Wikipedia talk:Civility: Difference between revisions

The initial Wikipedia:Civility policy was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history) before being copied here. -St|eve 19:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• /Archive 1 - old discussion to December 2005.
• /Archive 2 - 2006, including discussions on whether WP:CIV should be a policy or an essay, or merged with another policy.
• /Archive 3 - 2007

Since the Death of WP:PAIN have this policy and WP:NPA lost their teeth?

I've made, and seen made, several complaints to ANI about users behaving in an uncivil manner. This often happens in article disputes where one person just feels too strongly and can't remain civil while trying to make their case. Most of these complaints have come with a host of examples, including warnings, and often other editors will indicate that they agree with the complaint, and yet they seemingly often just fade in to the archives and nothing is done about these disruptive editors. What is the point of this if editors can repeatedly behave in an uncivil manner even after warned, if there are no repercussions for their behaviour? How can you resolve a dispute if one person is continually making wild accusations and hurling insults. You can't, yet I've seen it happen over and over again since PAIN went away. There were all kinds of claims made when the made was removed that all people had to do was to report it to ANI instead of PAIN and it would be handled, yet I don't see that happening.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You can. You need to keep a calm head and remember there are administrators. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}☆ 22:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition proposal

Can we add another entry to the examples section? This sort of thing has increasingly become more of a problem:

• Labeling and describing other editors with negative characterizations such as "POV-Pushers" "cranks", "idiots", "woo-woos" or other similar derogatory names.

Dreadstar † 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely object. I started an RfC on the subject at WT:POVPUSH. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is here, Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#Consensus needed. Dreadstar † 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith that this is a genuine suggestion for a change to the policy rather than the laundering of a dispute, here is my comment: A policy should not get into such detail as to list the infinite variety of ways one can insult another editor. Sunray (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the faith, Sunray. Sounds like this might actually be classified as a personal attack instead of just a civility issue, per " Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Would this also fall under one of the WP:CIV Examples or some other part of WP:CIV? Where exactly do you see something like this fitting? Dreadstar † 09:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my previous comment wasn't clear. The policy generally does not give examples of ways that one can be uncivil. The reason for that seems clear to me: The ways of being uncivil are infinite. Thus, I think we have to be cautious with examples or everyone will want to add their own favourite case. This is not the function of policy, IMO. I do have some further thoughts, but would like to wait until the RfC has settled. There may be further guidance from that discussion. Sunray (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfC has settled, resulting in additional wording re: civility in WP:POVPUSH. I'm looking in WP:CIV for where this type of insulting name-calling and labeling is covered. Can you identify it? Vague generalities about "rudeness" or seemingly very specific ones like "Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove vandalism" don't seem to cover this issue of calling others "pov-pushers" "cranks" "woo-woos", and etc. Many editors feel it is merely "calling a spade". What about "giving users derogatory names.." period? Or saying "via pagemove or by direct name calling or labeling. That sort of thing? Dreadstar † 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, does it really fall under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Personal attacks instead? Change the wording in WP:POVPUSH from "uncivil" to "personal attack"? Dreadstar † 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that most of those who commented in the RfC considered the epithet "POV-pusher" to be uncivil, I think that it should go under "Examples" in the policy, thus:

• Name-calling (e.g., "POV-pusher" Note: Comment on the actions (POV-pushing), not the editor).

As the conclusion of the RfC was decisive, I will add this change to the policy. Sunray (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome, Sunray! Thanks much! Dreadstar † 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

&bot=1

I don't know what "&bot=1" is, but it is used without link or explanation on this page. Could it be added by someone who knows? Pdbailey (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Acronym

Before signing up for my user name "Bless sins" I didn't realize that when abbreviated to "BS" it can mean an English expletive. Since then I have had a problem with a user over this.

Previously I asked the user to refer to me as "Bless sins" and not "BS", to no avail. Recently the user said: "BS, stop your BS."[1]" I don't find that sentence to be appropriate.

Is it reasonable for me, under WP:CIVIL, to expect the user to refer to me "Bless sins" the user name I signed up for, and not something this user finds convenient?Bless sins (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While this is not a discussion about the policy per se, it is a good example of something that occurs frequently, and does relate to the how this policy may be interpreted. Two users are engaged in an edit war. One user says: "Stop your false accusations." The other responds: "Stop your BS." The choice is always whether to follow the policy on dispute resolution, or to cool off and let it go. My response to Bless sins is here. Sunray (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is sometimes necessary

Discuss.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All the extra templates make this page an eyesore in my opinion. I catch flack for having too much in my term papers. I'm taught on the principle of "keep it simple, stupid". Just state the policy without all the pazazz. All I have to say for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.131 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your point and please, just because you think templates are "eyesores" doesn't mean you have a right to remove them. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Never. Ever. There are no excuses for lack of civility in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only that, but the ad hominem logical fallacy is generally the first sign that the attacker is unable to defend his/her position otherwise. I think it was my high school debate teacher who told us that "the Ad hominem attack is the first refuge of the incompetent and the last refuge of the desperate". In short there should never be a "need" for incivility -- even if we cared nothing about a pleasant work environment. WNDL42 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is defined as "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" according to the page. An atmosphere of greater conflict and stress I personally feel is okay if it leads to something productive in the long run (our aim shouldn't be to smother all conflict but to gain from it). Personally targeted behaviour isn't acceptable - ad hominem attacks don't further arguments logically and only serve to obscure the arena of debate. ----WPholic 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I Could not disagree more. Conflict and stress are probably the least productive methods of collaboration, if collaboration is even possible in those conditions. There are better ways. That's what civility is about - the better way(olive (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

There is such a thing as healthy conflict, and stress can be motivational in small amounts. Conflict that helps clarify an issue, correct an incorrect point and/or improve content or policies in some way is productive and results in improvement, much better than having no conflict at all as that leads to groupthink and causes the wiki to stagnate. And the motivational effects of small amounts of stress are long established, as small amounts of stress provide a pushing force without overstressing users. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A healthy conflict is not possible because the word conflict carries a negative connotation.I would agree that a healthy discourse is more attuned to what the readers and contributors of Wiki would prefer and accept. Incremental stress, if induced properly can lead to better results, but the meaning of stress is subjective relative to the side taken on the debated topic. Furthermore, introducing any stress factors can in fact be the reason why their is conflict , rather than civility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapshot24 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears we disagree on the meaning of the word "conflict"; what I was trying to say was that cognitive conflict (as described on the page I linked to), a disagreement in the cognitive sphere, can be positive as it leads to improvement in content and/or policies. Of course affective conflict leads to incivility and is best avoided; but cognitive conflict is actively good because it stops the wiki from stagnating. While the former rightly holds a negative connotation, the second should not and only does because of confusion with the first. Also, what do you mean by "the meaning of stress is subjective relative to the side taken on the debated topic"?

In reply to your last point, I don't believe that civility was designed to squelch all conflict, rather it was designed to prevent affective conflict - I could be debating with you, yet without rudeness, sarcasm or personal attacks. --WPholic^(user)(talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lies

Obuibo Mbstpo removed "lies" from the list of examples of incivility, with the edit summary; "since when is lying a breach of civility?" Dreadstar thinks that lies should remain in the list. However, Obuibo has a point IMO. If "lies" is to remain in the list, we should explain how lies are a breach of incivility. Sunray (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A lie is defined as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" and "to create a false or misleading impression", if doing such things aren't uncivil, I'd be very surprised. Dreadstar † 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your definition says nothing about how lies might be uncivil. The policy defines incivility as: "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." We surely need some statement that puts lies in the context of personally targeted behaviour. The next statement on the list ("Calling someone a liar...") does that. If I lie about something on an article or talk page, it may not be uncivil. How do lies become uncivil? Sunray (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility has a wider definition that might at first be indicated.... "intent to deceive", creating falseness or misleading are all indications of a lack of respect for other editors-incivility. One big problem on Wikipedia right now is the too narrow application of the term civility. IMO.(olive (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Sunray, you've quoted a "rough" definition of the civility policy, a definion which is clearly incomplete. Telling lies causes greater conflict and stress, no matter what the lie. Once you start "definining" how a lie is uncivil, then you open the door for those who would tell a lie but try to do so in such a manner that it escapes whatever definition we come up with. Lying is uncivil, period. Dreadstar † 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with Dreadstar. Defining lies is a Pandora's box endlessly defining meaning and always more as food for loopholes. Good communication and collaboration do not happen with "lying" and that can only create a nonproductive environment . Its all about developing the article. People have to behave... seems pretty simple.(olive (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Neither of you have yet explained how lies connect to being uncivil. Incivility occurs between users. You need to explain how lying is uncivil, because lying is not necessarily uncivil. Keep in mind that the policy says: "Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." I can tell a lie without it being directed towards another person. Sunray (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to make a comment directly towards a apecific person to be uncivil, the policy clearly states: "Our code of civility states plainly that "people must act with civility toward one another." and "Civility is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable."

Civility is defined as "civilized conduct; especially: courtesy, politeness; a polite act or expression", "characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint", and "consideration, cooperation, and generosity in providing something". Does lying fit this definition? I think not.

Lying is unacceptable conduct; there can be no dispute about that. Secondly, when someone tells a lie, they're misleading whoever is reading that lie (e.g. other editors). Misleading someone by lying is not acceptable civil conduct, it shows disrespect for those being lied to and it foments distrust in the community. I can find no argument that lying is civil behavior, unless perhaps you're sparing someone's feelings...but that's an entirely different moral question. Dreadstar † 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'd be really interested in your explanation of how lying is civil conduct. Dreadstar † 02:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to editwar about this. There is something useful on Dreadstar argument, related of uncivil behavior as casting aspersions in the form of "lies" about another editor. Let's explore this in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar that lying is not civil within the context of relations within wikipedia (it may be fine and good in other contexts)-- but to do so in wikipedia to your fellow editors in discussions about article content, is a clear breach of the implied trust and respect we are expected to afford and receive from one another. To deceive an editor in this context violates the civil norm of social discourse, and breeds strife, conflict, mistrust, and undoes the assumption of good faith and mutual respect that is necessary for cooperative editing. These are not luxuries they are requirement. So how is lying adhering to these norms of polite social intercourse within the context of what we do here at wikipedia? I think we need to look at the expanded meaning of civil, its practical meaning within the context of what we do here. In this light, we can see it is a rather clear violation of those social (civil) norms, and ergo uncivil. Ask yourself: Can lying here be marked by benevolence, and respect? That is, within the context of editor relations within and among wikipedians? I don't think so. Quite the contrary. Hence, lying in the context of work within wikipedia is an uncivil act.

The form of lying that I have seen here are related to other violations of policy, such as to POV push, pretending not to know something, by continuing a line of argument that he/she has been shown is false, or falsely claiming that a source does not say (or does say) what he says he thought it did--but later comes back to making that up, again, hoping the other editor will not go back and read the source, after being pointed out the he/she was wrong. The assumption of good faith as an honest mistake is predicated upon a norm the rejects lying as an acceptable norm; thus repeated attempts with new editors is disruptive, and stems from this violation of a civil norm (deceptive practices, lying). That is bad faith editing, a manifestation of deceptive practices, i.e. lying. Same goes with using socketpuppets, or making false reports knowing they are false. So really the practical effect of lying turn out to violate other policies already. But the act of doing so is uncivil without a doubt. I have therefore restored this long standing aspect to the page.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It might have been preferable to continue this discussion until we had rephrased the entry in the article as suggested by Jossi, above. That is also what I was trying to get at. Giovanni33 gave some context: "deceiving another editor." I'm fine with that, so I have added it. Sunray (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I already happened to remove what you added before your message... But I thought it sounded like "you can lie if it's not misleading". Best regards Rhanyeia♥♫ 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well argued, Giovanni. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a question: Supposing someone has written a fraudulent article and it makes its way to Wikipedia. The article is a lie and the author repeats the lie on the talk page. The lie is criminal in this case, but how is it uncivil? I still do not think that anyone has dealt with my concern that lies are not invariably uncivil. Therefore, all I am suggesting is that we explain how lies my be used in an uncivil way. Sunray (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your example sounds like uncivil behavior, perhaps even libelous depending on the content. How are criminal acts civil? Since you're so focused on lies that you believe aren't uncivil, why don't you write something up and present it here on the talk page. To be honest, I'm having difficulty imagining civil lies. Dreadstar † 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This policy focuses on the behaviour of one editor towards another. Thus a lie that is not directed at someone is not incivility (as defined in this policy). I already gave an example: A deliberate attempt to mislead another editor through a lie. Sunray (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the policy focuses on the behavior of editors, whether towards a single editor or towards a group of editors, and even extends to offenses against anyone who may read the lie. Incivility isn't limited to comments directed to a single editor. Uncivil behavior doesn't even have to be directed towards any editors to be consdered uncivil and actionable - even though such behavior may break other behavioral guidelines and policies, it can still fall under WP:CIV. My suggestion is that you propose wording to clarify the simple entry "Lies". As I've stated before, all lies are deliberate attempts to mislead. An untruth that isn't always meant to mislead is generally referred to as a "falsehood". Dreadstar † 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In a larger context .... collaborative communities are in constant flux and are growing quickly everywhere. Redefining the paradigms that support the structure of these communities not only happens but is a necessity if the community is to maintain healthy growth. We must define and redefine civility in a larger sense of the word ..... more holistically. Wikipedia is not the same place it was even six months ago, and what worked them may not and obviously isn't working now. As the community gets larger so must our definitions to include multiple, and ever expanding possibilities.Getting trapped by an older definition of the the word may be counter-evolutionary for the encyclopedia.(olive (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

You certainly got my attention with that comment Olive. What do you think the parameters of a new definition would look like? Sunray (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't thought that far still thinking in terms of the underlying paradigm, but I suspect as is often the case once the paradigm shifts the rest is easier.... parameters and the more specific elements.

I think most of us think of ourselves as standing outside of Wikipedia right now trying to fix the problems,trying to make it work well. Now turn that inside out or "inside in" and put us all ... all of the editors, inside Wikipedia. We are now Wikiepdia, its "heart", and as the heart we create the articles. Wikipedia flows outwards from us. We also are the problems. Outside of Wikipedia, we separate ourselves from the problems, and from each other, isolate ourselves, our thinking. Inside of Wikipedia we are the functioning unit, and are responsible for having created whatever happens in the encyclopedia including its problems. This isn't a physical shift obviously. Its a shift in our own habits, in the way we view the encyclopedia.

At the heart of the encyclopedia are also the hearts of the editors ... at the risk of sounding trite or schmultzy...damage one heart and you damage the whole. If we think as Wikipedia as this whole that gives rise to the parts of the encyclopedia....that's the picture. Dreadstar's point about lying, is so much larger than telling a lie given this paradigm, not that I am putting words into his mouth, but rather how I extrapolate from what he is saying. The heart of the encyclopedia, and the hearts of the editors are influenced by every single aspect that protects or damages it. Damage one heart in any way, and lies of any kind are a lack of openness in the heart, and you damage the whole. Editors lying, for whatever reason, whether the lie is found out or not , damages the editor's heart who tells the lie at least, and possibly the editors who deal with the lie, and that damages the whole larger heart of Wikipedia. This isn't just about lies obviously, but is about anything that damages or supports.

You can't tell people this necessarily. Many would scoff.... but you can begin to shift the paradigm, by saying lets look at ourselves as the functioning "heart" inside of, and of, this encyclopedia.

This paradigm is becoming known in other collaborative environments, and is an obvious movement toward the better functioning of a global sustainable world where we are connected to each other and to the world we are destroying/creating.

Parameters then have to be as holistic as we can make them I suspect, and based on the sense that every editor is an important functioning aspect of the encyclopedia just because they are inside there with us . They are part of the heart. We have to begin to design parameters based on this paradigm, it seems to me. Aren't you sorry you asked?!(olive (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Wow...Olive, one of the best posts I've seen on Wikipedia (actually, you made a few!). What amazes me is that anyone here could speak in defence of lying. WNDL42 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"What amazes me that anyone here could speak in defence of lying." No one has spoken in defence of lying. Sunray (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would venture that saying "lying is not uncivil" is certainly "speaking in defense of lying", at least in regards to civil discourse.

Ah, but that is not what I said. No matter. You missed my point and there is absolutely no reason to think that you will suddenly get it now. Sunray (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither I nor Wndl42 said that you said "lying is not uncivil", that statement was implicitly made by another, contrary to your statement above that "No one has spoken in defense of lying". Dreadstar † 15:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You get the last word on this. Oh gosh, now you don't. Sunray (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)  ;-)

And Olive, that is truly an inspiring post, you've hit on the true heart of the matter...the very core of the nature of the effect of lies on any collaborative effort, whether it be a personal relationship or in a larger project. Lies are also destructive not only to others, but one's own self. This is the truth behind civility itself, without it...we're far less than we can be - if we're anything at all. Thank you Olive.. Dreadstar † 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Olive. Civility isn't about refraining from cussing people out, or avoiding hate-speech - naturally those are part of it - but civility is about the whole atmosphere that we maintain here. Are we being excellent to each other, and treating all other editors as we would like to be treated, or aren't we?

This policy page bugs me in a way, because why would anybody read WP:CIVIL? What, didn't you already know what it means to be civil? It means always showing respect, and respect for oneself and for others doesn't leave room for lying. The point isn't to classify lies as a form of incivility according to section 3, subparagraph b, item (vii)... this isn't court. The point is, why would you lie to someone you're trying to collaborate with? That makes no sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there should be an over arching essay that encompasses the ideological components of Wikipedia as a holistic collaborative community ....Yes, I am starting to bore myself with that phrase but not sure how else to say it...that would include within itself notes on civility,for example. Within civility, then, would be more specific notes as we have now. Layers of understanding, but with a larger holistic view than we have now.(olive (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Name calling

I dispute the bit about name calling recently added to this policy which suggests that somehow warning users that an editor is a POV pusher would violate our policies.[2] Until mid-January, it has always been our policy that the benefit to the community of being able to simply call a spade a spade far outweighed the contortions of having to call a spade a "manual geomorphological modification implement." We're here to write an encyclopedia, not kabuki dance. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Name calling as it's being used here is more accurately described in the insult article than it is in the article you linked to above on name calling. Feel free to open another RfC on this, Kendrick. The earlier one is here. Dreadstar † 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BURO, an RfC on the WP:NPOV_dispute how-to guide does not automatically create WP:Policy on this page. That RfC doesn't apply here. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:BURO doesn't override what I've stated. Reread WP:CON. Consensus was that name-calling such as calling someone a "pov-pusher" is uncivil, so it certainly does apply here. That RfC was directly related to WP:CIV, as illustrated here. Dreadstar † 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody has a POV. Every time I've seen an editor calling someone a "POV pusher", it was always (to some extent) a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If an editor is tendentious in a disruptive way, why not just say "based on the pattern of edits you've made here, you might want to review WP:TEND". That way you are criticising the behavior and not the person, which is the essence of all effective behavior modification. If continued disregard for WP:TEND is seen, then we have channels for dealing with it. WNDL42 (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Straw man" and other discrediting attacks

I've written extensively and gotten some encouraging comments on my discriptions of the extended and persistent use of the Straw man discreditiing attack and the "corrosive" effect over time. I'd like to invite some input here. WNDL42 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict smothering?

• Balance each uncivil comment by providing a soothing or constructive comment.
• Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (an individual approach)
• Alternatively, respond to perceived incivility with greater civility and respect. Many editors will rise to the occasion and moderate their tone to match yours.
• Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community.
• Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box)
• Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.
• Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.
• You do not have to like an editor as a person, to appreciate that they are also working for the good of the project. If you do not like a fellow editor, try not to hold that fact against them.

This seems to invite conflict smothering. "Soothing comments"? I would have thought that the issue at hand was more important, unless actual hurt feelings were expressed. "Do not answer offensive comments"? Right, let's just ignore comments that express issues or statements that may be offensive to some people. Anything can be offensive if a sufficiently hypersensitive person reads it. Maybe, just maybe, it's worth examining why the comment was written offensively before jumping the gun.

"Operate as if the offender does not exist" sums it all up. Ignore a fellow Wikipedia editor trying to express strong emotions, reducing him/her to the dehumanised label of "offender" and thus justify his/her treatment as nonexistent. How can a policy justify treating others as nonexistent? Forgive me, but I actually thought that addressing the editor as a person with emotions who makes mistakes sometimes would solve an issue better than operating under the illusion of a fellow Wikipedian's nonexistence.

The third-from-last point (walk away) also seems to encourage conflict smothering - walking away and returning when tempers have cooled is quite different from trying to cool tempers yourself. Suddenly dropping out from a conflict and returning on your own time has far-reaching consequences (e.g. other editors can grossly misrepresent your arguments and you won't be around to rebut them).

Basically, I am against ignoring fellow Wikipedians and treating them as if they were nonexistent. Forgive me if I was inadvertently uncivil. ----WPholic 11:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. My sense is that although the acts that might be considered "smothering" in isolation, are here placed in a larger context of what civility/incivility is and how to manage it, and so are meant to be used together with a larger understanding of how to treat other people in a collaborative situation. Possibly an even larger context would be a good thing, but not sure.... have to think about it.(olive (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! :) I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that we should follow the spirit of these guides (i.e. don't let it get to you etc.)? If so, I agree. ----WPholic 06:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Indecent suggestions and cursing

Your point is exactly right. These are two different things entirely. Indecent suggestions are often sexual in nature, and are generally considered offensive to normal good taste. Cursing is considered to be use of words that are offensive rather than suggestions per say. Because these are quite different they should, if they need to be included at all, be in different lines rather than together in the same line.(olive (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Cursing in and of itself is not necessarily uncivil behavior. Cursing is temperamental, and usually best avoided. Cursing in a way that escalates a dispute is certainly a bad idea. But an unqualified prohibition against cursing is not advisable.--Father Goose (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with removing this word, and didn't add it .... Although, I do think at the point when editors are cursing and loss of control is apparent, the environment is not going to be supportive of collaboration. I don't know. Maybe the word should stay.(olive (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

There have been several discussion here on certain kinds of behaviour that although not incivilities in themselves can help to create a less than optimal collaborative environment. I think this is worth considering here.(olive (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

*Opens eyes, notices it's already on the list as "Profanity directed toward another contributor"* That says it fine, we can leave it at that.--Father Goose (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, you said above, "an unqualified prohibition against cursing is not advisable". First of all, I would agree, but I'd go further and say that unqualified prohibitions are not advisable. This policy would be more effective, I think, if it presented civility, not as a rule you have to follow, but as a reality with which we live. It's not "you must be civil". It's "choosing not to be civil is pissing in the wind. You'll be covered in piss, and we told you so."

If it's presented as a rule, people will look for exceptions, or claim that they're improving Wikipedia by ignoring it. However, nobody claims they're improving the world by ignoring the law of gravity. Civility is just as inevitable in human interactions as gravity is in physics. We should present is as an inevitability, rather than as a rule that one may follow or not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be that it's structured this way to permit blocks for certain forms of unambiguous incivility. The subject of this page is not actually civility but incivility. (I seem to remember that was the name of the meta page from which it was derived.)

It did strike me several months ago, though, that we don't have a "be civil" policy, just a "don't be uncivil" policy, since the latter is enforceable. How could we go about improving that state of affairs?--Father Goose (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... if it's worded the way it is to "permit" blocks for certain forms of unambiguous incivility, then it's wrong-headed. Our policies shouldn't permit, they should observe. "If you're blatantly uncivil, you're likely to be blocked for it," is better than, "if you commit one of the acts listed here, then an admin is permitted by policy to block you."

I don't know, am I making sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are to me. Making a list of things that constitute incivility only invites Wikilawyering and the calculated abuse of WP:CIVIL as a tactic to gain advantage over an opponent. We see far too much of that already. I would replace this whole page with your sentence "If you're blatantly uncivil, you're likely to be blocked for it." As it presently stands the page is too preachy and verbose. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think another good use of this page is to advise editors how best to respond to incivility in others. Accusing them of a "WP:CIV violation" isn't actually the most de-escalatory move one can make. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Or here's an idea: have a bunch of pages on Wikipedia:How to react to trolling, Wikipedia:How to react to vandalism, Wikipedia:How to react to incivility, Wikipedia:How to react to wikilawyering, Wikipedia:How to react if someone climbs the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, Wikipedia:How to react to POV-pushing, Wikipedia:How to react to a clueless newbie, Wikipedia:How to react to an accusation of bad faith, etc. Take all of the behavior related policies (WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:NPA) and recast them as a how-to guide, with the advice that not following the guide is unproductive, and may eventually lead to blocks, depending how unproductive it is.

It's a terrible idea, but kind of fun to think about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That was my intent with WP:BAIT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not all bait, though. A clueless newbie isn't baiting you, and an irate POV-pusher isn't either. There are, however, better and worse ways to react to them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible change in paradigm

I agree with Olive in that there does need to be a new paradigm for the way editors interact in Wikipedia. It might be useful to consider who is editing Wikipedia. In my field, what I refer to as etheric studies, the association my wife and I run has a discussion board closed to the public. Only about 1% of the members regularly post there, yet the stats indicate that a much greater percentage visit the board every day. People willing to "put themselves out there" are too few.

Many of our members represent other organizations--usually hauntings investigation groups, and our website averages 1,400 to 1,700 unique visitors a day. I have attempted to recruit participation in Wikipedia from the larger community of interest in the paranormal but perhaps only one or two have tried and then quickly left. The most common response I receive is that the people who know this field have looked at the way I have been treated and tell me they do not want to subject themselves to the same.

I have stayed with EVP and Spiritualism with an occasional venture into other subjects, even though I have a lifetime of study in most things paranormal. It is just too painful to have someone who read a book tell me that EVP is singular (it hase many forms)or that it started where it did not. So who is editing in the paranormal articles? The editors with the most tenacity have proven to be the ones most certain that things paranormal are not possible and are determined to make sure the world understands as much. Since by their own admission, their knowledge of the subject is from reading a book or the equivalent, this amounts to an ideological point of view that dominates the paranormal subjects. Those who hold the view are slowly driving off or banning those who disagree--with little regard for fact or truth.

The people who are able to contribute in a meaningful way would probably have some difficulty adjusting to wiki rules. I know I did, and of course, I still find such rules as the omission of virtually the only meaningful reference material because of original research to be beyond comprehension when it leaves only skeptical reference to explain the subject. New people would probably not realize how sinful it is to claim they think something is real, so they really need advisors to help them understand balance, not punishers.

A possible solution might look something like this:

• Develop a zero tolerance policy for incivility.
• Establish a class of editors known as mentors with the experience to guide editors, especially new editors. Mentors could adopt an article from the perspective of seeing to it that the article is balanced via the talk page, but would not edit the article themselves.
• Keep the admin appeal system, but establish a tribunal system patterned after the American legal system, with a few judges and a stable of advocates from which appealing editors can select to represent them to the tribunal. The appealing editors would not themselves address the judge. The tribunal system would hear appeals from all forms of disputes and have the authority to make final decisions.
• Develop a policy to have articles say what the subject is without attempting to certify it pro or con. It would be good to test articles for effectiveness by occasionally asking teachers to use the article as a classroom lesson: "Read the article and tell me what you learned."
• Rules concerning original research, fringe and reliable sources effectively defeat the ability of knowledgeable editors to even neutrally describe paranormal subjects. The rules are good in mainstream subjects, but frontier subjects are virtually all described via original research, so a "frontier" category needs to be established to allow for this.
• After all of these changes have been enacted, actively recruit subject matter specialists to act directly as representative editors or as advisors to experienced editors.

Most of the people in my field I speak to know that they are working at the fringe, and do not expect to have their views represented as fact. But at the same time, they (we) do expect our subjects to be honestly represented and this is not happening as often as needed to maintain Wikipedia's good reputation. These suggestions are just ideas, but they do offer a way of keeping Wikipedia from being a platform for ideologues. Tom Butler (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rules concerning original research, fringe and reliable sources effectively defeat the ability of knowledgeable editors to even neutrally describe paranormal subjects." No response necessary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hummm ... meet constructive comments intended to further discussion with sarcastic dismissal. Interesting tactic on a civility talk page. Tom Butler (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought you'd embrace that, Arritt, after all how can the scientific position on fringe subjects of which scientists have not spoken be presented, except by OR? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no response necessary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why. There was a specific vote on doing OR in that context over at the wtbdwk? article, and SA, Fyslee, and a few others were for it. If they didn't think it necessary, why'd they vote for it? I believe I properly represented their reason- science hasn't spoken on certain notable subjects. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If science hasn't spoken on it, then whatever is written about it is likely real world OR and Wikipedia is not the place to publish OR and speculation. There could be several reasons for why the scientific world hasn't spoken on it. If it's not about falsifiable reality, then it is of little interest to science. If it is, but is not dealt with in the scientific world, but is ignored, it is likely considered so absurd as to be unworthy of comment. IOW they consider it absurd OR, and Wikipedia should not give it mention in any sense that could be taken to mean it is a viable idea on a par with other well proven ideas. It should be clearly labeled as a fringe and scientifically unproven idea. -- Fyslee / talk 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dare I say this conversation is not about civility or WP:CIVILITY?--Father Goose (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Father Goose. This page is for discussion of improvements to the WP:CIV policy. I feel like I just walked into a room marked "Speculation about why we shouldn't have a policy on OR so we can write what we want about anything." Sunray (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Consider it a demonstration then.

The problems with Wikipedia are systemic and any solution is going to be more comprehensive than simply modifying a policy a little. For instance, I see increased support for the idea that we should be even more lenient about civility and that it is the responsibility of the offended editor to tell the offending editor that he or she is offended before taking any other action. [3] So okay, I expressed the fact that I found Raymond Arritt's response to be "sarcastic dismissal." Both mild incivility, and he responded with more sarcastic dismissal. But please do not respond to that. I am just saying that such modification to the rules seldom have the desired results.

The line about OR, fringe and such are flash points in Wikipedia. You can do all you want with civility, but if the encyclopedia is not changed from a platform to push ideologies--on both sides--then it will both be a target for people who think it is a misleading source of information and a truly nasty place to spend time trying to do good on the Internet. It is up to you.

Before you decide, however, take a look at the growing understanding of what is often called the "perception of danger" as a modifying influence in behavior. See Hazard and Risk Perception among Young Novice Drivers [4]

Hiding behind screen names has given you the Lord of the Flies [5]. How can such an environment produce great reference articles? Tom Butler (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As a demonstration of civility, it is fine. As a discussion on changes to this policy, I'm not sure that it passes muster. However, I do want to reply to your statement about screen names. I think it is clear that most serious WP editors realize at some point that their credibility (their "name" if you will), 'is based on what they write and how they interact with other editors. Thus policies like this one are crucial. Sunray (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding Paradigm

As I mentioned several days ago I am interested in what the article would look like with some information on an over-arching paradigm. I thought I'd try this out to see what it looks like, reads like ... I am not attached to it, but thought we could look at something like this as a start to looking at the civility issue in a more holistic way.(olive (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

It will probably backfire. Although well intended, the touchy-feely nature of the new section is liable to alienate many content-oriented editors from WP:CIV even more than we already are. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. It might be more accurate to describe the nature of the section as whole- brained in terms of content and in style rather than left brained or specific and point value ladened. I may be able to edit the section more towards a left brain reader....At the same time the rest of the article is very point-driven, and there may be a place for both in the article . Although scientists may be more left brain in functioning, those in the arts and humanities may not be and so this might appeal to them.(olive (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Olive, the statement looks reasonable, but I do have a couple of questions. First, do you see the community of Wikipedia editors a reflection of the larger community of, say, the English speaking world, or should it be a role model for the larger community?

Second, You end with, "If behavior doesn't contribute this environment don’t do it, whatever it is." I can name a number of editors who apparently see no problem with fighting to the bitter end to win a point, honestly believing (I assume good faith) they are doing the best thing for Wikipedia and humankind. Should more conservative/considerate editors give them control of the article to avoid conflict? Tom Butler (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia as a reflection of the English speaking world. I see Wikipedia as one of the first four collaborative communities in the world and rather than a reflection, I see it as a very real part of the world, and one that gives a sense of where the world is headed. We have been accustomed to dealing with people when we can see them, but the world is moving to a situation where people may be known and understood even at the other end of a machine. Interesting development. The world is smaller because of the web and of other communication advancements. Wikipedia marks the way, but must also advance in the environment that is now exploding into existence all around us.

I don' think it hurts to fight to the bitter end. What hurts is how the fighting is done. The back and forth between intelligent, well-meaning editors is exhilarating, in my mind . When editors enter the situation and cannot or will not treat other editors as part of a community of which they are also part, as equals, and do not see that in harming someone else whatever that means, they harm the project and so themselves, well thats the problem. What hurts me, may not hurt you. The job of a good editor is not only to create good articles/edits but also to be able to collaborate effectively with all kinds of people . Collabration is not just a skill in writing editing but is a skill in dealing with people so the optimum result is achieved.(olive (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I like the idea you're shooting for here, but as currently written it's too gauzy. The last two sentences show some promise -- "Civility is that which contributes to the most positive working environment possible. If behavior doesn't contribute this environment don't do it, whatever it is." -- though they still overstate the case. Sometimes you have to do things that make people upset, like disagree with them. What you don't have to do is insult them in the process.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another version, less "touchy-freely", and "gauzy" I hope, :0).... with Sunray's copy edits. Fr. Goose, my take on the last lines would be that, although someone may become upset, still that may be the most positive situation in those circumstances. At any rate please edit if you can find better wording. I'm trying this on for size to see if and how it works, and or fits.(olive (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

It's a good section. I made it less gauzy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Holistic paradigm"? This new section fails at effective communication in the first two words. The policy was clearer before it had an unclearly-written essay stuck on the top of it. I would support changing it back. I don't understand what your goal is with the new section, but I'd encourage making it a separate page and clearly marking it as an essay. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

rspeer, what we're trying to do, basically, is change the focus a little. Wikipedia is a community. Editors too often focus on whether he said and she said this or that naughty word. But civility is about the working environment, and not matter what words you say, if it doesn't poison the environment, it isn't really uncivil. But if and editor, under current application, refers to "those idiots who think X," (when the offending editor knows very well that there are a lot of X thinkers looking on) it is uncivil, even though under current understanding it is fine because you didn't say the magic word that made it uncivil. In this case, the magic word would have been the user's name, "NAME is one of those idiots who think X." It's about environment, holism, atmosphere, not just specific wording. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is already occurring on this section. So rather than delete unilaterally, please discuss and get some agreement from other editors.

I am also including a earlier version of the section here in case there is some desire to use that version.(olive (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Civility refers to the quality of the collaborative environment created and inhabited by Wikipedia editors, and assumes the importance of the encyclopedia as paramount. Rather than being external and separate from the encyclopedia and its functioning, editors as a group, constitute the internal, central, core of the encyclopedia and as such are responsible not only for the creation of contributions to the encyclopedia, for the problems that arise and their solution, but also for environment in which collaboration takes place. Damage one part of the functioning core of the encyclopedia, one editor, and you damage the whole of Wikipedia, and thus yourself. Civility must be seen as that which contributes to the most positive, holistic working environment possible. If behavior doesn’t contribute to this environment don’t do it, whatever it is.

I know what I did was a deep edit, and changed the focus to community and away from holism sort of. I'm not going to be insulted if you revert it back. I think I did keep the general essense of what you were getting at though. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a a problem. I think you did keep the essence of what I was saying. The same thing is being said in two different ways and I think thats fine. The editors as a group can choose one or the other or neither. Editing had been pretty friendly here, and we can keep it that way... c'est vrai? ;0)

It's written a little better now, but I still don't consider this section to be an improvement to the policy. It's policy creep, and it contains statements that range from meaningless to inappropriate.

Let's start with the first sentence and analyze it in detail: "Civility refers to the quality of the collaborative environment created and inhabited by Wikipedia editors, and asserts the paramount importance of the encyclopedia." Here are my objections:

• Civility doesn't refer to "the quality of the collaborative environment": it refers to the way you treat other people. Improving the quality of the collaborative environment is one reason to be civil. But then, a software upgrade of MediaWiki also improves the quality of the collaborative environment, and upgrading software isn't the same thing as civility.
• It doesn't make sense to say that civility itself asserts something.
• "The paramount importance of the encyclopedia" sounds like something that belongs on WP:ENC, not here. If we suddenly decided we were writing an almanac instead of an encyclopedia, we would still need to be civil while doing so.

Now, some objections from later on:

• It's odd to describe the Wikipedia environment as more or less "livable". People do not live on Wikipedia. Hopefully.
• "Incivility occurs because of personal disrespect." I don't think you can pin down one reason that incivility occurs. Incivility can also occur, for example, due to people editing while tired or drunk.
• "...damage to this environment is the essence of incivility." Oh man, I sure hope our vandals don't know where to buy some Essence of Incivility. To be more serious, this introduces another unnecessary abstraction - by now, you're referring to the essence of a negation of a quality of a collaborative environment. Really, I think it's better to stick with what we know civility and incivility are, which are the way you treat people.
• "Incivility is that which poisons the community environment." Another definition that equates two different abstractions. Astroturfing, for example, also poisons the community environment. The statement would be more correct if you simply said "Incivility poisons the community environment", but the rest of the page says that adequately enough.
• "Wikipedia editors should bear in mind that the encyclopedia is meant to neutrally express all notable ideas..." Should they? That's a pretty strong statement about the content of the encyclopedia. That's taking an opinion about notability -- a Wikipedia concept that isn't even a policy -- and for some reason codifying it in the civility policy where it doesn't even belong.

There are many more problems. Again, I would encourage you to work on this as an essay, not to alter the civility policy just because two editors want to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to side with Rspeer here. There might be something in it, but what you've written so far is not especially comprehensible nor particularly correct. I wouldn't mind an overview of what civility is (as opposed to what incivility is, the actual topic of the guideline at this time), but a "holistic paradigm" is not it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't wish to edit-war over it, I'd like to ask that you remove the "paradigm" section until it is rewritten to the point where what it says it is clear and correct. So far, it's neither.--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fr Goose I am not sure who you are addressing. If you don't like the version in place either see the one I wrote, and if you don't like that remove the version in place and leave the section as is. There was discussion on the ideas in this paradigm which I was attempting to deal with in writing this section. Please note that the section was written by me copy edited by Sunray and later on by Martin. However as I said I am not attached. I would however like to ask for "assume good faith" from the editors here. Sheesh(olive (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I was addressing you, or others who support the "Holistic paradigm" (now "Context") section. I left it in place to see if the ideas in it could be refined (an act of good faith). But, well, I'll have to be unkind: so far it's gone from a one-paragraph ramble to a two-paragraph ramble. In its current form, I think it just doesn't belong in the policy. It needs to be completely rewritten for conciseness and clarity before it belongs. And then there will still be the issue of whether people agree with what it says. Right now, I don't even understand what most of it says. So I'd like to request that you remove it for the time being and workshop it here.

First workshop issue: What are you trying to say with it? What advice are you trying to convey to editors?--Father Goose (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this definitely isn't ready to be added to a policy and that working on it here in the Talk page is an excellent idea. I applaud the boldness but let's get the kinks worked out and consensus established before editing an important policy. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing uncivil comments

Someone went overboard on this section, making it appear to be acceptable to edit other people's comments in the event that you believe that they have been uncivil. I've edited the section to make it conform more to the actual norms of Wikipedia.Kww (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your version is better. It's better to see what people actually said. If that makes them lose face, they can strike it themselves. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A reminder to get consensus before editing

To those of you who have been editing this page recently, please remember, "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." I'd strongly second that, and would add that most revisions should be considered in doubt unless they are typographical in nature. Antelan^talk 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I'd like to remove the essay-ish section entitled "Context", which was added based on only an agreement between two editors. It's putting inappropriate things in the policy, including opinions about notability, and it doesn't really say anything informative about civility that the rest of the page doesn't say. See my list of objections above. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only question remaining is "do we need to get consensus to go back to the consensus version"? Antelan^talk 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I refer you both, please, to the discussion that has been ongoing on these pages in a relatively peaceful manner, for context to this addition. There has been as well editing that has gone on in this article, and which did not require consensus and to say now that consensus is required may not be appropriate or true. Please also note the discussion on "paradigm shift in an understanding of civility", and to the comments of other editors on this topic some of whom agreed with the change in the article, and some of who were openly discussing the pros and cons of the change. Please note also that there was only one person who added this change , Olive, that would be moi, and that edits were than carried on that version by Sunray who seems to have agreed with Olive's addition,(check history for verification) and Martinphi. This section was added as a more contextual underpinning for the civility section as had been discussed on these discussion pages. That context by necessity is less concrete and literal, and more abstract than the rest of the article because it refers to an shift in understanding of how we fundamentally view Wikipedia. Please refer to discussion for more details on that . I would like the editors involved in that discussion to weigh in on this before the section is removed. I am personally not attached to the section I added, please see a copy on talk above, but am interested in having all editors interested in this topic discuss if they want to or need to.(olive (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Commenters in that section noted how it veered off topic into the paranormal. This makes me suspect that you and Martinphi have a vested interest in "shifting" the "paradigm" of civility. I was content to discuss the new section in isolation, but if you insist that I should look at it in context, I'll tell you what I think of it in context.

The new section has language buried within it about being disrespectful to a "group" of editors. I have noted that a certain group of editors feel disrespected when they are asked to back up their fantastic claims with reliable sources. This group apparently includes you and Martinphi, and is united by the goal of making Wikipedia articles say that the paranormal is real.

I find the civility policy very important. And one of the most important things about the policy is that it does not take sides. To put this in context some more: While I disapprove of the kind of things you want to add to Wikipedia, I disapprove even more strongly when JzG tells you to fuck off. The issues have nothing to do with it. We don't need a paradigm shift to know that JzG shouldn't be telling anyone to fuck off.

I now oppose this change even more strongly, because I suspect that the new language conceals phrases that would be used as a lever in a content dispute. The one about notability is the most glaring example.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there! I have never edited a paranormal article, see no mention of paranormal in any discussion, have never interacted with JzG. There is no paradigm for incivility which is why I was interested in discussing it, and writing one. The version in place was edited after mine so perhaps comments about what I am doing could reference what I actually wrote. Please assume good faith. Completely confused by your accusations.(olive (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I'd have to say I disagree with the opening suggestion in this thread. One is entitled to make changes to any page, including policy pages, at any time, if one acts in good faith. If you disagree with the edits, you are entitled to revert them, and then discuss your differences with the other editor(s) (i.e., to practice WP:BRD).

What you can't do is say "no changing the page until you obtain consensus". User:Ottava Rima recently got a block for trying to insist on such a stipulation regarding changes to WP:NLT.

If you oppose specific changes, oppose them for specific reasons (discuss them, with or without reverting them), but do not express a reflexive opposition to change.--Father Goose (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I am simply quoting from the template that is plastered across the front page of this policy. I stand by the request that changes to official policy be aired before being enacted. Do people need to honor it? No. Does it make for good policy-making? I certainly think so. Antelan^talk 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of this issue took place on my talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the context of important and widely-referenced policies, there is merit in having an inherent aversion to rapid and undiscussed change absent significant compelling reason to make an immediate change. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's a good principle. I'd really like to hear what GTBacchus would like to do. Is an addition or change needed? I consider him a leader in this issue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility and community

I don't know what in the world rspeer could have seen that related to the paranormal, unless he's having a paranormal experience (-:. This section reflects the general consensus of the way that WP is changing, and that discussion has been going on in multiple pages, such as JzG's RfC, the Raymond Arritt Expert withdrawal page, the essays WP:SPADE, WP:NOSPADE, Wiquitte (sp?) and others. Civility is moving away from focus on specific words to focus on the general environment, and that is what this section is attempting to address, without curtailing the ability of editors to communicate frankly, and without making it easier to use CIV as a weapon. So, this is not just out of the blue.

The mention of notability is just a mention- and it is absolutely nothing new. WP:NOTABILITY just says we can include whatever meets that guideline. WP as community is an old concept. [6][7]

Here is a quote:

The Wikipedia community is:personal. This may seem strange: after all, the goal is to create entries which are as objective and without personal bias as possible. But the openness of Wikipedia allows total self-expression within those bounds (and even without it in the personal pages); Wikipedians define themselves within the context of the project through their interests and goals. This brings both benefits and complications--Wikipedia takes advantage of personal qualities like trust, insight, imagination, idiosyncracy and empathy which bureaucratic institutions cannot; but it cannot do so without also having some of the downsides, including confusion, bias, mistakes, and hurt feelings. A healthy community doesn't eliminate the problems, but it understands how to deal with them.

In other words, don't be so shocked.

More highly relevant links:

[8][9]

What we're trying to do is to state these basic principles of the Wikipedia community in the context of civility. It think it is obvious that civility is an aspect of the WP community. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the above section mean we shouldn't discuss changes?

Is that meant to be an argument against discussing policy changes on the relevant talkpage first? Antelan^talk 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no problem with the editing on this article until just recently, and there were several editors involved in the discussions. If agreement needs to be reached by editors at this point to make progress than thats fine. Its not a issue, just a change.(olive (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Martinphi, I hope you realize the irony in the fact that you used this edit summary on the WP:Civility talk page. Nobody, yourself included, is under any impression that my suggestion that you follow talkpage formatting guidelines implied that I was going to become confused if you didn't. Stop with the goading. Antelan^talk 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And no one told you to assume that the new heading had anything to do with what you put on my talk page. You could, correctly, have assumed it was a response to your last post, viz:

"Is that meant to be an argument against discussing policy changes on the relevant talkpage first?"

Seems by putting my post on community under your heading "A reminder to get consensus before editing:" I caused confusion, for which you have my apology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I said edit summary not section heading. Antelan^talk 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're confused, Antelan. I know what you said, and my edit summary was a response to your confusion, which I attempted to fix by putting in a new heading. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the goading that I'm asking you to stop. This is three times now that you're calling me confused. For the second time, I'm telling you that I'm not confused. Nowhere did I suggest that I was confused, and instead I offered you a more helpful way of threading comments. Please stop now. Follow? Antelan^talk 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. The confusion was that you a) thought that my discussion of community was really about not discussing edits, and b) that my edit summary about confusion was a response to your edit to my talk page, instead of a response to your last post on this page. If I am wrong about you being confused, then you, again, have my apology. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, incredibly, you are wrong for the fourth and fifth times about my thoughts. It is a basic tenet of civility that you state what you think, not what I think, because you clearly do not know what I think. Stop. Now. Antelan^talk 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This: "It is a basic tenet of civility that you state what you think, not what I think, because you clearly do not know what I think." ...is awesome. What do you call an essay that just says that? Thank you, Antelan. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:MINDREADER? WP:LOCUSOFCONTROL? :) Antelan^talk 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Antelan, it was my thought that your inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith were the result of confusion. My mistake.

GTB, if someone says they think X, it is not uncivil to say that they think X. If they don't, then they can correct you. Contortions such as "I think you think based on what you say" are very seldome necessary.

GTBacchus thinks civility is important. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you're right of course, that there's no problem stating another's thoughts when everyone is clearly on the same page about who holds what position. As soon as that comes into question though, it becomes unwise to tell others what they think. If I say, "no, I don't think that civility is important, why are you mischaracterizing my position?", then you... might be rather surprised, but it would not be helpful for you to insist that you know what I believe better than I do. It would be better at that point to request clarification.

Does it make more sense that way? I feel that's how I see it so often in context. People often restate another editor's position in ways that the other editor would never agree to state it; that seldom helps advance the discussion. I think we do much better when we ask other people what they think rather than telling them, unless it's been made quite clear, but different people will think that different things are "clear". If it's clear that it's clear, then it's clear... clear?

I'm already outlining in my head a couple of paragraphs to go at Wikipedia:Restating the thoughts of others or something. These things are no good without snappy shortcuts, though; nobody remembers them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If I accept this apology, I accept that I made "inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith." Clearly this apology is unacceptable, and instead constitutes goading, which I have already asked you to stop. Antelan^talk 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Um.... really? I don't think he's goading you here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see it now. That is a pretty crummy apology, actually. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an apology in general, only for stating your thoughts. The only thing I feel perhaps I did wrong was mention confusion in an edit summary, but it wasn't really a jibe against you. See, even if my edit summary was such a bad thing, (and "confusion" was pretty obviously factual even if perhaps it seemed insulting to you), when I explained you seemed to decide to take it as goading. Then, you said you weren't confused, when you seemed to have clearly stated something which was not factual- that I was responding to your post on my talk page, which I was not (and I explained that). Well, I'll not respond any more here, because it seems trying to explain things only makes you write back as if you are angry. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, duh, Martinphi. Look at what you wrote: "I'm sorry, Antelan, it was my thought that your inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith were the result of confusion." If you're apologizing sincerely, don't surround it with other crap, like implicit accusations that he was assuming bad faith (as well as "inaccurate factual assumptions"). You can't read his mind, you don't know what he was assuming, and stating what you think he was assuming, as if you know, is a very unhelpful thing to do. Your shortcut below says it all. Don't put assumptions in his mind.

Seriously, if you're going to apologize like that, don't apologize. His reaction really isn't surprising, is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I said it wasn't really an apology. But what can I say and maintain my civility here? To me, the confusion was obvious. And did you know that Antelan has done his very best to get me banned from WP in one -maybe two I forget- ArbComs? He supports the SPOV group wherever I edit. He's never edited this article before either. He asked if my post on community was really all about not wanting to discuss edits here -assuming bad faith. Then he started complaining about how I indent, and put a great big post about it on my talk page. He "corrected" my indentation on my post above. Maybe I indent wrong, but he's the only one who ever complained, and also he tried to get the ArbCom to sanction me for "misuse of edit summaries" (another minor flaw, if true). Then, it looked as if he assumed that my summary about "confusion" was about his post on my talk page because he knew that he was being provocative. Yeah, OK, I should have ignored him. I didn't take the highest road. To take the lesson here, though, civility really is about a poisoned atmosphere. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I didn't call anything he said "crap," lol. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, it really boils down to this: is that how you would talk to someone whom you truly respect and esteem? Would you talk to your father, your grandfather, your grandmother, your boss, your mentor, your hero, your God.... would you talk to them that way? Then why talk to anyone that way? I fall short of this standard regularlyconstantly, but we all know it's the only standard that means anything, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)amended, who am I kidding? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Very well put, as usual. What do we do about those who have shown us nothing but meanness in the past, making assumption of good faith logically impossible, and vitiating true civility by making respect impossible? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

GTB, yes, I agree, it's much better not to say what others think. I did think the misunderstanding, and that one existed, were obvious here. Here is a good shortcut: WP:DPWIMM Don't Put Words In My Mouth. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good shortcut. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend (if you're really going to create the essay) "Don't put words in others' mouths". "Don't put words in my mouth" is a retort, and if people link to it in the middle of a conversation, I suspect it'd just inflame things further.

However, I've encountered this problem in the past, and it's more than just putting words in people's mouths; it's making assumptions about what their thoughts or motives are. I think it's a subcase of Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, and advice about it would probably fit well on that page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yet having essays like that is really handy. Sometimes one says exactly what you want to say in exactly the way you want to say it. Having another one with something like the Antelan quote above sure can't hurt (: Or, I don't think it would hurt in all cases. A certain level of bluntness doesn't poison the atmosphere, but is just normal. It varies for people, but WP can't expect a totally gentle environment. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to this policy

Template:RFCpolicy This policy has often been used a club by clever trolls who drive off productive contributors with incessantly polite trolling. I would like to make an essential change. We need to distinguish between two broad classes of incivility:

1. Crudeness, bluntness, loutishness, and unintentionally inappropriate remarks. These can be due to cultural differences, personal style, or a lack of social skills. The incivility needs to be identified, and the user should be counseled, "You may not mean it, but your remarks are bothersome. Could you please be more thoughtful."

2. Remarks, even those seeming to be polite, which are intended to drive off productive contributors through overt or subtle harassment. When editors use words as weapons, they must be dealt with firmly, including the use of blocks for repeated incidents.

Comments? Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We already expect people to not troll, right? Dunno how much this belongs in Wikipedia:Civility. Maybe it should go over at Wikipedia:Make yourself useful or something. Friday (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolls frequently use this policy as a weapon against good editors. In other cases, editors from expressive cultures can be put at a disadvantage by those from cultures that are more reserved. The purpose of the remarks matters more than the format. If the policy explained the difference between hostility and loutishness, much trouble would be saved. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this can be addressed by shifting the way we describe civility. To me, as a useful practice, civility is more about keeping discussion on track than it is about never using certain words, or being overly flowery in language. It's ok to disagree and even use strong language, if you're focused on resolving the dispute rather than focused on fanning the flames. Civility is productive because if you make things personal for no good reason, this will waste time by distracting from discussion that might have otherwise been useful. Friday (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should all cater to the most sensitive "cultures", by being as polite and courteous as possible on this site. There is nothing to lose by being less "expressive", even when stressed, and a lot to gain. I see no reason to accept any more incivility than we already tolerate. I have never seen a troll win an argument with a good contributor because they used this policy as a club. Crum375 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I worry about this policy being used as a club as well. Frequently, it comes down to dealing with a bad editor, and the desire is both strong and reasonable to resort to plainer, blunter, and simpler language as a discussion progresses. What starts with excuse me, but your explanation of tides being the result of a dolphin conspiracy doesn't seem to be backed by reliable sources becomes your insistence on including dolphins is ridiculous and ultimately becomes will you stop talking about the fucking dolphins! I know why it happens, and it is truly difficult to believe that being civil or incivil is the real problem. Tom Butler complained above that the way he had been treated prevented like-minded people from editing. I think everyone needs to stop a moment and consider whether that is truly a bad thing.

I think that we truly need to focus on unprovoked incivility. This is a problem, and causes an unpleasant editing environment. Provoked incivility is a different matter, and a different problem, and needs policies set in place to deal with both the easily provoked and those that provoke.Kww (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no such thing as "provoked incivility", but there is perhaps "revealed" incivility. IOW, a truly civil person will never be provoked into incivility, but one who only has a civil façade will be forced to shed it under stressful circumstances. It is our goal here to always be civil, regardless of the "provocation". There is never a reason to be uncivil, ever. If the person you are dealing with is being crude or obnoxious, there are many ways of properly dealing with that, but none of them is to also be obnoxious or crude. Bottom line: be nice and kind to everyone, and firm with rule violators, but never uncivil. Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should endorse incivility, but treating it as a blockable offense is going overboard in some cases. It's true that at my core, I don't suffer fools gladly, and it is very difficult for me to stay nice when presented with the instransigently stupid. I generally manage to do so. If you truly can hold your temper each and every time someone indulges in willful idiocy, I congratulate you. The problem that I and other users face is the feeling of futility. I chose the dolphin tidal conspiracy as an example, because everyone would quickly see that an editor clinging to that theory was a problem. But objectively, how is the dolphin tidal conspiracy different from Electronic voice phenomena or Homeopathy? Editors get frustrated and tempers flare because they know that there is absolutely nothing they can do to solve the problem. Is it regrettable? Certainly. Is is forgiveable? I think so.Kww (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you see WP as a social network, and your goal is entertainment, then you are right, why worry about incivility, it's part of the "fun". But if your goal is to actually write an encyclopedia, then any incivility, under any circumstances, is simply counterproductive. In your dolphin example, if you get frustrated and become uncivil yourself, you'll be less likely to influence the article's content or another editor's behavior. The right way to handle both is by maintaining a cool, calm demeanor, being very clear about the content and behavior rules, and requesting help from the proper channels when needed. This is the way forward, not eroding our behavior rules in the vain hope that it will help influence someone or something. Crum375 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is to focus on ways to eliminate the provocations as well as the easily provoked. If we eliminate the editors that start getting snippy at the drop of a hat as well as getting rid of the editors that try the patience of a saint, life will be much better. Focusing solely on the reaction without working to eliminate the cause isn't the answer.

I don't see WP as a social network, I see it as an encyclopedia. Most of the people that I see as being the frequent targets of incivility are the targets of incivility precisely because they are attempting to damage the encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are being attacked by incivility or otherwise, your recourse is to protest and prevent that via the normal channels. If the attacker/harasser/uncivil editor persists, he will be blocked. Becoming uncivil yourself to defend yourself or prevent attacks will only backfire. Be nice and firm and you'll persevere. Be nasty and rude, even when "provoked", and you'll lose. Crum375 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Kww, but every other editor I've seen claim "I don't suffer fools gladly" really means "I can't stop myself from flying off the handle and leaving really nasty remarks". Such editors often define anyone who disagrees with them as a "fool". People who can't "suffer [people they disagree with] gladly" are exactly the reason why we need a civility policy with teeth. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a chat with Olive and MartinPhi, I think that they will tell you that I generally deal well with people that I intensely disagree with, and stay civil even when I am angry.Kww (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, are you advocating getting rid of people you don't agree with? Are you advocating making it so that one group of editors can more effectively dominate? If so, that is a pretty fast way to see a competing wiki assume intellectual leadership. By the way, I know that I am one of the editors you would purge. I also know that is exactly what SA would do--eliminate the bother of all of us morons and idiots. Tom Butler (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, I am not advocating getting rid of people that I personally disagree with. That would be far too low of a threshold, and would defeat the effort to build an encyclopedia.Kww (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I express surprise that this policy can be used successfully against contributors who are not being uncivil. And there's never an excuse to be uncivil -- it's just self-defeating, as Crum375 points out. The JzG RfC (among others) made it plain that to do good work, you don't have to act like a "bad cop". If you're not a patient person, you shouldn't be a troll-fighter. If a troll does get you worked up enough to make you lose your cool, what's your defense, "He made me do it"?

It all reminds me of the phrase, "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and win on experience."--Father Goose (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you got closer to highly disruptive situations, such as Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, you would gain perspective on what's wrong with this policy. Feel free to help out in that battlezone, and you will see many forms of incivility, overt and covert. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "covert" incivility. There may be cases where you don't like someone's demeanor or personality, and that's part of life. The question is: are you able to collaborate on content, or not? If the answer is the latter, then pursue DR. To try to win an argument with an uncivil person, or one you perceive as uncivil, by escalating the incivility is wrong. To loosen this policy to allow even more incivility than we already have is wrong. You move forward by being nice and firm, not by descending to the lowest common denominator. Crum375 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there are plenty of editors who are politely dickish. Jehochman ^Talk 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly you can be civil and obnoxious, or harassing, stalking, trolling, and lots of other nasty things. But this specific policy deals with civility, and it needs to be restricted to that only. If someone is civil while trolling, or whatever, that would be handled elsewhere. The point is that there is no justification ever to become uncivil, regardless of the behavior of the other side. Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no stranger to the issue. I was once caused incredible wikistress by a user who is among the most "polite" I've met, but who became a tendentious, disruptive, wikilawyering, edit-warring nightmare over a particular issue -- while still remaining studiously polite. He wasn't guilty of incivility; he was guilty of all those other things I listed. Had he just jawed on endlessly but not actually edited disruptively, I could have ignored him. I came within a hair's breadth of taking him to arbitration, before the situation was magically resolved by a help of an editor from outside the conflict.

Now, all of those behaviors are dickish, definitely, and we have various rules against them because they are disruptive. I don't see the need to add nebulous extensions to WP:CIV to cover those behaviors. Arguing to the point where someone loses their cool should not in itself be a crime. In such situations, editors should learn to just drop it. If, however, the person is editing in a concretely tendentious or disruptive way, that is what they should be sanctioned for.

Let's bring up a name that hasn't surfaced in this discussion yet: ScienceApologist. I don't get the sense that he loses his cool when battling pseudoscience-pushers. I get the sense that he doesn't want to deign to show respect to the people he is opposing. (I saw a video of a lecture he gave at a recent NY meetup, where he said that he had an "detached amusement" toward the civility blocks he had received.) He is right to oppose pseudoscience and other POV pushing, but only works against himself when he speaks in a patronizing manner.

Just because he's on the right side of things (for the most part), or takes on some very tough fights, doesn't mean he should get a free pass from his own incivility. Nor should you ban others for "goading" him. You should either block those offenders for taking concretely disruptive actions, or if they're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk pages only, ignore them.--Father Goose (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a situation where CIV is being used to get rid of disruptive editors because you can't get them blocked for disruption. But there is also a certain level of disruption which is necessary to create NPOV articles. Yes. To make a good article, you're always going to be stepping on someone's toes. The problem with "Remarks, even those seeming to be polite, which are intended to drive off productive contributors through overt or subtle harassment" is that you have to be very specific to define it before you use the banhammer. I don't see that this issue of specificity is being addressed.

We have a basic situation in which there is no ultimate authority on content. We have no solution to this problem, and our other troubles grow out of that.

And yeah- an editor who isn't uncivil doesn't get whacked for incivility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The policy already explicitly forbids 'taunting'. What exactly is meant by 'polite provocation'? Is this actually a code-phrase for "continuing to disagree"? Goading, baiting and taunting are disruptive, but it seems to me they are already prohibited - although I don't see this prohibition being enforced (along with most of our other important policies). I'd like to see an example or two that illustrates both the problem, and how this policy change could help alleviate it. Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in putting any user on the spot by making them into an example. The situation we often see is that a user is subtly baited over a long time, and finally they explode. Most people are trollable to a greater or lesser degree. This policy needs to recognize and warn about how trolls sometimes use the policy as a weapon. When an editor becomes incivil, before muzzling them, we need to ask, is this editor the aggressor, or are they a victim of abuse. When that dynamic appears, we need to ask the incivil editor to back away from the conflict, and then we need to apply disruptive editing restrictions to the main aggressor. Jehochman ^Talk 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you would identify this behavior as disruptive and worthy of sanctions, but simultaneously not want to "[put] any user on the spot by making them into an example". Why not? If they are disrupting Wikipedia, why not make them into an example?

I agree that editors who engage in taunting or other disruptive behavior should be banned, blocked, etc. (Although I don't see it happening.) But my point is that this behavior is already prohibited under the existing policy. Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's a nasty line to draw, which is probably why no attempt has ever been made to draw it. The difference really is the difference between failing to see your opponent's point and willfully refusing to see it. The case that recently brought me right to the edge was WNDL42's insistence that it was reasonable to describe William Arntz as a "research physicist", even though the man possesses a degree in Engineering Science and apparently worked as a project manager, not a physicist. No matter how many times it was explained to him that it was unreasonable to describe him that way, he would continue to edit the description in, and accuse everyone that disagreed of being uncivil. Ironically, he titled a section of the talk page where he discussed it as Caution ... Children at Play. Given that WNDL42 is able to read and write, I have to believe that he knew full well what he was doing. Some of the reactions to him were clearly uncivil, and I walked right up to the line with this immediately retracted comment. I tried the RFC route, which was useless, as everyone apparently felt that we should have wasted more of lives talking to him.

• Extra credit question: is is uncivil to falsely accuse your opponent of incivility?Kww (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know whether Wndl42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "willfully refusing" to see a point. But since he also at one earlier point argued that David Albert was not properly described as a physicist, I didn't take his comments seriously, and certainly didn't feel provoked by them. Sometimes people are just wrong, for whatever reasons, and sometimes you won't be able to convince them that they are wrong, and they will continue to strenuously argue their case, even it it is without merit. That doesn't mean that they are deliberately trying to be provocative. Dlabtot (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WNDL is a very simple example. Another example which many people would, and have, used is me and ScienceApologist, with SA as the victim. Yet, I maintain that he is the disruptive editor, and I also maintain that, since he is not himself subtle, I have seldom been very subtle with him. Thus, anything subtle which could be said to be polite aggression was unintentional. So I'm highly suspicious about how this would be applied in practice. The situations on wiki are often extremely complex. They are so complex that to get a grip on them, an admin would have to go over hundreds of diffs, and understand them all. This would also require understanding the technical problems. In practice,this isn't even close to possible. So, I think we either need to drop this, or find a clear line where an admin could say "you crossed it." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I started with It's a nasty line to draw, which is probably why no attempt has ever been made to draw it. I think what should be done is to make it clear that incivility is not a bright-line offense like block evasion or 3RR. Judging behaviour as being incivility is pretty easy, but judging it as being unprovoked incivility worthy of a block is much tougher. Editors that respond to the slightest of criticisms with insults and expletives should be blocked pretty quickly. Editors that get bitchy at the end of a long, drawn-out exchange with an intransigent editor can be judged a bit more leniently, even if they can't quite be forgiven.Kww (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Making it less of a bright-line offense was part of what the "essay" was trying to do. It seems to me that what you say is already the way it is applied- unless you mean the way it might be applied to people who have already been blocked a lot for incivility. If you get blocked for a thing once then it builds up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Workshop civility: possible addition

The purpose of adding a section to the civility page was to provide a larger context for what civility was, or is. Right now, the section is for the most part, a collection of points. My thought was to place these points within a larger, more current understanding of collaborative communities and how they do, and will have to function to sustain themselves in the present environment of communication explosion. Wikipedia is considered to be one of the first of these communities along with Linux, MySpace, and YouTube, but in order for Wikipedia to continue to succeed, it will, like all of these communities have to change, and quickly, since that is the rate at which the world is expanding /shrinking. Part of that change may have to do with how the community of editors sees itself. I include part of an earlier comment to explain what is meant by this statement. I guess I've done what I could with this. If other editors have ideas about how to write something that includes these ideas, great. If no one else thinks its important, thats fine too.(olive (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I think most of us think of ourselves as standing outside of Wikipedia right now trying to fix the problems, trying to make it work well. Now turn that inside out or "inside in", all of the editors, inside Wikipedia. We are now Wikiepdia, its "heart", and as the heart we create the articles. Wikipedia flows outwards from us. We also are the problems. Outside of Wikipedia, we can separate ourselves from the problems, and from each other, isolate ourselves, our thinking. Inside of Wikipedia, we are the functioning unit, and are responsible for having created whatever happens in the encyclopedia including its problems. This isn't a physical shift, obviously. Its a shift in our own habits, in the way we view the encyclopedia.

At the heart of the encyclopedia, are also the hearts of the editors. At the risk of sounding trite or schmultzy; damage one heart and you damage the whole. If we think of Wikipedia as this whole, that gives rise to the parts of the encyclopedia; that's the picture. Dreadstar's point about lying, is so much larger than telling a lie given this paradigm, not that I am putting words into his mouth, but rather how I extrapolate from what he is saying. The heart of the encyclopedia, and the hearts of the editors are influenced by every single aspect that protects or damages it. Damage one heart in any way, and lies of any kind are a lack of openness in the heart, and you damage the whole. Editors lying, for whatever reason, whether the lie is found out or not , damages the editor's heart who tells the lie at the very least, and possibly the editors who deal with the lie, and that damages the whole larger heart of Wikipedia. This isn't just about lies obviously, but is about anything that damages or supports.

You can't tell people this, necessarily. Many would scoff, but you can begin to shift the paradigm, by saying, lets look at ourselves as the functioning "heart" inside of, and of, this encyclopedia.

This paradigm is becoming known in other collaborative environments, and is an obvious movement toward the better functioning of a global, sustainable world where we are connected to each other and to the world we are destroying/creating.

Parameters then have to be as holistic as we can make them, I suspect, and based on the sense that every editor is an important, functioning aspect of the encyclopedia just because they are inside there with us. They are part of the heart. We have to begin to design parameters based on this paradigm, it seems to me.

I want to make to make it clear that I believe the statements below and agreement with them constitutes a breach of good faith as I mentioned. Normally, I would bypass such statements but given the discussion on this page, the input of many editors not necessarily supportive but always civil and respectful of each other, and the extent of the discussion on this topic, that such statements indicates the discussions weren't read, which is fine, but be careful what you say if you don't know what is going on , and also calls into question my integrity as an editor which I do not like, and cannot bypass with out comment. I won't discuss this. Just a point for clarification so that I can continue to work on this page with out further such attacks.(olive (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

"This makes me suspect that you and Martinphi have a vested interest in "shifting" the "paradigm" of civility..."

"The new section has language buried within it about being disrespectful to a "group" of editors. I have noted that a certain group of editors feel disrespected when they are asked to back up their fantastic claims with reliable sources. This group apparently includes you and Martinphi, and is united by the goal of making Wikipedia articles say that the paranormal is real."

I apologize deeply for the suggestion -- which it seems was incorrect -- that you were writing the "holistic paradigm" on behalf of paranormalist editors. I made an assumption because I looked at the larger context of this issue, but the context is larger and more confusing than I suspected.

The comments I read about civility and paranormalism actually all came from Martinphi when he was agreeing with you, so I unintentionally transferred Martinphi's goals to you. The sentences I objected to were also not written by you, but added later by Martinphi.

However, I think it is quite clear that this vague section is being written and rewritten to benefit particular users' interests, including paranormalists (why else would we be talking about the Electronic Voice Phenomenon on a page about civility?). We should not change the civility policy vaguely; if we change it, each change should have a clear meaning and be supported by consensus. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My intent was not to place onus on another editor(Martin) in any way, but to clarify what I know something about, and thats my own involvement, but I thank you very much for the apology.(olive (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I frankly don't care about civility as defined currently in WP very much- you can cuss at me if you want. Nor do I think anything we do here will benifit my area of editing much, if any. But I do edit in a very nasty area of the wiki, which has given me extensive experience with how civility is used and abused. I may not be a real expert on it, but I've seen and experienced incivility in all its permutations. That's why I'm saying that it is a matter of atmosphere, and that groups should not be indirectly insulted- I've seen CIV in action a lot. So I agree with olive's emphasis on holism. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up on holistic

My previous reference to paranormal is because it is illogical to consider changes in the civility article without considering the whole body of work within Wikipedia. One of the problems I had/have as a new editor is that there are it seems hundreds of articles representing fragments of the policy of how one editor should interact with another. These cannot be taken each one in isolation if there is to be a cohesive policy, yet that is what is occurring.

Flash points in Wikipedia must also be considered. Kww, your dolphin example is a good one, although it lost its luster for me when you extended it to EVP. You indicate one editor that will not let go of a notion, and then extend it to a subject that has had many editors and many months of conflict. Are you really saying that you do not believe in EVP and could not resist comparing it to your dolphin example to discount both with a straw man ploy? How have we arrived at a culture in which it is okay to only have articles about what certain editors believe in?

The paranormal subjects are an example of a "poisoned well" environment within Wikipedia. If you try to fix civility, you cannot do so without addressing why incivility occurs. In a "poisoned well" environment, incivility is clearly often used as a tool to take control of an article. Incivility is not one of those namby-pamby words that just gets in the way of "real editors" writing good articles that reflect their worldview. It is symptomatic of ideological differences and editing rules that are not able to facilitate such useful tools as compromise, consensus and balance. That is why a holistic approach should at least be attempted. It isn't getting done with the existing approach. Tom Butler (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem becomes how to deal with editors who insist that "dolphins cause tides" or other nonsense and just won't let go. In an ideal world we'd never lose our cool even on the 173rd invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. But the real world (much less Wikipedia) isn't ideal. And people with an agenda to push have learned how to turn such a natural human reaction to their advantage. It's a travesty that we block people for saying naughty words others are free to drive their fellow editors nuts by pushing the Dolphin Theory over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again at zero risk to themselves. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, it seems to me that you're doing an awful lot of work towards creating a reality that you vociferously oppose. You maintain that "we block people for saying naughty words [while] others are free to drive their fellow editors nuts..." However, our reactions to spurious claims of incivility are precisely what we make of them. The next time it happens, we have the opportunity to read the situation superficially, or with fuller judgment. You seem to presuppose that we'll do the former rather than the latter, and you state our propensity to do so as if it's a fait accompli, a done deal. Why are you so willing to say that we've already lost, when winning is standing in front of us? Am I reading your position somehow incorrectly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has their breaking point. Geogre explains it best. We have seen ArbCom take into account the nature of provocations when measuring sanctions. This policy needs to be clear that incessant, polite provocation is not civil and may be stopped technically through blocks. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I beliebve that at this point two separate discussions are occurring . One has to so with the context or holistic paradigm that underpins Wikipedia in terms of its collaborative functioning - a big topic and yet simple:

Outside of the encyclopedia figuratively speaking -

• The editors see themselves as outside of the encyclopeida and looking in to create its content and solve its problems, which allows them to feel separate from the other editors and the content or

Inside the encyclopedia as the seeds, or the core, from which the encyclopedia flows

• The editors see themselves as the creators of the content, the problems, the solutions and the heart or centre of the encyclopedia, only able to fix the encyclopedia if they can fix themselves.... "We have met the enemy and he is us"....

We are second, dealing with questions of civility what it is, or is not, from a more point value - an exploration of what causes incivility, and questions as to how to fix it. Solutions tend to be point value as well, and expressed as desire for changes in individual policy or guidelines. I would think that both the holistic and point value discussions are necessary.

The holistic view contains the point value, the guidelines and policies . The points must take in consideration, must contain, the holistic view.

Until we decide on the holistic context for the policies on Wikipedia, the individual policies will always be and feel segmented, floating individually in a way, because they are not anchored in an overarching understanding of what is going on here.

My suggestion is to first deal with both an introduction that provides context for Wikipedia's most basic, collaborative policy, and then to fill in the points as needed to elaborate on that policy. Of course these discussions can both go on at the same time. We just have to keep them very separate.

I would suggest for all of us that on this page especially, we all assume good faith, and practice the civility principles we are trying to understand, write, collaborate on. Not meaning to be patronizing in any way, just want to make some progress.(olive (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Disambiguation page

Is there a disambiguation for interacting with editors? Part of my interest in a holistic treatment of the civility article is due to how many other articles there are that touch on the same theme. Perhaps it would be useful to have a disambiguation page with a likely search title such as "Editing etiquette " and direct civility to that page while changing 'Civility" to "Civil editing" ... or something. All of the other articles, such as straw man and assume good faith could be pointed to with a synopsis for each. If that were done, then I believe the disambiguation page would eventually show the need for changes in all of the related pages so as to present a unified view. Tom Butler (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Something like a related links section, but towards the top of this page? Antelan^talk 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Etiquette. Although the "holistic" section was not ready for prime time, I still think it's worth giving a brief overview of what it means to be civil (instead of focusing exclusively on what actions are "uncivil"), and it would be sensible to link to WP:ETIQ from that.--Father Goose (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Something like a related links section, but towards the top of this page?" is a good idea if it can have something of a one line description. For instance:

Wikipedia:Etiquette:summary of good manners for editors and reminder of Wikipedia objectives.

I think that, if all of the related articles were spread out on a table, patterns would emerge that show duplication in part and a general consensus overall. For instance, the Straw man article addresses discrediting by inference or association that is often accomplished in very polite and indirect ways. For instance being sure to use words with religious references when trying to discredit the science aspect of a subject. We are talking about a similar issue with polite provocation.

There is also the problem of article stability. What I learned as social norms of civility are a little different than here. For instance, we try to have a zero tolerance for incivility in the AA-EVP discussion board. So I learn the nuances of this civility article, but if it is changed in the future to be more lenient about how assertive an editor can be, how will I know? Should I have watches on all of the related articles?

By the way, I am impressed that you see the possibility to change such a central policy article. I had not thought it possible. Tom Butler (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polite provocation

Let's deal with that directly. Polite provocation- you have an example above with me an Antelan. I suspect that this is something which an admin would not be able to see clearly. They could come out on either side, Antelan provoking me, or me provoking Antelan. This would be based on various things, but never the whole or true picture. I'd think we might as well give up on this standard, because we are too far down the sliding scale of civility nebulousness there. Any admin who trusts their judgment enough to block in a lot of such cases is probably the very admin who you don't want doing the block, as bias is almost assured. So, let's either give up on this, or see how it could be applied fairly. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the specific case above, I should have known better than to use "confusion" as an edit summary, and I should have stopped responding. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have revealed an excellent way to describe the problem! Polite provocation. Just so, that's the problem that concerns me. How can we clarify that the problem is the provocation, the intention of upsetting somebody to gain control over them. That is what we must discourage. Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially when part of civility is not assuming -too much- what the other guy thinks. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You can have a user who specifically tries to provoke others into incivility, while being polite. That is improper behavior, but not incivility. It is no different than being obstinate or non-collaborative in content issues. The way to handle that is by pursuing DR against him, not sinking to his level or using incivility against him, and not by losing one's calm. Being nice and firm will always work. Crum375 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I agree, but we're not talking about obvious cases here.... are we? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Being nice and firm will always work" smacks of the Golden Rule of do unto others ... or teach by example. I can name at least one editor who is immune to civil treatment. I am more of a "Speak softly but carry a big stick" sort of guy ... only the stick needs to be in the hand of a checks and balance system of decision making. I like your urge for civility, though. But there really needs to be a real perception of risk for all of us. Tom Butler (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that responding to provocation with civility is best. That is the essence of don't feed the trolls. Perhaps this policy should note that editors should resist the urge to lash out in response to provocation because incivility feeds the trolls and breeds more incivility. However, if an editor makes this mistake, as many do, our response should be to support and inform them of better responses to de-escalate the conflict. Attention should be directed toward the source of provocation, because that is the root of the problem. Polite provocation may not be incivil, but may be disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, you said "You can have a user who specifically tries to provoke others into incivility, while being polite." I don't agree with your understanding of politeness, which I see as running against the spirit of the language here. You can use polite language, but this alone doesn't ensure that you are being polite. Goading others into impoliteness is, on its face, impolite. Antelan^talk 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of levels. You're both right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no "right" and "wrong" here. There is "policy" and "not policy." Since we're trying to write a policy, it's important to work with a concerted understanding. In other words, I think that the notion that goading may be civil is not useful for the community. Antelan^talk 02:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think writing policy on areas like polite provocation, goading, and baiting could be a mistake. This kind of policy is not concrete in terms of what the policy actually means, and highly subjective in terms of judgment. The potential for abuse is great, because these terms are so subjective in their interpretation. I've seen people consider completely innocent remarks as bait, and consistent, tenacious, editing as provocative just because the so called provoker had the stamina to keep working on something when others quit. If you put a hook and bait in the water and the fish doesn't bite, you go somewhere else to find a fish that will take your bait. If baiting is going on, don't bite, and the baiter will have to go somewhere else for their fun. Yes, it takes control but probably most editors are adult. We can't regulate everything. The more we regulate the less responsibility editors have for their behaviour.(olive (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

It's just as important, and probably moreso, than "polite language", which some people misconstrue as the end-all of civility. Antelan^talk 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, incivility has come from content disputes. The rules indicate what is intended by Wikipedia founders, but they are sufficiently ambiguous that groups can bias results and make that bias stick by overpowering minority groups. The abuse of policy is seldom blatant, but the result is cumulative. The interaction between groups of differing viewpoints becomes strained over time and the results of that are also cumulative--as MartinPhi has pointed out.

My recent encounters with a group with a different viewpoint concerning civility began with what appeared to be an expression of frustration by a "mainstream proponent" by resorting to an attack of the mentality of "believers." This seemed to follow the motto of, "If all else fails, attack the person." What was amazing to me was that so many editors agreed with the sentiment, and I have seen a growing trend to quickly remove blocks on this person accompanied by accusations against the complainant, making it less likely that editors will report the offending editor for incivility again. This is the desensitization of what violates the civil rule that I talked about earlier. At least for that interest group, it is now okay to call people who believe in something they do not, morons, wackos and such.

I agree that there needs to be a line drawn. I also think that it is time to experiment, rather than simply surrender to how impossible it is to manage. For instance, any clear attack on a person or group of people should be easily reported and easily responded to with prescribed penalties that cannot be commuted. As has been said here a number of times, there is no excuse for incivility. Provoked should be punished in the same way as unprovoked insults.

Taking a longer view, there needs to be a way to solicit help in a protracted content dispute before it becomes a heated situation. In the example of a person insisting that a person is to be described as a research physicist, a person with a reputation of being a parliamentarian and/or judge could probably have mediated the situation by giving a opinion of the rules. There are rules for all of these things--when a person can figure out how to find them. It might be worth a try to see if we can have a referee to decide whether or not the rules are being applied as intended. Tom Butler (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Such things are again, a symptom of frustration. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there are people that want to insert superstition and nonsense into it. Many of us think that this should be a trivial issue: once an editor is shown to treat subjects like Homeopathy or Electronic voice phenomena as factual, and that that he inserts treatment into Wikipedia articles, the appropriate response is a block, quickly upgraded to a lifetime ban for repeated offenses. Instead, we are forced to treat these people as having a legitimate point of view, and deal with the knowledge that they will unceasingly attempt to degrade and destroy Wikipedia. Dealing with it every day becomes tiresome, and does lead to short tempers. Again, incivility is, in general, a symptom of an underlying problem. Attempting to make sure that editors are civil is important, and blocks are appropriate. But don't you think the incivility would have been avoided if the editor could have fixed the underlying problem?

The particular case you are talking about had another aspect of our civility policy that is troubling. If a charlatan or an idiot writes a book or runs a website, it's perfectly legitimate to object to using that book or website as a source. It's even legitimate to state that the reason you object to the book is because the author is a charlatan. If that charlatan creates an Wikipedia account, does he suddenly become immune to criticism?Kww (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, you are wrong on several levels. First, civility should be always maintained by everyone, and there is no excuse ever for violating it. Second, if you are frustrated over a content dispute, the proper way to handle it is to stay nice and firm, not to lose your cool. If you do the latter, you'll get nowhere; if you maintain your cool, you'll either be able to compromise on the content, or need to pursue DR. There are no magic shortcuts. Calling people "idiots" makes one suspect your own objectivity and professionalism. Wikipedia is not about absolute facts, or truths — it is about finding and presenting the best possible sources relating to the subject, and presenting them neutrally. That someone believes in ghosts, or angels, or paranormal phenomena, or miracles, or supernatural powers, or religion, does not make them unwelcome here. All of us together need to collaborate to find the best sources and present them properly. Period. Crum375 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Crum375, I did not lose my cool over this issue, while I do find it frustrating. Second, you should note that I did not call for banning users that believe in homeopathy/EVP ...I called for eventually banning users who repeatedly treat homeopathy or EVP as factual inside of Wikipedia articles. A significant difference. And third, you should note that the NPOV on things considered absurd by mainstream science (such as homeopathy), is that they are false. If someone cannot deal with that, and persists on editing the articles to present them in a favorable light, that's a problem.

And fourth, how many times are you going to skip over sentences like attempting to make sure that editors are civil is important, and blocks are appropriate without appearing to notice them? I'm simply saying that when you see two people in a fight, it's important to address both the fighting and the underlying source of the fight. In the cases that I see most often (which, despite what people think, is not SA every time), it's a tired and frustrated editor dealing with a problem that he cannot solve, because the only solution is banning his opponent. That's a procedure that takes from years to forever, when it should be a matter of weeks. I remember how hard it was to get rid of Sadi Carnot, and that was a clear cut case of fraud. When it comes to people that simply persist on misinterpreting sources and ignoring reality, it's much, much, much harder.Kww (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, I agree with much of what you say, though not all. Yes, per NPOV we can't include extreme minority or fringe views. Once that's established, and someone persists in pushing such views, it becomes disruptive and is blockable, in principle. I agree with you also that extreme views are often pushed by extremist editors, who tend to be more tendentious and obnoxious, and harder to rein in. The process of dealing with such editors and views is far from streamlined, and can unfortunately be long and painful to all. However, when there is a dispute, civility rules apply equally to all sides, regardless of their POV. The side that remains cool and collected, is more likely to prevail, and incivility will generally only prolong the effort to get articles into NPOV status. Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. There are clear tactical advantages to remaining civil, which I have tried to point out to fellow reality-based editors. A common problem is that people slide over the line from saying that something is a crazy idea, to saying that the editor proposing it is crazy. Yet I have friends and family members who believe in various forms of New Age twaddle and are otherwise intelligent people. I find it helps to remember that when editing fringe articles. In our supposedly scientific era most people -- even people that we like and respect -- simply don't look at the world in a rational, scientific way. It was Richard Feynman who wrote "But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO's, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I've concluded that it's not a scientific world."[10] Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww, you overstate the problem. Yes, there are a few editors who want to treat their pet subject as fact. But, for example, Tom has never wanted that. He's wanted it to be treated with dignity, but he has not wanted to violate our sourcing, notability, or NPOV rules. I think that you would find that merely treating these things with dignity, as you did on Bleep, would take care of most of the problem. Instead, we have editors wanting to call things balderdash, as you originally wanted to do on Bleep. That's the major problem- civility is a huge and broad category, and reaches even into NPOV. Because, how civil is it to treat a subject with derision? Kww is very capable of keeping cool, and of being NPOV. And when he did, the problem was resolved.

If you look at the sourcing policy, you'll find it very contextual, also. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As to Tom's call to experiment, I've thought that (outside) juries might be a good idea .... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in Tom's idea as well on outside juries.(olive (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

We already have a mediation process - but it doesn't work if one of the parties to the dispute refuses to abide by the mediation - which is exactly what happened in the article Tom was using as an example. The bottom line is, imho, admins need to be more willing to pull the trigger on disruptive and tendentious editing, even if it is in favor of a POV with which they agree.

I don't believe there is really such a thing as 'polite provocation' that should result in sanctions, and if such a thing does exist, I would like to see an example of it before we change our policy in response to this supposed problem. Dlabtot (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a POV with which they don't agree? Kww's statement above is strange, in that it acts as if we present subjects in a favorable or disfavorable light, and as if one could neutrally take a stand on whether something is right or not. That's SPOV, not NPOV, and the community seems sure there is a big difference. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said. I'm not sure what is unclear about it. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you know that the Pseudoscience resulted in a decision which essentially aligns SPOV and NPOV in the case of pseudoscience. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. There is no way to implement that principle without making a distinction between legitimate scientific disagreement and, by extension, illegitimate disagreement.

We take stands on whether something is right all the time. The Sun is a star, oxygen is an element, vials that don't contain a single molecule of a substance don't contain any of that substance, etc.Kww (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. the locus was mainstream science articles, not articles like Homeopathy and EVP. What you are citing is about inclusion of alternative theories in scientific articles. What it actually says is "We don't talk much about Creationism in the Evolution article, or Homeopathy in mainstream medicine articles." It doesn't say "we present fringe ideas from a mainstream POV because they make claims about the world and that means they are science." Note that they were fully aware of the possibility of an overly broad interpretation:

" Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kww's insults

Kww's post is an excellent example of my point that some editors are determined that, if they do not accept something as real, then that something must be "superstition and nonsense." This automatically makes any effort a ""proponent" editor makes to have a fair treatment of the article "...unceasingly attempt to degrade and destroy Wikipedia." Thus "...the appropriate response is a block, quickly upgraded to a lifetime ban for repeated offenses." Strangely, ScienceApologist used the very same approach when he first indirectly and then directly insulted me and everyone in the world who is trying to study these things. Also, this does not just happen in the paranormal articles.

Kww, you have to know that you just called me a "charlatan or an idiot." That is not only a slander but it is also libelous. I will remind you that this is a public record. I don't care if you apologize or strike the words because such false contrition is also a technique used to insult and get away with it.

Charlatan: A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud. See Synonyms at impostor. (American Heritage Dictionary)

To spare the others, please go to my talk page and prove your points. Prove that EVP is "superstition and nonsense." Prove that I am making false claims on [11]. If you cannot, then I recommend that you find a way to moderate your attachment to the dogma of mainstream science and to speak of things you do not believe in as things that you do not know about. Otherwise, you are just talking like a religious zealot, only your religion is science. Tom Butler (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed to call someone a "religious zealot" for preferring verifiable facts, and they're not allowed to call you a "charlatan" for preferring unverifiable ones? Come on now. This is why I say that civility cannot take sides. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If I had continued calling people "pseudoskeptics," which is a verifiable fact, I'd probably be banned now. They're pseudoskeptics because of very specific ways of thinking which can be verified by specific quotes. That is to say, there are unscientific skeptics on Wikipedia. They howled ahd howled that the word "pseudoskeptic" was not to be allowed, and in the same post they would call us kooks and nutcases etc. These aren't reality based editors at all, but editors who are invested in mainstream science and willing to betray science itself to promote this view. And this is so even if, as is usually the case, they -and mainstream science- are right.

Tom is right in what he says, but at the same time is doing the same thing the skeptics are, that is, casting aspersions in a way which won't get him blocked. By focusing on the content, he didn't directly call Kww a religious zealot. What we need to focus on here is poisoning of the environment. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. "If I had continued calling people "pseudoskeptics," which is a verifiable fact, I'd probably be banned now. Martinphi, you ought to know that applying labels to people, however "verifiable" (wtf?), is foolish, because it's off-topic. It's like using Wikipedia for something other than writing an encyclopedia. Talking about content simply doesn't involve labeling people. Let's keep our eyes on the prize, you know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough

Might I point out that this is way, way off topic? It's pretty clear that the paranormal dispute bleeding onto this talk page is not going to result in a change to the policy (and if it does, it should be reverted because there will never be a consensus to edit the policy to take sides on the paranormal issue). Take this to Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon or wherever it needs to be discussed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to step out of this conversation, as I expect Kww/SA had hoped. "Zealot" is a not a kind tag, but it is the one that offered itself up when I went looking for the right word to describe a person who is willing to go so far to defend a viewpoint.

I doubt that you can change this article without considering content disputes. The above is off-subject only if you do not see it as an example of how the article needs to change. I assume you will understand if I take my concerns off-wiki. Tom Butler (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There actually is an on-topic point here, and I will use myself as an example so that no one can accuse me of being incivil towards anyone but myself. One thing that Tom and I have in common is that we are real people with real names... not Windwhisperer7347 or FootballLovingDwarf. If you want to call either of us on the phone, it doesn't take more than a few minutes of research to do that (I know that from experience, in my case). Assume that someone took objection to my practices as a Caribbean real-estate developer and decided that things I had written were unsuitable because my business prevented me from being objective about the topic (maybe "global warming" because I have a vested interested in development, or "coral reef preservation" because I have a vested interest in increasing the population of tropical islands). How far can that person go in lobbying against Kevin Wayne Williams before User:Kww can raise a civility complaint? If he calls Kevin a "reef-smashing land baron", can User:Kww take offense at all?Kww (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone made such a comment, we would probably ask them not to do it again. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

First, paranormal civility disputes are totally on topic here, because they are one of the places where civility breaks down worst. What do you want, to discuss civility issues which arise over pokemon? Kww, would you take offense if you edited an article -whichever-, and a person who knew who you were and what you did continually talked about those evil nutcase realestate developers in the Caribbean? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be offended, but not have any particular right to do anything about it. If the article was unrelated to any objections he might have about me, I tend towards thinking that the edits would be clearly intended to inflame my anger, so I would aim towards calling it incivility. In the case where people were quoting my purely hypothetical thesis on the advantages of smashing coral reefs to make paving stones, I'm not sure my taking offense would either be the point or particularly relevant.Kww (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether you took offense or not, really wouldn't matter, the point is, an incessant repetition of such attacks would not be conducive to a collaborative working environment - as much for third parties as for the intended target of the attacks. Dlabtot (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation, See also

[12] There were a lot of words here. (Merged these two sections; the mediation advice is over-long--) There are 14 items in the See also section. Are all of them necessary? --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another version: context paragraph for civility article

Well, here's another try at a paragraph that gives the civility article context. I am being somewhat tenacious on this, because I feel that it is critical for editors who come to the civility page to understand the shift from viewing Wikipedia from outside itself, and themselves as separate from other the editors, to the point where editors actually see themselves as the truly responsible creators of the encyclopedia, and its environment. Right now the article is for the most part, lists. For most people, if they can understand something in a larger context they are more likely to want to go along with the dos and don'ts aspects . Anyway take a look and see what you all think.(olive (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia can be described as a collaborative community of editors

whose paramount purpose is to write an encyclopedia. Editors should

see themselves as intrinsic rather than extrinsic to the encyclopedia and it’s functioning. As such they collaborate on, and are responsible for not only the creation of contributions to the encyclopedia, for the problems that arise, for the solution to these problems, but also for environment which they as a group create. Civility is that which defines the optimum, working environment in which the encyclopedia is created, and in which each editor works. Damage to the collaborative environment of the encyclopedia even with incivility to a single editor, by extension creates a less than optimal, functioning, collaborative community. If behavior does not contribute to this unified, collaborative, working environment don't do it, whatever it is.

No. It's unclear and unnecessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. I think you may be trying to say something worthy here, but the language is so tortuous and muddled that I can't figure out what it is. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the simpler language version would be Wikipedia is a project where people work together. While working on the encyclopedia, we are also working to build a collaborative working environment. Being uncivil towards another editor damages that collaborative working environment. If the action you want to take damages the work environment, don't do it. Kww (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact, that is not completely what I'm saying. I'm talking about a paradigm shift, but its a complex idea , and attempting to place it here as a shortened version, in the present structure of the article may not work very well for lots of reasons.(olive (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

It's good and understandable (read it again if necessary). It does need to be put in simpler words. Kww's verion says most of it, but does not quite fully get at the definition of the civility as promoting, and incivility as detracting from, the community environment. But he's going in the right direction. The post above basically explains why we need to emphasize community, holism, a bit more. The concepts here have been there from the start, but apparently not applied fully to civility. As it is, people focus on specific words. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)