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 The result of the discussion was withdrawn.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. This page has been 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

• Yes This is, supposedly, an encyclopedia, and editors should conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to such an institution. If abusive language is continued to be accepted here, then the WMF - a global charity - is effectively endorsing such abuse, via its insistence on devolving civility policy to administrators and 'the community'. I think lenience can be given on user talk pages, but not in article space, which is a work environment. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not necessarily. I wouldn't condone it normally, but if someone is being hounded by a disruptive or obnoxious editor, we should understand their frustration and cut them some slack. If used without provocation, I agree warnings are appropriate. --Michig (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It Varies - I think 2 points should be met. 1) It should be a strict following of the above - only if repeated and only if targeted 2) It shouldn't apply on an editor's own user talk page. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No as WP:CREEP. This can be circumvented easily by saying get the fuck out, go the fuck away, give me a fucking break, among many others. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 12:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wumbolo: What you describe could be also sanctionable as gaming the system. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuck Off. While extremely rude, this is not sanctionable by itself. It depends on context. I get the impression you might be headhunting somebody. I can’t imagine who, but it looks like the proposer wants a rule change they can use as a hammer to beat somebody else. If true, then this discussion is itself disruptive. Naughty words aren’t the issue. The underlying agenda could be. Jehochman ^Talk 12:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuck no WP:CREEP, WP:BURO, WP:COMMON — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nope. Matter of fact, on this very page, twelve and a half years ago, I suggested the very opposite. Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 1#User_talk:. Didn't get any traction. Still feel the same way. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No Context matters. WP:NOT has some good recommendations on handling situations where such words might come up: --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely.

  Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs)

• Yes Very likely violation of WP:CIVILITY, behavior may perhaps also WP:BITE newcomers. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose closing this thread. I think this question is wasting the community's time. Content policies do not attempt to enumerate what words or sentences do and do not comply; imagine if they did. Likewise, we interpret and implement our community's conduct policies as required from time to time.

  I was astonished to see this thread listed on {{cent}}. I am not sure what we can accomplish by having this discussion. Suppose the participants were to resoundingly conclude that "yes, to say 'fuck off' is always unacceptable." What can we do with that consensus? Editing the guideline to include "You can never say 'fuck off' or similar phrases" can't be done; as I said, guidelines are broadly written because they need to be interpreted on the fly. Citing this thread in a future administrative request can't be done, because – again – sysops take decisions based on a number of factors.

  Finally, the questions raised here fall into the famous trap of regulating incivility: You don't know it until you see it. Please close this thread. AGK ■ 16:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• +1 to this comment that echo my thought. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 from me too, this is a ridiculous RfC that could never reach anything resembling a sensible actionable consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• -1 Although, I agree it is shocking that it is not utterly obvious that "fuck off" is always uncivil, apparently, a shocking number of editors feel they and other editors have the right to be so disrespectful. I have a feeling if a new editor told them to "fuck off", they would take them to AN/I and have them banned for incivility. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No It's all about context and timing, and needs a case-by-case basis, which Michig mentions. If this term is "banned", what next? Seven words you can't use on WP? And after that other terms that a snowflake finds offensive? Bugger me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The bar for civility should not be "what is the worst word I can use which is just about permissible enough to not get me a block?". This discussion, which has happened over and over on so many different venues, is pointless - here's an insane idea, maybe don't tell people to fuck off? - TNT ^💖 17:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Most of the time, discussions about building an encyclopedia shouldn't escalate to profanity, but it's not always the person doing the swearing who is acting against the encyclopedia project's basic values. It is quite possible to be incivil and downright hostile under a veneer of fancy words. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No No "specific term" should be sanctionable, because the issue is never (and should never be) the appearance of that "specific term" — to unilaterally prohibit any "specific term" is nothing more than censorship. Editors' interactions with each other are governed by WP:CIVILITY, which "fuck off" does not automatically violate, and which can easily be violated without ever using the phrase "fuck off".

If an editor's actions warrant sanction because they're being uncivil towards their fellow editors editors, writing "fuck off" is hardly going to be their sole (or most egregious) offense — or if it is their only transgression, then I would argue there's no transgression at all. Uncivil editors should be sanctioned for the real transgression, not because someone stretched a tripwire across a specific phrase. Respond to what was said and how, not because the appearance of "specific terms" led to pearl-clutching. The naughty-words police can just piss off, piss off, piss off, piss off. (...See?) FeRDNYC (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Depends on the context and situation. Even if a rule was implemented on it, there would still be grey areas. JC7V-talk 18:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as redundant to WP:Civility. The policy already prohibits gross profanity, rudeness, harassment and belittling other editors. Telling editors to "fuck off" falls cleanly within these prohibitions, and can be dealt with accordingly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Cursing at people isn't nice, but we aren't the bad-word police. Besides, "fuck" is so overused that anyone so deliberately fragile that they need a rest on the fainting couch after hearing it probably shouldn't be going on the internet unsupervised. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Thought police" need to focus on editing articles - not tracking editors use of certain words. While I have never typed them there have been plenty of times that I've wanted to. Thus, I can understand when other editors do use them. On a day when people were slaughtered in Pittsburgh today it is worth trying to get some perspective about this. MarnetteD|Talk 19:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Repeated usage of Fuck off is signal of incivility. Civility and respect is one of our 5 core pillars. Repeated violations a core pillar should lead to sanctions. We have been considerable lax here and should be stricter. So yes, that is sanctionable and always has been. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (1) Depends on context, (2) Civility matters. As other editors have said, this question does not lend itself to an algorithmic treatment: one has to consider context and intent. That makes me a no for the question as asked. Admins should have enough good judgment to tell the difference between disruptive incivility, momentary annoyance, and friendly banter, so pretty much nothing makes for an automatic WP:NPR violation. On the other hand, I do think that the community ought to expect more in terms of civility than has been recent practice. This website is supposed to be a genuine effort to provide the world with useful information, not just another site for anonymous crabbiness. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Yes Lourdes, thank you for posting this RfC. I just went to this page with the intention to make an RfC just like it for exactly the same reason. This is a no-brainer. If we honestly tell the world we believe telling people to "fuck off" is civil way to address people in a disagreement, we are going to be the laughing stock of the civilized world. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 22:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]
• No is the answer to this question which entirely misses the point. Being rude is already sanctionable but the context matters. Some people can switch to automaton mode and disrupt the encyclopedia in a very polite but tenacious and misguided manner while others, after responding politely at first, may occasionally erupt. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. This is not a let's be nice to everyone social group. Johnuniq (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Fuck no This is not a kindergarten. If you can't handle grown up language, then you can't edit like a grown up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No. We're adults here and should be able to handle frank discourse and disagreements. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - If not a violation of WP:CIVIL what is? Save trash talking for Reddit etc -- GreenC 23:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Completely depends on context. Next question?. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it's already covered by wp:civility, although it's not necessarily a big deal if the context is light-hearted. However, I really doubt that "repetitive usage" (the wording of this RfC) would ever be cheerful. In the recent ANI case it was used in a clearly hostile manner and directed not just against vandals but even an admin. With the inability of ANI to actually enforce civility, this is a watershed moment deciding whether the policy actually matters anymore or whether there's a complete laissez-faire attitude towards language. In my opinion it's clear that normalizing such sophomoric language is off-putting for many regulars and newcomers alike and thus harmful. Usually using such language is also coupled with other conduct issues and just makes dealing with those issues worse for everyone. --Pudeo (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No IN THAT I don't think calling out which words if used will constitute a violation is helpful. There are 2 ways I can think of right now I would use this phrase - one would be to abruptly and crudely tell someone to get away from me, either as a result of provocation or as provocation and the other is to express extreme shock about something a friend tells me. Which is being used is context driven. It should be clear from context whether the speech is sanctionable irrespective of whether that particular phrase is used. Isolating that particular phrase is meaningless. HOWEVER the repeated use of it targeted at an editor in an uncivil and attacking manner should be addressed and the editor sanctioned - not because of the specific words but because of the attack itself. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No This should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as it already is. In the case that brought this up (MPants/Obsidi), Obsidi kept insisting on beating a dead horse and pushed MPants, an editor whom I have always found perfectly reasonable and civil (often frustratingly so) despite frequently disagreeing on content, to the point that he used foul language. Sanctioning MPants, or saying that he could be sanctioned, for such would only encourage behaviour like Obsidi's, and lead editors to disruptive editors deliberately trying to push people they disagree with until they say the F word. This is not like, say, calling a person paranoid/insane because you disagree with them on content; context matters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And FTR, I'm pretty sure I've had editors tell me to "fuck off" in circumstances where I was annoying them (although I would probably contest that, as long as I stayed off their talk page, I had every right to push whatever matter it was) and because they were just uncivil, closed-minded individuals. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FTFTR: And yes, of course I think it should be "sanctionable" under certain circumstances, but Lourdes (and several of the editors who answered yes) are talking about a specific recent set of circumstances where it certainly should not have led to sanctions, despite an attempt by Lourdes to cast a supervote on the matter; I dunno, maybe this is more about limits of admin authority than civility? It's a given that if a specific editor repeatedly targets other editors in an uncivil manner such behaviour is sanctionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shit yes! – I wish someone would trout me when I allow another editor to piss me off enough that I tell them to fuck off. I've been tempted lately, but resisting. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I too would like to be trouted in such circumstances, but that's not what's being discussed. The word in the title is "sanctionable", and the specific context underlines that.