Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The link intended to go to core principles on the main page actually links to the Copyright Protection page (theye are both 'CP's), which I don't think was intended. However, I've been unable to find any reference to core principles as such, so I'm not quite sure what to change this link to. Matt Stan 08:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I am sure that will appear extremely stupid.

But...this is so...

I spent a lot of time on that page. Other people participated to it, that made me happy, but still, I was the main contributor of it.

I have a dual feeling. I am real glad to see it here. But I feel sad that I am stripped entirely of my authorship over it. It is certainly stupid of me to feel this way, but I prefer to be honest about my feelings. I feel unconfortable to see I am no more the author of it in any way.

User:Anthere

I don't understand your comment, Anthere....was this moved from somewhere? Meta? Just curious. Jwrosenzweig 21:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

m:incivility yes.

Anthere, was your original article really called "uncivility", or was it "incivility" as the meta link suggests? PaulHammond 16:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uncivility, yup. Actually, some editors were often very "uncivil" (sic) with my spelling :-). SweetLittleFluffyThing 01:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It worries me that this very important subject matter is spread across at least 3 articles. Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I don't see this as situation as necessarily bad or redundant in a functional sense. That is, I think it's valuable to have 3 kinds of pages: 1) a succinct cheat-sheet that we can point people to from the Welcome page or in our personal greetings to new users, which I think is the purpose the Wikiquette page serves now. 2) A good cheat sheet that mediators could provide a link to when a talk page discussion heats up, which I think the "Staying cool" page is meant to be. 3) A deeper and more substantiated discussion of civility to which we might direct the philosophically or ideologically uncivil ("Duh, I know how to be polite, but this place is a jungle and so it's jungle rules that I'm going to go by") or anybody who's interested. I think that's what's going on with the "Civility" page. My worry is that with 3 places for people to contribute ideas on Civility, some pages are liable to miss out on some valuable ideas, and our lean-mean cheat sheets about how to be nice will become bloated tomes that just turn away the cranky and make them crankier. To guard against this, I suggest we formally declare these pages a "series" or group of pages, which each acknowledge each other in some prominent and official-looking way. That way, if someone stumbles on what is not quite the right page for their idea or their need, they will know immediately where to go, and likewise would-be mediators will learn that they have a choice of where to point their hypothetical mediatees, and so be able pick the most suitable one. Also if these pages are more prominently connected to one another, someone with a good idea for one of them will be led to consider whether it's a good one for any of the others, and add it, either beefing it up or trimming it down, as appropriate to the page for which the idea is destined. What do people think? 168... 17:35, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, let me throw in Wikipedia: NPOV tutorial, which I think is also very much related.168... 17:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And I think these links might be good as part of a "Welcome to administration" message for new administrators. Essentially these links would give administrator boiler plate advice they could adminster in just a few keystrokes to the needy. It might lead to the dispensing of more and perhaps better advice.168... 17:45, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea how we can go smoothly from what we currently have to what 168 suggests, but I think it a wise suggestion. Should we use this talk page to discuss how something like this would happen? Jwrosenzweig 17:49, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just an idea or two regarding names for this hypothetical collection. I suggest "Wikicivics". Or to make it look more administrative, I suggest calling each article a "Division" of the "Miniseries of Wikicivics," because it looks a little like "Ministries of Finance and Commerce." Maybe this play on words would be a nice way to collect other thematically related Meta articles? As I said, just some ideas.168... 01:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and done it: Wikipedia:Miniseries of Wikicivics168...|...Talk 19:52, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No offence intended, but I am far from convinced that longer articles on this kind of subjects are to be preferred over for several shorter articles. My concern is whether the text on the page get read by them who would need to read it. One distinct topic per page is my ideal.

I think it's the best to realize that contributors will contribute first and then, possibly, read advices later. Similarly, we tend to find ourselves promted to search for wikipedia pages on edit wars first when we have engaged in some.

The move of "Stay cool when editing gets hot" is what promted me to write here at all.
--Ruhrjung 18:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think what you're talking about is the Miniseries of Wikicivics Tutorials Department168...|...Talk 19:54, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Circular logic

"Where incivility here is defined as behavior that causes an atmosphere of animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress, the Civility rule states that people must act with civility toward one another."

This statement is fatally flawed by circular logic, and by its attempt to hold speakers responsible for the actions of listeners. Animosity, disrespect, conflict and stress are reactions of a listener, caused solely by the limits of their individual emotional control. The logic turns the corner into circularity when it defines civility in terms of whatever is not incivil.

Conflict is an essential element of debate. Stress is an inevitable part of most human behavior, whether the behavior causes distress or eustress. Animosity and disrespect are, by many standards, considered to be hallmarks of incivil behavior. In that regard, defining civility as that which does not cause disrespect places those who would attempt to be civil at the mercy of those who, by more common definitions, are behaviing in an incivil manner. Adding the phrase "causes an atmosphere" reduces the definition to a subjective conclusion that can be defined by any person's perception of the atmosphere. Especially in a concensus process, claims that a subjective individual interpretation defines an atmosphere defines civility only in terms of whomever is able to best advance their subjective analysis.

It is safe to assume what would be considered respectful in an upper-class neighborhood of Connecticut would be might be disrespectful in a low-income neighborhood of Los Angeles. Perceptions of respect are closely correlated with social dominance. In that regard, oppressed classes who cite the elements of their oppression may be considered disrespectful by dominant classes. A starke example that exhibits the divergant notions of respect can be found in the behavior of slave owners. Slave owners whipped slaves for disrespectul behavior, but whipping another person could be considered disrespectful. Expectations of respect are divergant and often contradicatory. In face to face communication, some cultures consider eye contact to be an essential element of respectful behavior, in other cultures, eye-contact is considered inherently disrespectful. An attempt to define away local or cultural differences would seem to be disrespectful and inherently incivil. Likewise, this effort to criticize the proposed definition might be seen by some as provoking animosity or disrespect, and as such the definition implies that responding to an invitation to edit controversial articles could be, by this definition, considered incivil.

The definitions offered here offer little more than a notion that civility is defined by whomever can best dominate discussion and most effectively rally group support. Such a definition of civility invites, by definition, incivility by offering that civility is whatever does not offend those in power. Indeed, many pacifists, activists and militants assert that overtly incivil behavior, from non-violent resistance to military occupation are proper responses to attempts to enforce faulty rules of civility. J.B.White 03:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I tend to think of it as just "not being a dick". But that's just my own rule of thumb. ;) Meelar 03:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The idiom "rule of thumb" by some accounts finds its roots in rules of civility that allowed a person to beat their wife with a stick no larger than their thumb. I recall other definitions traced it to the arrival of the inquisition in Britian, where torture methods were restricted to thumbscrews. Some would consider introduction of a pseudo-scatological reference (dick=penis) to be incivil. In academic circles especially, idioms and euphemisms rank lower on civility scales than accurate semantics. J.B.White 03:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The expression "rule of thumb" has nothing to do with beating of wives or of anyone else. It is an approximate measurement: the distance from the tip of the thumb to the first joint is about one inch. These Web pages, among others, describe and debunk the myth: [1] [2] FOo 01:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seriously then, I'm not sure I entirely grasp your argument. Perhaps you could provide a real example? Meelar 03:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A real example of what? J.B.White 03:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of the problem of circular logic, as you put it. What issues do you have with the current civility problem? I'm sorry if I'm not getting this as quickly as I could be, but I want to make sure I'm clear. Meelar 03:31, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I browsed in here from some page on white seperatism, and found this page. I note it is not a page on civility, but on civility in the context of Wikipedia, which is a step toward defining rules of civility of a specific environment. Civility is neccessarily related to a specific civilization. The circular logic, formally, is embodied in the phrase "Civility rule states that people must act with civility" and that defines civility as whatever is not its opposite without first establishing what it is. J.B.White 03:39, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, generally, we go by "I can't tell you what it is, but I'll know it if I see it. There are a few things that are almost always uncivil (see Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks, and it's generally a matter of common sense. Civility is IN PART based on a common civilization; however, there are certain common-sense principals that are nearly always uncivil (for instance, Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks. We feel that, as long as both sides are willing to listen to each other, we'll manage to come to a consensus on what is and isn't civil. It's worked so far. Meelar 03:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that is JBWhite's point - that saying something is a "matter of common sense" is basically the same as saying that it can't be well defined. Of course, in the real world (and especially in Wikis) we have to live with lots of such soft definitions. PaulHammond 16:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that tends to assume that "we" is inclusive of me, that you know my feelings and that feelings are an adequate guide for civility as opposed to formal rules of etiquette, or that I am not part of the "we" to whom you refer, thus suggesting the group is defined as those who agree with a subjective notion of etiquette. Writing in the first person plural, to me, seems impolite when there is no formal basis for polling an open group comprising revolving membership. That "it has worked so far" attributes success to what is more likely the product of technology - the servers are behind locked doors, and protected by certain software security functions. That is not evidence that a group has reached a consensus on what is civil. That the group has not composed articles on the topic of civility or even civil seems instead to reflect a paucity of consensus. Those articles, though they might someday be composed to the satisfaction of the few that visit them during a period of time and fail to object, would still rest on the consent of a few, but would not necessarily reflect an overview of world knowledge concerning civility.

I encourage you not to be too threatened by the philosophic limitations of an effort to define civility. Dictionary definitions, composed by learned scholars versed in the related semantics, still depend on reference to "polite" or "etiquette" which then are related to specific groups' rules of what is polite. The more closed is a group, the easier it is to define rules of civility for that group. I dare say if I go looking, I will find evidence of disagreement on what is appropriate behavior here, which is evidence of a lack of consensus on the term, even in this context, much less a universal definition of the term. Definitions of what is civil tend to define boundaries that in turn limit a group. My subjective view is that it is more civil in an open group to accept widely recognized conundrums related to defining the term "civility" than it is to demand that anyone rhetorically accept a definition based on your perception that you will know it when you see it. I hope you understand that I am offering arguments that universally plague efforts to define this term, and am not necessarily challenging your attempt to regulate behavior in a community you hope to define. For my part, I have not joined a consensus on the definition, which implies that either there is no consensus, or that those who to do not vote "yes" on terms of a definition are excluded from a group. J.B.White 04:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wrote most of that page...but not the little sentence you are refering to, as far as I can remember. If you are interested exploring the topic, please join meta (click on the link at the bottom of the article to go to the original and other work in progress). FirmLittleFluffyThing 04:32, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you find some meaning in this dialogue, perhaps you could excerpt or factor some of it into the discussion at meta. I've explored the notion quite a bit in discussions elsewhere, which likely is why I had thoughts ready to add here. I really had no intention of contributing much time to this project, but it kept me at home this evening instead of driving several miles to see a rock-n-roll band, and this was the result. While these philosophic contemplations reflect widely recognized semantic difficulties in the concept of civility, my personal view would probably not be very popular here. I personally consider humans the least civilized among life forms, with animals demonstrating better established orders, plants even more civil, and I consider minerals, water, gasses, chemical processes and the reliable action of cosmic bodies to be the most reliable examples of civilized activity. My views of inananimate objects as living subjects are archaic and would likely provoke responses many would consider incivil. In as much as this group tends to define incivility as that which provokes incivility, the better choice for me would be to deny the group access to much of what I might otherwise offer, at least for now. J.B.White 05:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, we would welcome your contribution. That's why I don't feel that it was rude to use "we"; this is an open community. There is no approval process or application; the only thing you have to do is stay around and edit. You sound like you could help the encyclopedia. Meelar 05:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Trust me on this. My alien presence likely would be more welcome on a gang controlled street of South Central Los Angeles. Human civilization on earth was facilitated by a comet that crashed into the Gulf of Mexico some 600 million years ago. I doubt many here would welcome my civilizing presence if I arrived in such a manner, but I might consider such an arrival perfectly civil. J.B.White 05:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've been having a maddening discussion with a person who after I requested he avoid strawman and adhominem against the topic being discussed he then went on to twist alm,ost all my comments into a straw man and ad hominem against him. I also provided evidence for the topic being discussed and he discarded my evidence with flawed logic and refused to address the problems of his own evidence incivil discussion. At the end of the day everything was ok for him to do but he projected onto me all that and repeatedly asked me not to do so while avoiding the issue being discussed. I am not sure if it is circular logic but it certainly had me going round in circles. I had no idea how to handle it because everytime I asked him to clarify he turned it into ad hominem and asked me not to post anything addressing him directly.Zestauferov 04:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that person felt that statements of yours like this:

• either you are not very well educated or you are deliberately attempting to misinform again
• It is very clear to me that you are either a reform Jew in which case you don't really have any right to condemn anything inside orthodox Judaism since it rejects you as an apostate. Or you are simply one of the millions of assimilated jews in ignorance in which case don't get angry, get legal.
• it seems you might have some kind of ADD. It might help you to get that checked out.
• are you visually impaired?

were Ad hominem, even though they were sometimes accompanied by claims that they were not intended that way. Jayjg 16:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No I don't think so because Ad-Hominem means that I was disregarding his POV by trying to defame his character. Zestauferov 19:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with User:J.B.White partially in this page features a logical fallacy. Perhaps the circular reasoning exists, but also there is also the fallacy of the Slippery slope. Incivility does not necessitate more incivility, nor does the existence of incivility cause incivility simply of it's own virtue. This policy has to be rethought, even if Jimbo has come up with it. It's a total void of logic.--Knucmo2 19:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Defacing others' talk comments considered harmful

This article should not encourage people to strike-out or remove other people's on-topic comments on article talk pages on the grounds that those comments are "uncivil".

First, accusations of "incivility" come readily in discussions of certain issues. These are precisely the issues where editors should be careful not to provoke others, and where Wikipedia policy should encourage reflection rather than provocation. It is predictable that deleting or defacing another's comments on such an issue will be perceived as a provocation. Therefore, to do so is itself uncivil and is an escalation of any existing unpleasantness.

Second, defacing part of a talk comment (the "uncivil part", of course) is likely worse. Talk comments do not share the impersonal status of Wikipedia articles. Rather, they express the views of a particular person. To remove or strike-out part of a talk comment is to make it appear that the person wrote something he or she did not. Though this is not a copyright violation (thanks to Wikipedia's FDL) it may frequently be a violation of the moral right of a writer not to be misquoted deceptively.

(The fact that the original comment can be reconstructed from the article history doesn't matter. Giving the impression that J. Random Editor wrote "I disagree with ... Neo-Nazis" when in fact he wrote "I disagree with any weak-assed jerk who doesn't want to kill every evil motherfucking one of these Neo-Nazis" is an offense against him. Even if his words are uncivil he has the right not to be falsely quoted. It is less bad to delete the whole comment. "Refactoring" someone else's signed comment is right out.)

Question (if you don't like the position of my question feel free to move it, but I feel I have a right to post it here rather than elsewhere where it might not be so prominent). What if the second person quotes him as having said "I disagree with Neo-Nazis" Doesn't the originator of the comment have a right to correct it to depict more accurately what s/he really wanted to say? e.g. "I hate people and think they are weak who don't want to kill Neo-Nazis." (in this example the author has moderated tone but still re-iterates his/her two main points).Zestauferov 04:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People posting on Talk: pages should be allowed to state what they believe, not what others think they should believe. Jayjg 01:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is not the question.Zestauferov 19:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Third, the act of striking out another person's words invokes the spirit of censorship. (I do not claim that it is an act of censorship. Rather, it brings the idea of censorship to the forefront of the mind.) It is remarkably visually dramatic; it resembles an act of violence directed against the words themselves. These ideas -- censorship; violence against words -- are repellent to the atmosphere Wikipedia seeks to cultivate. To invoke them is necessarily to banish calm and scholarly work. Even if the stricken words are worthless in the eyes of all comers, to strike them summons something evil which cannot easily be put down.

In closing, I wish to make clear that I am talking about the deletion of "uncivil" on-topic comments -- those which pertain to an ongoing discussion or conflict -- in a situation where discussion has indeed escalated to conflict. I am not talking about the deletion of vandalism. The deleting I object to is not that occasioned by the thought, "Oh, phooey, some silly person wrote ten kilobytes of 'fuck you' in this talk page." I do not pretend that ten kilobytes of "fuck you" become protected by signing them. What I object to is the kind of deletion that gets accompanied by the comment, "Now you've gone over the line." The latter is a dangerous judgment for anyone to make about another person's words, and Wikipedia should discourage it wherever possible. FOo 02:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I second this. I also feel that it is utterly inappropriate to encourage people to use "&bot=1" when deleting incivil comments, or any comments. Don't abuse features that hide information from people in order to conceal your actions. If people use this feature to keep others from noticing their actions, or in general to hide anything other than bot edits (for which it was originally intended), I would encourage the developers to remove it. (Oops, I neglected to log in before posting that.) Glenn Willen (Talk) [[]] 04:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The following is copied from Wikipedia_talk:Wikiquette

Everytime we edit any page on wiki, we agree to the phrase "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." But there has arisen recently a discussion about it being OK to edit anyone's Headdings and one's own comments on a talk pafge but not other people's talk, even when they are using very negative ad-hominem or building non existant strawmen by mis-representing what another person said. Sorting out all of this can take pages and pages of irrelevant discussion slowing down the process of dealing with the key issues at hand which need to be dealt with in the article. Not to mention itr makes what should be a gentlmanly discussion page into a sullied mud-slinging match with very little valuable input and a lot of wasted wiki server space. There must be Gigabytes on wiki's servers which are currently dedicated to preserving pages and pages of angry talk. As far as I can see there is no policy against editing another person's comments anywhere on wiki. But obviously the point does need discussion. I personally have had my talk page comments edited several times that I can recal and perhaps many times that I am unaware of. It does not bother me because the true record is held in the history pages, and if I have misunderstood someone's point then it is helpful for them to correct my question to make it more relevant. If I have another question in mind I can always post it again. I once started to also clean up a discussion page (Talk:Eber) which had become very nasty once and no-one involved in that page discussion complained. I think everyone was relieved that the wheet was sorted from the chaff. Anyway like I said I think this needs discussion so I am posting it here to see what everyone else thinks. ThankyouZestauferov 03:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The caveat about mercilessly edited writing was intended for article pages, not for Talk: pages. While the articles themselves should be NPOV, people should be allowed to express their POV in Talk: pages without having those they are debating change the comments to what they think they should have been. Jayjg 01:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Talk pages serve several purposes, none of which are served by allowing people to deface others' on-topic comments. First, they record discussion on the form and content of the article; their role as record is harmed by alteration of that record. Second, they provide a space for resolution of disputes; their role in dispute resolution is harmed when defacement of comments becomes a provocation to further dispute. Third, they allow the expression of points of view in terms which are not suited to the article text (since the article text must be NPOV); this is harmed when people believe their expressions will be deleted or made invisible. Any potential benefit from "redacting" others' comments is far outweighed by these harms.

In the case of comment deletions on grounds of "incivility", I think the most important of these points is the damage to dispute resolution. Deleting others' comments is a provocation; it is therefore itself uncivil behavior. It worsens disputes; it does not settle them. If one party to a dispute cannot abide seeing the words of the other on a talk page, and therefore wishes to deface those words, that party is by definition in no frame of mind to edit responsibly. A will to destroy others' expressions is radically incompatible with Wikipedia. --FOo 14:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou for your opinion FOo any other views?Zestauferov 19:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

&bot

1. Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box)

^ | What exactly does this mean? I can edit the comment someone made? I'd like to use this, but I'm not sure how. -GregNorc (talk) 00:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The bot=1 flag simply refers to the ability to hide or include edits made by automated processes (bots) which are not human editors. No, you cannot edit others' edit summaries, but of course you can remove or change the content which has actually been added to a page. -- Beland 03:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Negotiation mergefrom

I proposed a merger from that page to this one. Thoughts? -- Beland 01:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem: what IS the problem?

What does the first sentence of the first section, "The problem", mean? "Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of other contributors." Other than what? Is this true? Is it uncontested? The sentence has been there from the very first, countless editors have left it unchanged, but what..? Am I just having a stupid day? Could somebody paraphrase it for me, please? Bishonen | talk 10:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not very grammatical. It means either "Wikipedia contributors on the whole are not especially respectful of other contributors" or "Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of contributions" or maybe something else I haven't thought of—from the rest of the paragraph I understand that it means that we, as a lot, are rude bastards.

Of course, this isn't true. Mostly contributors are indifferent to each other, and as in all collaborative endeavours, there is a tendency to criticize what is bad, and accept without praise what is good.

I rewrote the first paragraph to better reflect things as I see them. Others should do so as well. Collaboration, it's the gift that keeps on giving! JRM · Talk 11:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Aahhh. Yes, having a stupid day, check. Thank you, JRM. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Civility and how to attain it

There's a new approach being formulated to deal with annoying personal remarks. One aspect being considered is the special case wherein the target of an unwelcome remark wishes to raise an objection.

I've recently come around to the idea that it may be better not to raise the prospect of bans or blocks oneself as this may be seen as a sort of retaliation - which could willy-nilly add fuel to the fire, so to speak. (To be frank, this is a mistake I just made last earlier this year with csloat on a gitmo talk page; let's all learn from my mistake.)

The upshot of this, is that "we who are innocent" must be patient - but we can also seek help. But while waiting for help to arrive, we can still say something like:

I wish you wouldn't call me a racist.

If a response comes back like

• I did not mean you, or
• Don't take it personally, or
• That's not what I meant

...then do not respond further. Either disengage, or ignore it. Let others help restore civility; you will have done enough. Uncle Ed 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Petty example listed with serious examples

I don't feel that

• starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."

should really go among the examples of more serious incivility. Any objections if I move it to the examples of petty incivility? (And please don't think I'm saying that it's okay to start a comment like that. I just think it's more in place with the existing petty examples than with the existing serious examples.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Reinyday, 11:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and changed it. I hope I'm not being too hasty in doing that without waiting for other comments, but it really doesn't seem to alter the basic message of the article. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Trouble with this example is that of course it's just a warning bell, or as it were, an "incivility schema". What follows might be any degree of incivility, from mild to extreme, or indeed none (well, in theory). Alai 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always had a high level of disdain for people who begin a paragraph with, "I don't mean to sound like an arrogant, ignorant, flaming jackass, but..." because it intuitively states the obvious. They are apologising in advance, knowing full well that people will react to them exactly as they have already indicated they will be making themselves appear. My take: if you don't MEAN to be <insert description here> then just don't do it. Make your case, or don't. If you are aware you are going to torque people off to the nth degree, why are you bothering to phrase what's coming in that manner? Tact. Such a simple word. Such a huge potential for damage. Ever wonder what one of the many things wrong with the modern world are? We as a species forget all about tact as a simple courtesy to the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of others. Weaponofmassinstruction 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Taunting

I have added language regarding taunting using the behavior of BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) as an example Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing comments

This page seems to endorse removing or - worse - altering comments percieved as uncivil. But that's a guideline, and a highly controversial one at that as I understand it (full disclosure; personally I violently disagree with it, as I think altering someone else's signed comments is likely to be far more disrespectful than whatever prompted your doing so). It does note in passing that some instances of this are seen as controversial, but I am still not comfortable with that; the overall message seems to be that it's perfectly okay, but lots of people think that is far from true.

On an unrelated note, while I'm here, I wish there was some text making it clear that critiquing a contribution, as one might in an academic environment, is about as far from uncivil as it gets, no matter how many contributers seem to think doing so constitutes a personal attack. It would make a nice balance, because while I certainly see value in this policy, it seems to me that far too often, it is used to hold a given page hostage to the often idiosyncratic perceptions of the most thin-skinned user who chooses to edit it. PurplePlatypus 07:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thoroughly agreed on both points. "Refactoring" other people's talk-page comments is simply forgery, since it leaves the other person's name signed to comments that the "refactorer" actually wrote. Moreover, it is likely to provoke a worsening of an already bad situation, since people are likely to perceive the alteration as an attack or censorship.

And yes, we need to make it clear that critiquing a contribution is always acceptable. Comments should be addressed not ad hominem but ad litteram. While people may feel bad that others dislike their contributions, that's just part of working on an encyclopedia -- in contrast to personal attacks, which are unnecessary. --FOo 08:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote the ArbCom - and this case is technically still in voting, but looks like a slam-dunk "accept" at the moment:

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

PurplePlatypus 18:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:User du-0

{{User_du-0}}

du-0	This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass).

Template:User du-0 is up for deletion. I feel that it is inherently uncivil — and that this fact is entirely obvious. Opinions here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_du-0. — Davenbelle 03:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mergefrom Wikipedia:Etiquette

Someone suggested a merge, without filing a talk page entry. Will remove the tags for now. I disagree that Civility (a core principle) is the same as Etiquette (a peripheral guidline), but agree that they are related and should have some integration. -St|eve 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Restrict access to Wikipedia for some classes of people more likely to be offensive (reducing openness)

What kind of classes? Profiling by age, race, geographical location, ideology? Proposed change: just delete the sentence.

Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave Wikipedia or simply allowing the editor to leave -- whether or not that person was the offender or the one guilty of the offenses -- in order to reduce the level of conflict)

This sounds like overkill. Proposed change: "Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in wikipedia). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict." Also, the bullet point should be moved later in the list (ie after less severe remedies).

Request the use of real names to force editors to take responsibility for their behavior (although this is generally considered not desirable on Wikipedia)

Requesting real names would be especially impractical during an edit conflict, as people would be worried about the conflict spilling into real life. Proposed change: add ", and especially impractical during an edit conflict".

Thanks, Andjam 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes I suggested (feel free to revert). It's only official policy, it's not like it's anything important ... Andjam 06:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:

I am a great believer in the concept and the policy of WP:CIVIL. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, public civility is the only way to achieve peaceful coexistance of people with widely varying opinions.

A recent episode, however, has indicated to me that the policy should be loosened slightly. Editors should feel free, on their own User talk: pages, to react less than perfectly civilly to ugliness, harassment, racism, trollery, stalking, pestering, condescending -- ok, whatever annoys, bothers, or offend them. I'll use myself as an example here. A pest of a certain socio-political viewpoint, one with a hatred of people of my religion (and other people ethnically and/or religiously and/or socially different from the pest) and a strong admiration for early-to-mid-20th-century German political currents, was posting very rude suggestions on my talk page. I responded with a heartfelt and very well considered "Fuck off, Nazi." This was certainly an uncivil action on my part; however, the context of the remark and the location of the remark, in my mind, dramatically reduced the potential damage to the community that WP:CIVIL is designed to prevent.

The problem is that different people have different ideas of civility. "The coward does it with a kiss; the brave man with a sword." I think it's grossly uncivil to goad someone, even with polite words, into uncivil response. I think that condescending sarcasm, while it might cause owies to sensitive egos, is not an inappropriate response to perceived cluelessness. I think bitterness is not an inappropriate response to hate speech.

Allowing a bit more freedom of speech on editors' own User talk: pages will remove a tool for harassment and goading. If an editor is offended by something said on someone's User talk: page, there's no reason they need to go to that page again looking for other things to be offended by. If you're the easily offended type, take the time to become familiar with how an editor reacts to the sort of suggestion you're about to make before you make it. Nobody is forced to read anyone else's User talk: page, nor to engage anyone in particular in dialog.

In short, WP:CIVIL should be modified or interpreted to grant the right to say "Fuck off" on one's own User talk page, and only there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I really have any involvement with this, but let me state my complete agreement for the record, since I happened to be passing by. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 19:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm passing through too, following a link from your ArbCom election statement, but I, too, have to say I wholeheartedly back this. PurplePlatypus 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to revert your Talk page? That way, you don't have to look at the offensive comment any more, and the action is a clear message: "Leave me alone."--TJ 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

The article says: "Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)." How does one go about reqesting technical help in this instance? Shiroi Hane 11:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)