attention to the current ANI thread about you [10], particularly the bit about wikilawyering and dropping the stick. EEng 05:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was thinking that I recognized the user name from somewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it should have been let lie This is exactly the argument I am making and the argument WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is making. I made a change that was not detrimental. You reverted it with the reason "agnostic regarding change", another way of saying that the two versions are equivalent (Engvar choices are arbitrary) so your revert is a no-reason revert. I hate to pull this on you Then don't. Using "seniority" to justify your actions is also an indicator of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 05:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'd say there's about a 50% chance you'll still be editing three months from now. EEng 05:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say I'm surprised there haven't been any insinuations of blocks yet. Well-phrased, it insinuates a block but does not come off as a threat. Bright☀ 05:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. If you don't start listening to what experienced editors are trying to teach you, and instead keep up the wikilawyering and WP:IDHTing, you're likely to end up blocked before too long. EEng 05:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was clear the first time. You reverted an edit with an "agnostic" reason and then when approached with the relevant policy in the talk page, you imply the other editor should be blocked. "Wow" is not a reasoned reply. If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Bright☀ 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're on a roll at the moment but arguing and arguing over "u" is absurd—that kind of approach is not compatible with a long-term career at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Otherwise it seems you're just gloating that you have a "long-term career at Wikipedia". Bright☀ 07:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Passive-aggressive behavior. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERSONAL. If you can't address the issue don't comment, and in particular don't make personal attacks. Bright☀ 08:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could also read my post of 17 July 2017 on this page. My simple advice is - drop it. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post, what does it have to do with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR or this edit? You made a comment that can be construed as WP:PERSONAL and then direct to an unrelated reply, an explanation would be helpful. Bright☀ 08:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scout MLG made an edit that I reverted for technical reasons but could be something to discuss adding. The addition was to the last line of the section and added the Wikipedia linked term of bans. Since the term generally means a site ban, I thought perhaps wording it a little more precisely might be an improvement. Many, if not most bans are decided for more than just an editor's conduct with others but also a pattern of editing and long term abuse. A legal threat generally receives an indefinite block and can lead to talk page editing being revoked but the most common type of ban used for harassment or continued personal attacks or disruption by both editors is an interaction ban. There is surely more to consider. Any thoughts, suggestions, or comments?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of situations where an otherwise good editor might receive a community-imposed site ban for repeated personal attacks. ~Awilley (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Background: There are a few terms that may be derogatory to some but are generally acceptable in talk page/edit summary usage; amongst these, one such term is "fuck off" (for example, as used here or here). Past discussions on whether repetitively using the term "fuck off" at other editors is sanctionable have been inconclusive, with a broad leaning towards this being non-sanctionable (for example, here).

Over the past recent years, Wikipedia's reach and editor base has grown significantly beyond the West, reaching highly populated English speaking countries like India, which may or may not subscribe to the cultural ethos of language usage subscribed to by Western editors. With the premise that Wikipedia should be inclusive for all global communities involved in editing, I wish to re-assess current community consensus on the talk page usage of the term "fuck off" targeted at other editors.

I am okay if the community still considers this term non-sanctionable, or sanctionable, or even if there is inconclusive consensus – but a benchmark here would allow clarity on how to assess responses at various desks when editors complain at being told to "fuck off".

Therefore, I request the community to comment on the following specific query:

• Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?^***

*** "Sanctionable" refers to the broad universe of escalating warnings, which may lead to blocks, bans, restrictions etcetera if the editor ignores these warnings.

Thanks, Lourdes 10:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions: Yes, No, Comments... all are welcome