Wikipedia talk:Civility

Pillars

Wikipedia operates on the following fundamental principles, known as the five pillars:

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,828,615 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

1. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be repaired.

Shortcut Wikipedia:Five pillars

Discussion of the Five pillars

discussion of the five pillars

Oui Je veux étudier voir plus haut voir haut

Sebastien wathlet (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Essays on wikipedia civility

• Policies and guidelines  ; How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance

When is language in Wikipedia considered ‘offensive’ to a degree that it is considered also ‘uncivil’ (and not allowed)?

The ‘nutshell’ says: ‘avoid offensive language’. That sounds to me too unprecise, too rough — because the word ‘offensive’ has a variety of meanings and is in some of those meanings purely subjective, not 'measurable'. For example: I’m having a discussion with just one other participant, and on a clear question of mine he gives an answer that I don’t understand, because, as I see it, that answer is vague and chaotic and, worst of all: grammatically incorrect. Can I then reply to him that I couldn’t understand his latest posting because it was written in “—to my opinion—rather gibberish ‘sentences’ ”? If saying that is considered forbidden and ‘uncivil’ in Wikipedia, then what would be a ‘civil’ way to get out of such a disputational deadlock? --Corriebertus (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, first, read the guideline against biting new editors. In all likelihood the other editor's post is grammatically incorrect because he or she has difficulty with English. It is reasonable and not offensive to say that their comments are subjective, or that you have difficulty understanding their comments. However, to say that their comments are gibberish would probably be considered offensive, if the other editor even knows what gibberish is. Just say that you don't understand, and ask for a clarification. Also, if the edits are about the Islamic State, then civility is even more important because that topic area is subject to community general sanctions, which means that uncivil editors can be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, McClenon. You unfortunately don’t give a clear answer to my main question: is it allowed or is it forbidden, in the described situation, to say that, possibly, a discussion posting is gibberish, and, if not allowed, why not? If 'offensive', then why, and how do you know? I can stripe off some of your suggestions though: (1) Let's assume: the editor in question is by far not a newcomer. (2) Though that editor has mentioned in the past that he is not a native English speaker (which I am neither), let's assume that he has repeatedly shown a rather high level of ‘language intelligence’ in English and is very well capable to see for himself that his denounced posting is ungrammatical (and vague and chaotic). (3) Let's assume that he will know what ‘gibberish’ is (because he repeatedly has shown to be intelligent, and if he would not know, he would not denounce it as uncivil). (4) Your advise: tell him you don’t understand. Yes-- but how could that help the dispute any further? He could just keep silent, thinking: ‘well, I’ve given my opinion, haven’t I? Tough luck.’ I indeed, in my posting which he denounced as uncivil, told him that I really had no idea what he was getting at, but also, as service, I made that information I gave more specific by giving as cause for my not-understanding that his speech was probably (obviously) gibberish; so he would know how to improve his attempt. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

My answer is that describing another editor's post as "gibberish" is insulting, even if it is gibberish. There are certain words that are inherently insulting even if true, such as "gibberish" or "stupid". "Vague and chaotic" isn't quite there, and you probably can say that, even though the other editor may dislike that also. You can say that another edit is in bad English (but only say that if it is in bad English). Those are my thoughts for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with Robert, but also I find it more effective to ask the person involved whether they actually meant x or y when they said z. Simply describing a sentence as gibberish is in my opinion less effective than a specific query. ϢereSpielChequers 19:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably the worst person to give advice on civility, but over years of discussion here, there has been nobody able to give a clear definition. Even the most obvious of bright lines, using four-letter-word foul language directly aimed at another editor, seems to be sanctioned. Two things need to be accepted:

1. The victim needs to be offended, and state this, and
2. The offender needs to be offensive and state that this was the purpose.

Even then…

There are just too many factors in play. Pre-existing relationship, context, culture, intent, wiki-experience. If Wikipedia was tougher on civility, then like a football player rolling around the pitch in apparent agony, more editors would claim to be sorely offended, so as to gain some advantage in whatever game they are playing. Conversely, if we do nothing, then editors will do their best to be as offensive as possible towards others, so as to score game points, maybe offending another editor away from Wikipedia entirely.

In the example given here, saying another editor is writing gibberish could be seen as offensive, and in any case can be avoided by rephrasing the criticism, such as by saying, "I don't understand your answer, can you be more clear, please?"

Getting more eyes on a discussion is almost always helpful. Where there are just two participants, they may be too close to the subject to see another's point of view. Having others come in with fresh eyes, through an RfC, or an appeal at a particular topic area noticeboard, is likely to bring in some helpful soul who can assist in communication.

You should look into your own heart as well. Do you mean to be offensive? Do you get that little thrill of triumph from throwing verbal rocks at your opponent in the hope of seeing an effect?

The fact that you have come here seeking advice is a good sign, in my eyes. I think you have really answered your own question - if there is doubt over whether a particular word is offensive, then don't use it. --Pete (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• I tend to think that if you're saying X expecting that the person may/will be offended or hurt by what you're saying, and there's another way to say it that won't, or probably-won't, or less-likely-will do that, then you should say the latter. Sort of like how we tell people to construe topic bans broadly: if you're not sure it's covered, assume it is. So to use your example: if you're sitting here going "well, is 'gibberish' uncivil? Will the other person be upset and I'll get into trouble and this will all turn into a giant mess?" then yeah, "gibberish" is probably not the best word to use in that conversation. Why not say, in that situation, "I can't understand your English", or "Those sentences don't really make sense to me", or "Can you try rephrasing that, because I'm not getting it"? Your point, after all, is essentially that whatever he was communicating wasn't coming through to you because of language issues on one or both your parts. Sure, it's possible that the person will take offense at any implication that they're not Shakespeare, but why stack the deck against yourself by choosing a more inflammatory wording when you have less inflammatory ones available?

  We don't all have perfect clairvoyance, of course, and sometimes you won't even realize you're saying something offensive or uncivil. Then you have a choice to either fight facts and insist that you have the right to offend even once you know it's offensive, or to learn those facts and have them in reserve in the future. If it turns out in the end that 'rephrase' is a grossly offensive term in some other language that person speaks, and they're upset with you over asking them to 'rephrase', you will be nonplussed and shocked, but then you should add that to your mental lexicon: "Don't use 'rephrase' on international projects unless you are ok with derailing the conversation entirely." And next time you'll know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed section: 'Offensive language'

The reactions, in the discussion above, from four people seem to have a common tenor. I therefore now suggest to add a new section 2.1 ‘Offensive language’ to the policy page Wikipedia:Civility (moving up the present §2.1 into §2.2), with subjoined content, and also change the first sentence of the ‘nutshell’ on top of the page into two sentences:

• Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
• Try to avoid language that may offend people.

(That changing of: ‘Avoid…’, into: ‘Try to avoid…’, will become clear in my here below proposed new section 2.1. )
If you agree with the idea, but don’t (fully) agree with my hereby proposed text, please give us an improved proposed text:

Section 2.1 Offensive language

Whether language is offensive (hurting, unpleasant, insulting) to anybody – either a Wikipedia contributor or someone in the real world – will always be a subjective experience and assessment. Certain words however are quite generally felt (and seen) as hurting or insulting: ‘stupid’, ‘gibberish’ (etc.). If you expect that what you’re about to write in a discussion will hurt someone, try to find a way to bring your message in a less hurting choice of words. So, don’t say ‘he is stupid’, but say: ‘perhaps Mr./Mrs. so-and-so is mistaken…’. Don’t say ‘he writes gibberish’, but say: ‘I don’t understand what he is trying to say…’. We can’t give absolute rules in these matters. Disagreements and arguments are daily practice in Wikipedia, and sometimes you don’t realise that your phrasing of your opinion may hurt another, or you can’t think of a less hurting way to say what you want to say. If a contributor feels offended by a Wikipedia colleague, he should say so directly to the offending person — on his personal Talk page, to keep such personal business apart from the debates about the articles’ content that we are supposed to hold on the articles’ talk pages. Only when the offending person, after having been warned about it by you (his ‘victim’), continues offending you, it makes sense to ask other colleagues, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, to step in and have a word with the supposed teaser, nagger.

--Corriebertus (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A good start, but I think it needed some tweaks. My alternate proposal follows:

Section 2.1 Offensive language

Whether language is offensive is a subjective assessment. When editors are contributing to a discussion, they should make an effort to avoid using words that others might consider hurtful. Words such as "stupid" or "gibberish" are best avoided in favor of less aggressive phrasing such as "Perhaps you are mistaken", or "I don't understand what you are trying to say...". It is impossible to provide absolute rules in these matters. There is frequent discussion on Wikipedia, much of which involves disagreement. Arguments will occur, but it is the responsibility of editors to make an effort to avoid phrasing their opinions in hurtful ways. If an editor feels offended by another's words, they should speak directly consider speaking directly with the offending person editor, on their personal Talk page, to keep personal matters apart from any existing dispute. If speaking directly with an offending editor is impractical, or would be uncomfortable for the offended editor, the offended editor may wish to consider asking a neutral third-party to speak to the offending editor on their behalf. If the offending editor, after having been advised that they caused offense, continues using offensive language, it may be appropriate to pursue other forms of dispute resolution.

--DonIago (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little bit wary of the "You should speak directly to the person who offended you" bit, because at times someone may be too hurt or intimidated to do that (for instance, if someone just called me a "stupid bitch" in a discussion, I would see very little potential good, and a lot of probable bad, coming out of approaching them and saying "Hey, you know, that was offensive" and likely triggering them into another rant). We don't want to make it the victim's responsibility to educate in cases where there's been gratuitous/purposeful use of offensive language; I shouldn't have to choose between getting into another fight with the "bitch"-caller and being forced to drop out of the discussion because I can't bring myself to get into another fight with them. However, "let the person know you're hurt or that their language was problematic" is also not bad advice to include, at least for situations in which it's likely to be of help, and/or for people who are comfortable with confrontation. Perhaps we could change it to something along the lines of "...they should speak directly with the offending person or a neutral third party", to allow people to ask for help with situations they're not comfortable with handling on their own. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, actually; I think that was something that I meant to alter in my proposal. Old text struck, new text in italics. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose addition of such a section. This is a policy, not an essay or a guideline. Editors are expected to obey it and therefore be aware of its content at all times. Administrators and arbitrators need to be able to judge whether policy has been violated. The text should be stable, short and to the point. It should not unnecessarily repeat what is stated elewhere. Nobody should need to be told that the person addressed may be unhappy if another editor calls them or their contribution "stupid" or "gibberish", but they are unlikely to refer to this document to see if someone has added some advice on the matter.

So can we please try and make the text shorter and simpler, not longer and more complicated? I don't think we should be looking for more ways of repeating

"... always treat each other with consideration and respect. Focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably .... some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright. Other editors may seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. "

--Boson (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair points. FWIW I was only attempting to "clean up" (IMO) the original proposal; my submission of alternate text shouldn't be construed as a vote either way at this time. DonIago (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Friends: my reaction is based on the postings until 14:08, which took me two hours to write. I give it to you now, but mind you: I haven’t yet read those two later postings.
Donlago and ‘fluffer’ both give remarks leading to (great) improvements, but both also give proposals I consider (great) deteriorations. I first cut their combined draft in parts, and then comment on them, and then give my resulting new proposal.

Section 2.1 Offensive language (above given version DonIago and fluffer)

[A] Whether language is offensive is a subjective assessment. [B] When editors are contributing to a discussion, they should make an effort to avoid using words that others might consider hurtful. [C] Words such as "stupid" or "gibberish" are best avoided in favor of less aggressive phrasing such as "Perhaps you are mistaken", or "I don't understand what you are trying to say...". [D] It is impossible to provide absolute rules in these matters. [E-1] There is frequent discussion on Wikipedia, much of which involves disagreement; arguments will occur. [E-2] But it is the responsibility of editors to make an effort to avoid phrasing their opinions in hurtful ways. [F] If an editor feels offended by another's words, they should speak directly consider speaking directly with the offending person editor, on their personal Talk page, to keep personal matters apart from any existing dispute. [FX] If speaking directly with an offending editor is impractical, or would be uncomfortable for the offended editor, the offended editor may wish to consider asking a neutral third-party to speak to the offending editor on their behalf. [G] If the offending editor, after having been advised that they caused offense, continues using offensive language, it may be appropriate to pursue other forms of dispute resolution.

My comment:
[A]: perhaps a bit short, but essentially I can agree with its content.
[B]: no, no, no: you miss my point here completely. It’s illogical to first say [in A] it is subjective (so we don’t exactly know), and immediately instruct people to make an effort into that unknown. My old sentence B: ‘Certain words, however…’, essentially bridges that gap between ‘unknown’, via ‘well, perhaps you have some intuition’, to: ‘in that case, try to avoid…’.
[C] therefore should become now a mixture of your and my old sentence.
[D] okay.
[E-1] I’ve rewritten your version shorter and better.
[E-2] No, you repeat what we’ve already said (‘effort’) in sentence [C]. My old E-2 is doing exactly the opposite: it shows some understanding for the fact that you may happen to hurt someone unintentionally.
[F-1] is a great improvement, except that I bring back my phrasing about ‘debates on the articles’ content’.
[F-X] No !! After DonIago improved his [F-1], this [F-X] is now unnecessary, and totally undermines the philosophy of ‘my’ intended section. The improved F-1 says, you are not obliged to say it to the offender, that’s good. But, excuse my French, it is nonsense to skip that phase and run to a third person, only because some anonymous person on Internet whom you don’t even know personally calls you ‘stupid bitch’, and you feel ‘intimidated’…. come on! Either you hold your tongue about it, or you shape up and tell the bastard: ‘stop that shit please, you’re hurting me’. If he then still comes on with some more ‘rant’, as you aptly call it (“you filthy whore of Babylon!”, or the like) he is only signing his own death sentence. Good riddance. I strongly disagree with fluffer, saying ‘it is not the responsibility of the victim to educate the [bastard, villain]’—indeed it is his/her responsibility, in this situation !! And presupposing that the hurting is always intended, is exactly what we should NOT do here, in my opinion.
[G] Your version is all right, except the reference to page ‘dispute resolution’. That page is enormous, and 99% of it is not applicable. I think page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is an appropriate page; if you disagree then tell me why.

Resulting in:

Section 2.1 Offensive language

Whether language is offensive is a subjective assessment. Certain words however are quite generally felt and seen as hurting or insulting, like ‘stupid’, ‘gibberish’, etc. If you expect that your words will hurt someone, try to say what you want to say differently. So, don’t say ‘you are stupid’, but "perhaps you are mistaken"; don’t say ‘you write gibberish’, but: "I don't understand what you are trying to say...". It is impossible to provide absolute rules in these matters. Discussions, arguments, disagreements are daily practice on Wikipedia, and sometimes you don’t know that your words will hurt, or you can’t think of a less hurting way to say what you feel you have to say. If an editor feels offended by another's words, he/she should consider speaking directly with the offending editor, on their personal Talk page, to keep personal matters apart from the debates on the articles’ content. If the offending editor, after having been advised that they caused offense, continues using offensive language, it may be appropriate to ask colleagues, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, to step in and help.

--Corriebertus (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

added comment: I don’t understand the angry rage of Boson. Yes, people should “obey”, but the whole point is that the policy was not clear. If you state in the ‘nutshell’ that something like ‘offensive language’ exists, you have the obligation to make a section titled 'Offensive language' explaining what that is, I believe. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot agree with any policy that makes mistreatment the victim's problem. If you want to write a civility policy that requires victims of incivility to confront the other person in all cases, or else have to either drop it and leave the discussion, or sit there and be attacked more, you're writing a policy that is based on "if X was rude to you, it's your fault for not explaining yourself better" instead of "if X was rude to you, X should not have been". Which is to say you're not writing a civility policy at all. Should we educate people who may be using language that is unintentionally rude? Of course. But we should not require the victims of that language to be the ones to do it, or tell them we won't help them get things sorted out if they can't or won't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Angry rage"? I have no idea what gave you that impression, but perhaps it illustrates the point (which was already there): "some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright". Anyway, I shall be a little more long-winded, in an effort not to appear confrontational.

The policy has been around for a while, and a lot of people have worked on it, so it is not surprising – or insulting – that at least one person considers your addition unnecessary.

I was expressing clear opposition to adding what I consider unnecessary text to a policy that I already consider bloated. There is a natural tendency for this to happen to rules and regulations, especially with Wikipedia's "collaborative" editing process, where there is no single co-ordinating editor; so I think it is necessary for someone to fulfil the opposite role of keeping the text focussed (a role I am used to fulfilling in "real life").

I am guided in this by the text and spirit of the policy governing the text of policies, especially:

* "Be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. ... "

* "Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more."

* "Maintain scope and avoid redundancy. ... When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy. When one policy refers to another policy, it should do so briefly, clearly and explicitly."

I may also have been influenced by recent and not so recent discussions on this and related policies, including criticism by arbitrators.

So, Corriebertus, I am sorry if you were offended or taken aback by my comments, but I firmly believe that the original text needs condensing and pruning. In my opinion, much of it belongs in an explanatory essay, or at most a guideline. If you proposed putting your text (with changes addressing others' concerns) in an essay, together with large chunks of the original text, I might support that. --Boson (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reactions DonIago (3x), fluffernutter (2x) and Boson (2x).
I proposed here(28July,12:28) to add a section ‘Offensive language’ (‘what is it? ; and how can we, and how should we, deal with it?’), because I noticed that it did not exist, and even the most logical existing section (§2 Incivility) did not even once mention the term ‘offensive language’ (off.lan.), while at the same time that term is prominently used in ‘the nutshell’ — which for me makes the policy inconsistent, and especially made the policy unusable for me in a recent conflict that I personally experienced.
Apart from the detailed criticism of Iago and fluffer, which I’ll get back to perhaps later, Boson completely opposes such new section. I’ll react now to (most of) his arguments:

1. ‘this policy is not an essay or guideline’. Did anyone say that it is? But whether or not it is essay/guideline, my point is that this policy drops the term ‘off.lan.’ in the nutshell without any follow-up, explanation or so, making the policy unstable: therefore I advise to add such a section.
2. ‘obey it and be aware of its content’. That’s impossible when it comes to ‘off.lan.’ because, as I said, it is inconsistent on that topic; and therefore I propose to add such a section.
3. ‘The text should be stable and to the point’. Well, my point is that it is neither, where it concerns ‘offensive language’. Adding such section makes it therefore stabler (but ofcourse not shorter).
4. ‘text should be short’. If you would say: ‘should be as short as possible’, I’d agree. Consistency/stabilily has prevalence over shortness, I’d think.
5. ‘Nobody should need to be told that the person…gibberish…’. Who is saying who (should) need to be told? What does this have to do with opposing a new section?
6. ‘they [?] are unlikely to refer to this document [?] for advice on the matter [?]’. Who is ‘they’, what is ‘this document’, what is ‘the matter’, why is it unlikely, and what has this all to do with which question?
7. ‘can we try and make the text shorter and simpler?’ Perhaps we can (see next discussion section) but that’s not the topic in this discussion section.

I think (some of) these (fundamental) questions should first be dealt with, before we get back to the probably more detailed discussion points from others on a possible new section ‘Offensive language’. I’ll ask Boson personally to react on these seven questions. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Response:

• The point is that long explanations and possible interpretations are better in guidelines or essays, rather than on policy pages.
• The nutshell is supposed to summarize what the policy actually says, not the other way round.
• It is quite possible to obey the policy without the examples you added. To repeat: (as the metapolicy says): "Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more."; "Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation."
• Your addition of the points about gibberish etc. implies that this is needed, or will at least help people to understand what is permitted. It should be obvious that it will not be appreciated if you call another editor's edits "gibberish". Whether this amounts to sanctionable incivility will depend on the circumstances; your proposed additions will not make this simpler in the general case, and we should not expect policy to list all the words like "gibberish" which unknown recipients might justifiably regard as offensive.

You intimate the background to this in the next section that you added below. This background is, in my opinion, an important part of this discussion, but I will take it to your talk page. Please see previous discussions, including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Phase one. --Boson (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I’ll react on Boson’s latest, further explanation in four points, of his earlier arguments for opposing a new section ‘Offensive language’ (off.lan.):

1. [1a] You propose to place a proposed explanation of off.lan. not in the policy but in a guideline or essay. That seems not logical, because in Wikipedia, ‘guideline’ seems a synonym for ‘policy’—demonstrated by the fact that shortcuts WP:policy and WP:guideline end on the same page. I’m not unwilling to consider proposals about where to put it, but then you should be more concrete and precise about them.
   [1b] Nobody proposes adding a “long” explanation to the policy, so please just leave out such insinuations. Once we start negotiating the content of the section, anyone may propose to make it shorter or longer, etc..
   [1c] Nobody proposes to add a “possible interpretation” that is not supported by the Wikipedia community, so please leave out such insinuations.
2. ‘Nutshell should summarize policy’: I agree, and that’s just why I propose the new section. Off.lan. is now mentioned in the nutshell but I can’t find it in the policy, which violates your own rule which I just cited. Can you tell me where off.lan. is in the policy? If you can’t, then, according to your own rule, we have two choices: (1) scrap off.lan. from the nutshell, or (2) add explanation/description/… on off.lan. to the policy.
3. [3a] You try to start commenting or negotiating about ‘examples I added’, but that’s not what we are now talking about: we’re now here discussing about whether or not we want such a section, at all. Only when we’ll have a consensus or a majority who agree to add such a section, everything about the possible content of it will be open for discussion, to those who are willing to accept the possible use of such a section. It’s your right to keep opposing such a section, but I don’t see any point in ‘negotiating’ the content of it with someone who is adamant to reject it anyway.
   [3b] ’spirit of the rule clear, then say no more’: I’ve said a lot of times now, that for me that spirit is now not fully clear, partly because one important term used in it doesn’t get any explanation. I had to engage in extensive discussions with editors to get that term a bit clearer, but opinions of four co-editors have less power than a section added in a policy, so I want the clarity in the policy itself. There’s no reason to assume that of 8 billion earth inhabitants I’ll be the last and only one who was or is wondering what might be the meaning and implications of ‘offensive language’ in Wikipedia, so it is only logical and serviceable for those people who don’t have (the spirit of) the rule totally clear like you apparently have, to explain somewhere what Wikipedia means with, and how it deals with, offensive language (off.lan.).
   [3c] I know you’ve said a few times you consider the policy too long and “verbose” anyway, but that’s not much of an argument here. As I said yesterday: clarity and consistency etc. should be more important than length. I’ve proposed to you in this and the following discussion section to start working—apart from this here debate—to shorten the policy, you don’t react on that, so how serious is that complaint of length then really? The policy gets lengthened regularly, also in recent months, I don’t see you protesting to those, so it is arbitrary that suddenly my proposed section should be forbidden because of ‘length’.
4. As above in point 3a: you try to negotiate about the content of the proposed section. See my reaction there: only after we’ve decided on the possible usefullness of such a section, we can discuss about what should be in it.

I assume that your earlier points, which I asked you about on 30 July but you did not answer to, are now off the table. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You have stated your opinion and I have stated mine. This is not a negotiation. Nothing is off the table, but it is time to let other experienced editors and admins voice their opinions, so I am bowing out of this discussion for now. In view of the sensitivity of this policy, I would suggest you wait for some considerable time for others to express their opinions. --Boson (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted, per no WP:Consensus and this being a policy page. Policy pages need the utmost care. Flyer22 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is not viable: "But it is the responsibility of editors to make an effort to avoid phrasing their opinions in hurtful ways." No, everyone owns their own emotions. It's not the "responsibility" of people to fearfully self-police every word they say for political correctness, to avoid harassment by adherents to "microaggressions" language activism. There's has to be a clear way to get at obviously and intentionally offensive language of two kinds, without wandering into thoughtcrime territory. These two are a) epithets against a class of people based on innate traits like ethnic background, gender, etc. (racial slurs, denigration of women, homophobic commentary, etc.), and b) direct personal insults that border on personal attacks that purport to be mental analyses ("you're stupid", "everything you post is insane", etc.) This needs to be dealt with in a way that doesn't censor editors from stating their political, religious, or other views in a non-attacking way simply because the opposing party might take offense. It also has to be addressed in a way that does not censor legitimate criticism of irrational edits/proposals, habitual WP:COMPETENCE failures, and other editorial problems. This is not a social club, and editors whose editing patterns clearly indicate an insurmountable problem need to be shown the door.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@ SMcCandish(5Aug): with whom are you discussing here about what, or what are you opposing against, here? If you have a constructive proposal for a section, then give us that, please. You seem now to reject a sentence given 28July by DonIago, but I’ve already refuted that sentence on 28July,18:44. So, if you want to debate constructively, you should better also react om my (refutal and) new proposal, otherwise you seem to talk into the air, to nobody (or only to DonIago).
Anyway: my latest proposal for a section--hopefully satisfying and incorporating all comments given in this section up to 4 August--is to be found here. That edit was reverted, without any objection as to the content of it, which I consider a very strange, and incorrect, thing to do. So, that is still my latest proposal for a section, not yet challenged as to its content. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Try an RFC

There clearly is not consensus in the sense of near-unanimous agreement to add this section. The way to determine whether there is "rough consensus" is a Request for Comments. Making a contested change to a policy is not in order at this time. Try an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, at some point try an RFC. This is too half-baked to go anywhere yet. I only addressed one concern in my post above, but virtually every proposed line presents interpretational, over-reach, and other issues, and the general criticism "this is a policy, not an essay or guideline" someone else said earlier, identifies why most of what's been discussed so far is not usable in this policy page. It would probably be much more constructive to go put together a multi-editor essay (without trying to over-control its exact wording - let the community build it) and see if something guideline-worthy emerges from it, possible a few bits that are policy-worthy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is stating that there is or was consensus to add one specific section literally, I've only ventured and assumed that there seemed consensus as to the spirit of certain ideas. Perhaps that was too vague a thing to say, so I take that statement, suggestion, back, now. McClenon suggests that some edited "change" is "contested": well, my edit of 4 August is not contested as to the content of it, only my right to edit seems contested. I'm not planning to make an RFC, I don't see the point, but if you want to do that I won't stop you. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Make the policy shorter, simpler, (more) consistent

I’ve been glancing at this 'policy' several times, been trying to read parts of it, but it makes on me an unorganised, chaotic, and therefore not understandable impression. It seems rather redundant here and there (and therefore (much) too long), at the same time it seems to neglect essential topics (see for example the previous discussion section, about 'Offensive language'). If people share this type of criticism on this ‘policy’, we perhaps should start working on it, individually or together, to improve it. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Core conduct policies information page

I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Core conduct policies information page concerning including this policy with others to create a Core behavioral conduct policies information page. It seems like a good idea but I would like comments. Otr500 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect revert

I consider Flyer22’s revert of an edit of mine (my edit 4August11:39, his revert 11:51) incorrect, because he does not give one argument as regards the content of the, motivated, edit. We have the right always to edit or ‘improve’ pages, motivatedly, and that’s what I did. If you disagree to the content, fine, but give arguments. The fact that I am (or was!) in any discussion anywhere does not deprive me of my rights to edit anywhere. There is no obligation to explicitly search consensus before editing, unless you can show me where that is written. Policy pages are no exceptions in that regard, unless you can tell me where that is written.
I wrote in my edit summary that I considered the edit to be in the spirit of ‘consensus’ on talk page, you may disagree to that, but it does not essentially matter, because there’s no rule that an edit should need consensus on beforehand. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I already addressed my revert of you in the #Proposed section: 'Offensive language' section above, and so did others. It wasn't an incorrect revert. Your rationale for adding that material was incorrect. Even though you cited consensus on the talk page for your addition, there was no WP:Consensus for that addition. And the top of this policy page states, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question is diff which included text like "Debates are daily practice on Wikipedia". The addition should be in an essay, not in this policy. Reverts, particularly on a policy, are standard and are rarely "incorrect". Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Organising this policy page

I suppose that even a policy page should be organised logically? And that inconsistencies, redundancies and illogicalnesses may be repaired directly, just as they may be repaired directly on any ‘normal’ Wikipedia page?
Seeing that the page is titled ‘Civility’, I’d propose this logical outline:

1. What is civility.

2. What is incivility. (This section then ofcourse includes present §3 “identifying incivility”, because we identify anything, whether it is macaroni or Volvo or James Bond or incivility, by checking whether it fits the definition.)

3. Preventing our own incivility (Which then ofcourse includes what is now in §1.1, 1.2, and also §4.3 but much more condensed.)

4. Reacting on others’ incivility (Will contain the good rest of present §4.)

• Present §3.1 seems out of place on this policy page: ‘assume good faith’ is a separate, independent, Wiki policy. Just place a Wikilink on the term ‘assume good faith’ as soon as that term pops up—don’t try to repeat another policy page here. Keep things simple, concise, surveyable.
• §4.4 seems also out of place: ‘Blocking’ can be the consequence of what is said in §4.1: Dispute resolution→Arbitration Committee. It is enough to just add one line to that paragraph saying that ultimately the arbitrators can decide to a block.
• If ‘offensive language’ does not appear mentioned anywhere in the policy—as is now the case—it can’t appear in the nutshell, because that is then illogical and inconsistent.

Everyone is free, and invited, to react on these ideas. But having started this discussion section by no means deprives me of my right to directly repair gross or clear errors on this policy page, just as I’m entitled to repair obvious errors on any page, unless someone proves me wrong here. I also ofcourse have the right to directly include good ideas given here by others in any ‘improving’ edit of mine on the policy page—I don’t have to first ask their permission to use a good idea, and I also don’t have to first laboriously seek ‘consensus’ just to make an improving edit, on this page or or any Wiki page. If any (motivated) edit appears to be no improvement, anybody can remove it, with a good motivation ofcourse. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You might consider using a sandbox to prepare a draft. As I suggested elsewhere, people do not need precise definitions of civility and incivility—if a contributor does not have a pretty good idea of what those terms mean they should not be editing Wikipedia. Examples are good, but they should not attempt to be exhaustive and should not clutter the main points of the policy. This is not a legal document where terms have to be defined so courts of law can later decide whether to imprison an alleged offender—that's not how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)