Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Civility restrictions

RfC: Discussion of Civility restrictions

WP:Civility is a policy that is intended to describe a standard for user conduct. The importance of this policy has been stressed before many times over, as the goals of the project (anonymous editing, limited bureaucracy, among others) create a situation where interpersonal communication exists between peers with only a text to indicate tone, sarcasm and meaning. However, the importance of this policy does not immediately proscribe a course of action for behavior that exists at the margin. This policy (like most policies in any environment) is poorly equipped to help the community deal with editors who are merely brusque, antagonistic or abrasive. In order to deal with long term disputes over and between otherwise extremely productive editors who seem to engage in chronic incivility, the community has developed a stop-gap: civility restrictions. These restrictions purport to lower the blocking threshold for editors who engage in uncivil communication. Specifically, the text reads "The user may be blocked if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" where the blocking policy stipulates that a block may be issued for "persistent" harassment, abuse, etc. Recent events (summarized below) have brought this practice into question. Two major questions present themselves:

1. To what extent can non-egregious civility violations be dealt with by the community?
2. Under what circumstances may the arbitration committee or the community as a whole impose civility restrictions on editors for past misconduct?

For the sake of this discussion, we will consider only these questions and their various sub-questions. Questions regarding what, precisely constitutes incivility (apart from those which relate to the first question) will be studiously avoided. Likewise a discussion of the aims of the civility policy belongs elsewhere.

Events leading to this RFC (why this RfC is important and necessary)

The recent request for arbitration concerning User:Georgewilliamherbert's block of User:Giano II sparked a discussion among committee members as to the limits and application of the civility policy. Various other issues have cropped up from time to time, mostly involving disputes over the conduct of long-serving editors. As the members of the committee note, the civility policy may not have "grown up" with Wikipedia.

This will hopefully be one in a series of RFC's where the community can clarify the aims, scope and implementation of the civility policy. Rather than ask broad questions I hope to raise very narrow questions and gauge consensus on each before moving on.

Issue A: Low-level civility issues

Issue: Wikipedia provides ample tools to assess contributions of new editors quickly and mete out blocks accordingly. An editor with 20 edits to her name who has used 15 of those edits to make personal attacks against users can be judged to be a net-negative to the community without much dispute. An editor with 20,000 edits provides another problem entirely. Legitimate methods to determine the severity of the disruption (comparison of the disruptive edits to the edits of the user as a whole in order to weigh the impact) largely produce subjective and unhelpful results. That subjectivity leads to serious good faith disputes between administrators over the desired response. Here we propose three options for the community on this subject. This list is neither exhaustive nor are the elements of it exclusive to each other.

Proposal A.1: Low level incivility should only rarely invite action

Proposal: Long term editors will inevitably develop disagreements and rivalries; the policy should reflect this inevitability. Persistent low level incivility should be judged against the contribution history of the editor in question.


Rationale: The civility restrictions that work for a community of 1,000 do not work for a community of 100,000. What is described as "low level incivility" may be judged subjectively and sanctions may be applied (as we have seen) based more on personal or ideological disagreements rather than underlying behavior. This proposal would show that the community demands clear evidence of egregious incivility prior to the issue of a block. Basically, violations of WP:CIVIL would be judged broadly against the contributions made by the offending editor.

Support A.1

1. Support. Long term editors are a net benefit to the wiki so we can afford to overlook some of their more minor idiosyncracies that probably would not be tolerated from non-productive editors. Think of a worker who's an "asshole" but always get the job done profitably. Halli B (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.1

1. Oppose As too permissive for an online community that communicates only via text. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose There is no excuse for incivility, and every editor should be treated the same for violations regardless of their other contributions. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose My personal online experience leads me to believe that strong and early messages about incivil behavior will have a preventative effect in lessening gross incivility. Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Low level incivility is worse than extreme incivility in its effect, and judging how to treat a person in one respect based on how they act in another is conflating disparate issues which should remain separate. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose, the threshold of what we tolerate should be raised, not lowered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Question: By raising the threshold do you mean allowing more minor incivilities, or do you mean raising standards and improving civility? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose the threshold of what we tolerate should be raised, not lowered...especially if you are an admin---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose Nipping the problem in the bud is important. Randomran (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose It is (mostly) true that long-term editors will develop disagreements, but I would also expect such editors to know how to respond in a civil manner. To forgive incivility because the user is established creates the image of a false hierarchy that I absolutely do not want to further. Also agree with Sandy and Randomran. Pagrashtak 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose, per Sandy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Numbers don't matter; it's perfectly acceptable to disagree, but it's important that we remain civil while doing so; otherwise, there's really no point in discussing things at all; I won't participate in a discussion once civility has broken down. I agree with Sandy in that the threshold of what we tolerate should be raised, not lowered. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Civility is the “grease” that makes Wikipedia work and work well. The more established an editor, the more they should appreciate this and practice it. An occasional incivility should be weighed against an editor’s contribution history as we all have “off days”, but it should not be excused when it becomes a pattern of “persistent low level incivility”. When an established editor – who knows better – can get away with patterns of misbehavior that editors with little or no experience cannot, it communicates the existence of a double standard. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose. "Low level" is too subjective. No need for threshold here. NVO (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Often, a good action to take in response to low level incivility is to gently (extremely gently and diplomatically) suggest to the person that they could have worded it better. I believe this helps encourage everybody to stay civil. Ignoring it simply gives people a signal that they can get away with it, and it may continue and get worse. Also per Protonk, Jim Miller, Pagrashtak and Askari Mark. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Double standards are detrimental to community cohesion. As Askari Mark said, established editors know better. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Per Jclemens (talk · contribs) and PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose Collaboration and cooperation are the reason the encyclopaedia works. We should all be held to the same standard, regardless of one's contributions. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose old timers should not be allowed to get away with incivility. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-05t16:58z
18. Oppose I think we've actually improved in this area recently, but there are still some regularly-uncivil editors who are kept around because they're Wikipedia "fixtures" and the community is too afraid of Drama! to ban them. It's time to crack down on users who know how to be just good enough to avoid the banhammer but still make Wikipedia a more unpleasant place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose Standards need to be raised, not lowered. This ins't academia where the PhD with the best papers has free reign to be a dick.--Tznkai (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose At the risk of pile-on. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose Letting the old members be pricks just drives away new members. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose. Very bad idea. In all sincerity, I think completely deleting WP:CIVIL would cause less harm than enforcing it selectively. Incivility is bad-- but if there's anything worse than universal incivility, it is partial incivility combined with double-standards. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Jennavecia is right that this is the current status quo, but selective enforcement never leads to good policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Civility should be judged based on what's said, not on who said it. If a statement is so bad that we would block a new editor for saying it, then there should also be consequences for an established editor who says the same thing. --Elonka 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose. There are certain topics where organized partisan editors bait those who disagree with them and it's hard not to have minor attacks of low level incivility. Plus it becomes very subjective at that point whether or not someone is being curt/shortwinded/ironic/justly critical or incivil. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Editors who were unable to learn those important kindergarten lessons about playing nice are unlikely to be able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose. Great points re:our workspace. The fact that egregious incivility is ok for those with mops in their hands weakens the social fabric. Leaders should lead. If they don't understand their position as barometers of acceptable behavior, they should step aside.--Buster7 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on A.1

1. Comment - That's pretty much the community standard now, in many cases. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal A.2: Low level incivility is a serious problem

Proposal: Low level incivility by long term editors drives productive contributors from the project and should be dealt with in proportion to its effect, rather than judged against the contributor's edit history.


Rationale: Patterns of incivility should be judged as patterns of behavior, not as aberrations against a broad record of mainspace contributions. We cannot judge how many editors are or aren't pushed away by incivility from regulars, but those lost contributions are as important as the potential lost contributions of the offending editor. It is also possible to be unacceptably offensive and antagonistic without engaging in blatant harassment or disruption.

Support A.2

1. Support Weakly. We need to further define what we mean by "low level" incivility, but that can be done later. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as double standards are detrimental to the project. Every comment, edit summary, or message should be judged on its own with little regard to context (user page incivility should only be dealt with upon the complaint of the user, as we all have different standards of civil discourse with people we know and/or strangers). Pick your favorite cliché - turn the other cheek, do unto others, be the better person, don't sink to their level - they all apply. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support; "classes" of editor with different sets of rules and restrictions will kill Wikipedia. — Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support One right does not excuse another wrong, and I'm not sure I want a Wikipedia written only by jerks and those who can tolerate jerks. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. I do not believe that every edit or summary need be civil, as we are human. I even believe that incivility is not always an issue when it happens. But poisoning the atmosphere and making enemies by means other than the content of content disputes is a major issue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, uncivil behavior does more than chase away valued contributors. It discourages our most valued contributors from engaging fully with Wiki, as they find the behaviors tolerated at many levels repugnant, and choose to keep a low profile on Wiki, avoiding adminship and other vehicles for participating more fully on Wiki, discouraged by the double standards and lack of adherence to what are espoused as core policies of the Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support, an editor who contributes a great deal of content but drives off other content contributors may still be a net negative to the project. I am a bit concerned, though, on how this will be judged. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I hate the double standard and how we turn a blind eye to people because they are established editors.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support conditionally by saying that "a pattern of low level incivility". I think we may need to be more specific of what we mean by low level civility however, perhaps by offering a few examples. But I think the spirit of this proposal is pretty accurate. Randomran (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support The rationale sounds pretty spot on, but I have one minor problem with the proposal. It states, "Low level incivility...should be dealt with in proportion to its effect". If someone engages in a pattern of low-level incivility, but the target of that incivility simply ignores it and continues with whatever he is doing, I would say that the incivility had little effect, but should still be dealt with. "Intended effect" or "potential effect" are closer, but I'm sure there's a better wording that could be put there. I think the spirit of this is great, though, and fully support that. Pagrashtak 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    Clarification: When I say "ignore", I mean completely disregard. Coppertwig below is correct that incivility can result in internal anger in the recipient, and I would consider that to have had an effect. Pagrashtak 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support, although productive editors should be given warnings/attempts at mentoring/etc. The best outcome is remaking the incivil but productive editors into civil and productive editors.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. Our long-term users should know better; however, I disagree with the aspect of this proposal that states that "incivility [...] should be dealt with in proportion to its effect." Incivility is incivility, and should result in the same sanctions whether it is at an ArbCom case or on the talkpage about some village in Kentucky. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Weak Support per Pagrashtak and Celarnor. Incivility is incivility. However, as Randomran observes, it’s "a pattern of low level incivility", and it needs to be made more clear what “low-level” incivility or anything developed here will be unenforceable. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Weakly. Deacon's point concerns me. I disagree with Pagrashtak on what should be dealt with if it has little effect (but agree in spirit, as (s)he does). Giggy (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Support but I disagree with Jim Miller and Pagrashtak. It's a mistake to ignore incivility until the victim complains. WP:NPA advises ignoring attacks against oneself in many cases. If a user appears unaffected by incivility against them, they may actually be burning up inside and about to leave the project. I suggest speaking up (gently) in response to incivility against others. If you're unsure whether the person would be offended, you can simply express that uncertainty, as I did here and here. A recent Arbcom decision included a link to DefendEachOther. Continual low-level incivility ignored by the community drives good editors from the project; I know of at least one example. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. Incivility manifestly does drive away contributors. Given that, incivility should be evaluated for it's effects—this follows from the proposition that we're here to build an encyclopedia. If incivility is destructive to the encyclopedia, then placating established users is no redeeming factor. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. As per my oppose to A1, double standards are detrimental. Additionally, incivility should be judged only on the context of the behaviour, and not the person exhibiting the behaviour. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Support. Primarily per JimMillerJr (talk · contribs), Coren (talk · contribs), Jclemens (talk · contribs), and Balloonman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Everything that various people have said about double standards is all well and good, but the fact is discussions to discovery consensus completely fail without a spirit of cooperation and camaraderie between editors, and thats just for minute content disputes. The problem magnifies itself when you get into wikidrama and administration related incidents, until we see the mess that is Arbitration. Low level incivility is the most corrosive, because we give it tacit approval to continue.--Tznkai (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I have personally been on the back-end of this behavior, and I have pulled away from Wikipedia from time to time becaue of it. Editors can disagree about many things, but they can always agree to be civil to each other about their disagreements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Letting the old members be pricks just drives away new members. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Support; I agree with the reasoning posted above. You're right that this should be for "patterns" of incivility as the proposal states, so people should be given a warning or two before serious action is taken. A collaborative, volunteer project such as this cannot function without some maturity. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Concur with others. Incivility, even low level, is damaging to the project. Deletions can be restored, Vandalism can be rolled back-- but personal attacks and incivility, even if forgiven, are not easily forgotten. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
24. Support Incivility is a problem, at any level. However, that doesn't mean that we should just outright block editors for low level incivility, as such, at least not for that alone, unless continued unreasonably and after plenty of opportunity to understand the situation. That it is tricky to define and distinguish from, say, necessary criticism, doesn't mean we shouldn't attend to it, it does damage the project. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Support. Editors with a long history should be held to the same standards as newbies, if not higher standards -- they know better. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. Incivility is bad, even from longterm good contributors, because it creates a hostile working environment, and may discourage other good contributors from participating. --Elonka 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Allowing 'low-level incivility' simply encourages editors to feign ignorance about what is or is not civil behavior. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose A.2

1. Oppose No evidence to back up the assertion (as the rationale implicitly admits), and, frankly, I doubt it's true. The causes of all incivility should be dealt with, of course, in the manner most appropriate to improving wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I'd like there to be more thought put into that than energy potentially (and usually) wasted on baseless presciptions. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I agree with Deacon, and we're talking about low level incivility. To me, this is expletives, not personal attacks so harsh they send someone packing their toys and going home. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: I consider expletives to be stronger than "low level" incivility; and editors do indeed leave the project as a result of repeated low level incivility. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

   I consider, then, that you are overly sensitive for such a diverse community as this. There's a difference between the use of expletives and personal attacks. If an editor packs up and leaves because they are offended by language, then there is a definite need to grow a thicker skin. No one has the right to be unoffended. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

   This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." Cool Hand Luke 04:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Without a clear definition of "low level incivility" it's just another meaningless word salad. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I agree that some editors are out there using their experience to run off newbies. Partially it's impatience with having to teach people same lessons over and over again, especially if they won't read or understand policy. However, it can be very subjective whether or not someone is being curt/shortwinded/ironic/justly critical or actually incivil for those reasons. Also, as mentioned there are editors who over time have lost patience with other experienced editors they run into constantly on contentioius pages so after a while irritation builds, but never really becomes out and out incivility. Then there is the problem of people properly following policy to complain about a behavior on another editor's talk page and then having the editor react by deleting the comment complaining about "personal attack," claiming personal attack elsewhere, etc, something that happens frequently. This should be carefully looked at as to who is really being uncivil. Finally and worse, considering that nationalists outside wikipedia have urged their partisans to join wikipedia and become admins, while hiding their true motivation, this could be misapplied to editors they want to stop editing. Partisan editors are good at baiting editors who oppose them and not everyone wants to run straight to arbitration enforcement when it happens, though may be that is the best thing to do. So over all, it might be very difficult to come up with any precise language to deal with these kinds of variables. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on A.2

1. Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Proposal A.3: Judgements on low level incivility are solely a case by case manner

Proposal: It is not possible to offer broad guidance with regard to low level incivility by long term editors. Editors and administrators should judge each pattern of behavior against the editor's overall contribution to the encyclopedia but also consider the impact the behavior itself has.


Rationale: One of the reasons we may not be able to craft a policy that adequately deals with low level conduct issues is that very few organizations can. We discuss the issue of dealing with borderline or "difficult" contributors like it is unique to Wikipedia, but it is common to any management system. The easiest people to deal with are the blatantly disruptive or the good workers. The people in the middle require contact, help and direction because they are people; their motivations and actions are diverse and myriad. Our responses should be the same.

Support A.3

1. Support Admit the inevitable: each user is human and so are his judges. NVO (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose A.3

1. Oppose for the same reasons I opposed A.1 Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose In the cases of borderline incivility, patterns of action should be more actionable than single excursions. Jclemens (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Prefer A.2 and per oppose A.1 ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Editors should be treated equally. The current method of sanctioning some editors while letting others with more egregious violations slide by is contributing to a poisonous atmosphere. Karanacs (talk)
5. Oppose. Karanacs has it about right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose I don't think a person's good contributions should give them a free pass to be incivil. We should get rid of incivility no matter who engages in it -- acknowledging that new users and veterans will require a different style of resolution. Randomran (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose as in A.1. Pagrashtak 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Case-by-case basis means someone has leeway in determining punishment, and there's simply too much room for corruption in something like that, especially since we already do that in most types of things. It is an endemic problem already; we need to reduce the things we decide on a case-by-case basis, not increase them. Incivility is incivility; there shouldn't be any room for screwing around trying to increase punishment for some people an admin doesn't like and screwing around trying to decrease punishment for those they do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
   • Administrators are not, and never have been, in the business of punishing people. Please read our Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Karanacs does not have it right. The thing that most leads to a poisonous atmosphere is the idea that administrators are here to "punish" "ordinary users". Knowing where it leads to, we've consistently fought against that notion for years. Administrators are ordinary users, just with a few more tools at their disposal, and the use of those tools is not punitive. Please read Wikipedia:Administrators, too. Uncle G (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
     • Yeah, right. And Santa Claus lives at the North Pole. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
     • You make the fallacious assumption that there is some sort of cosmic force that forces a 1:1 correlation between policy and the reflection thereof by administrators, which simply isn't true. In an era of rogue administrators, POV pushing, and an abusive, unresponsive arbitration committee, we don't even have a process for removing abusers of their office from power. Giving them more room to flex the rules within the confines of a policy for their personal agenda is not something I'm willing to do. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose Could easily be interpreted to mean that some editors are to be allowed to get away with things that other editors are not. This would also tend to contribute to an overall worsening of civility levels. Also per Karanacs and Celarnor. Also agree with SandyGeorgia. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Per my oppose to A1. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Per Karanacs (talk · contribs). Spot on. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Karanacs (talk · contribs). -- Jeandré, 2008-10-05t17:01z
13. Oppose for the same reason I opposed A1. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose. The longer you've been here, the more you've been a part of the project, the more you have had an opportunity to understand that civility and personal attacks aren't okay. If anything, it's easier to forgive personal attacks and incivility from a novice, who doesn't understand Wikipedia isn't just messageboard. Established editors should know better. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. For variety of reasons above; plus some people just better at scratching others backs than others and they shouldn't have advantage of being the "good buddy" one doesn't want to harm. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose Administrators are expected and required to exercise judgement, but we should not enshrine in policy the idea that the playing field is not level. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on A.3

1. Neutral A good idea, but places us too much in the status quo. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. In a perfect world, there should never be an excuse for uncivil behavior. In the real world, we all suffer through personal crises and emergencies, and there are times when human compassion and dignity require us to be more tolerant. However, such excuses are overused on Wiki; this reasoning should be applied rarely, but we do need to allow for occasional lapses due to extreme real-life circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   Wikipedia is not therapy. In real life, if someone is under duress and can't maintain a civil composure and do their job, they get asked to take some time off. Apart from Wikipedia not being a job, I don't see how this is any different; if I'm under a lot of stress and can't deal with problems on-wiki without getting mad at people, then I have the sense take a break for a few days. I expect the same from other people who can't guarantee they'll be civil all the time. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral per SandyGeorgia. First, it is possible to offer broad guidance: We call it WP:Civility. While I can appreciate and support the desire to take a nuanced approach according to circumstances, as formulated this proposal guts any form of enforceability. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Comment The much abused and maligned WP:IAR is a global discretionary clause for all policies, all the time.--Tznkai (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)

Additional comments on issue A

Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals.

1. Comment: We are all human, but I think that those who have authority, such as administrators, should be held to a higher standard. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue B: Civility restrictions

Issue: One solution offered in the past on the issue of long term and low-level civility violations from otherwise helpful editors was "civility restrictions" or "civility parole" (although that is arguably a misnomer, it should be "civility probation"). These restrictions have, however, not proven to be as effective as originally intended. Some argue that they create a "second class" of editors. Some argue that they don't actually change behavior. three options are provided below for the community to determine the appropriate threshold at which a civility restriction may be imposed. The nature of civility restrictions is not discussed here.

Proposal B.1: Civility restrictions are an absolute last resort

Proposal: Civility restrictions may be imposed on an editor only where the editor would otherwise be banned for their conduct by the community or the ArbComm. As such, the civility restrictions may be considered a "last chance" for a problem user.


Rationale: This proposal would limit the application of civility restrictions to where they are most needed--cases where the only other option is the loss of a long time contributor. This might involve asking the editor in question to accept this as a bargain, it may not. This proposal basically accepts that civility restrictions have some negative impacts and as such should only be used where the positive impacts would outweigh those. Current civility restrictions would have to be comprehensively reviewed if this policy were enacted.

Support B.1

1. Support Protonk (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support particularly for editors who have shown they can create valuable content. They may deserve one last chance - but if they fail, they are out. I know editors who are incivil, disruptive but create valuable content: if they can be made to behave, this would be better than if they were outright banned. However - last chance is last chance, and civility parole should be enforced, not ignored (I've seen cases where uncivil editors under a civility parole repeatedly got off the hook, because reviewing admins judged their behavior to be uncommon, or only slightly incivil, ignoring the long pattern of harassment and similar excesses.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support As per Piotrus. This is a satisfactory last chance opportunity. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Given that incivility is less easily defined than vandalism, there must be a long standing pattern of confirmed incidents of incivility, as determined by the community or arbcom. Tealwisp (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.1

1. Oppose Editors who are incivil alienate other editors who don't want to deal with the personal attacks, and are thus just as damaging to Wikipedia as vandals and should be reprimanded or blocked in proportion to their misbehavior. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Since they often don't work in practice, and sometimes just cause an editor to modify their behavior to more subtle incivility which poisons the atmosphere just as much, they are less than useless. I'm mainly opposed because this wouldn't be a last chance, but a last long series of chances, with a good chance of just teaching the perp to be a better perp- much like prison. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose because the wording here is inadequate. With unequal or double standards applied by ArbCom on several of the concepts defined here, it's unclear if this wording is adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose They should be dealt with in proportion to their behavior, not coddled, given cookies and a puppy like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Strongly Oppose as it enshrines a “boys will be boys” (or “girls will be girls”) double standard. I thought we were discussing “low-level incivility”; if someone’s behavior merits banning, then the issue of what needs to be done is raised another whole level (at least). Askari Mark (Talk) 22:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Per comment by Jclemens (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Opppose I'm not sure I follow the wording. The need for the editor to be "banned" implies an extreme transgression and proportionate solutions should be sought. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose I read this as "instead of kicking someone out of Wikipedia, we send them to WikiAnger Management" -- I think there should be a few more steps in between, at least as an option. If I'm reading or interpreting it wrong, feel free to disregard my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Civility restrictions are imposed routinely, they're not a "last resort" prior to a ban. They're simply a way to enforce existing policy, and prevent disruption to the project. --Elonka 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Editors who were unable to learn those important kindergarten lessons about playing nice are unlikely to be able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on B.1

1. Neutral Somewhat meaningless: there is no way to tell whether someone would otherwise be banned. If the reality is that the civility restrictions are a possibility, realistically people will take that into account when discussing banning. Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B.2: Civility restrictions are rejected by the community

Proposal: The community rejects the notion of civility restrictions and voids past restrictions enacted by the community. The ArbComm is strongly urged to refuse to issue civility restrictions in the future and to review past civility restrictions.


Rationale: Civility restrictions do little to modify editor behavior and do nothing to resolve the underlying cause of the disruption. Actions of contributors can always be judged with regard to their previous record and as such, a community endorsed black mark is not needed. Other "last resort" methods should be used, such as topic bans, 0RR, or banning.

Support B.2

1. Support; they don't work. — Coren ^(talk) 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support They don't work. Have to do something else. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Such restrictions may force valuable editors from the project. No need to let subjectively abrasive behavior keep a valuable writer away from the wikipedia. Halli B (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
4. They don't work. Giggy (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose B.2

1. Oppose, too broad. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, because of some bad decisions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose, I haven't seen any data to indicate that civility restrictions, topic bans and the like aren't workable solutions to the problem, although I'd prefer that most of them be stronger. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Having seen it work (albeit at times imperfectly), I'd prefer to see some solid sort of evidence before I could support this; if true, we need to cease efforts to promote civility as a lost cause. As it stands, this proposal stands only on hearsay. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Have seen no evidence that they don't work. Have seen weak evidence that they do work. Common sense suggests that they would probably work at least somewhat. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose patently absurd. Needs work, not destruction. Cool Hand Luke 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Maybe change how, or to whom, they are implemented, but do not abolish. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. The idea of voiding out all past restrictions with regard to this is a bit much. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose There have been some problems; but this proposal is too broad of a paintbrush. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Sometimes civility restrictions are essential. --Elonka 17:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose as ridiculous. Dlabtot (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose The community of toxic editor victims might have a differing viewpoint. Civility is essential. The un-civil would have a field day!--Buster7 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on B.2

1. Comment I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I don't see civility restrictions as an inappropriate stop on the way to a ban, but other intermediate steps, as proposed, could also work reasonably well. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Comment I am afraid this can be interpreted as 'civility doesn't matter'. The wording needs to be improved.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B.3: Civility restrictions should remain unchanged

Proposal: The current civility restrictions have problems but are the best possible solution until something better arrives. The community accepts as legitimate current civility restrictions on editors.


Rationale: Much like A.3, we may not be able to find a perfect solution to this problem. Better is often the enemy of good enough and the civility restrictions imposed by the ArbComm and the community may just be good enough.

Support B.3

1. Support in principle. If they are imposed inequitably then that can and should be corrected. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Civility restrictions are a useful tool. --Elonka 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. The current policy has to make it clearer that people should complain about such incivility immediately to appropriate authority and they can obtain temporary blocks for it. For example, currently three editors have been incredibly incivil in one article and several of us refrained from complaining - til one of them got blocked by a more savvy editor on another article. Make it clear to complainants and editors that after a certain number of complains/blocks those editors have to have long term blocks by topic or all together. Encourage editors to complain. That's the real solution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose B.3

1. Oppose. They are useless till something better arrives. Also, they are handed out to editors as last chances when the ArbCom doesn't have the cojones to ban. However, civility warnings would be a good idea, if coupled with automatic very long blocks or bans imposed upon violation. Else, automatic banning if civility is seen to be a problem in any future ArbCom. Current restrictions are only copouts, and allow the community to avoid dealing with problem users. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Current civility restrictions are too difficult to pass and too easy to bypass. They need to be given more 'omph'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I had to think a while between opposing and being neutral, but in the end I feel this is simply a cop-out. While we can’t do much about Arbcom, I see little reason to yield to the attitude that we’ve exhausted all possible creative and practical solutions. Perhaps, just perhaps, we just haven’t had a sufficient number of creative minds focusing on it. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Martinphi (talk · contribs) has some good ideas and suggestions above. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on B.3

1. The current civility restrictions are not the best possible solution, because they are applied unevenly. Without consistent application of Wiki's core policies by ArbCom, I can't declare Support or Oppose on this wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Like the above said, his really depends on ArbCom; if they would do the job that we voted them to do and apply policy consistently rather than playing favorites with administrators and wasting their time writing new policy and declaring it as "enforcement provisions", then civility restrictions would most likely remain a viable solution; however, as long as the Committee is willing to legislate from the bench, ignore the community, and change standard restrictions based on their own non-consensus-based standards, then yes, it probably isn't going to work. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I don't understand what it's supposed to mean: sorry. It's like passing a motion saying "let's not do anything." Does it mean we would freeze everything and stop looking for other solutions? Would passing this motion have any effect? Would not passing this motion have the same effect as passing it? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   Basically, yes. I put this in here to nudge people into realizing that maybe we don't want better to be the enemy of good enough. If I have only proposals that suggest drastic change, people might be pushed into supporting change when maybe it isn't necessary. Or, even it if is necessary, the options above might not be the best answer. I just wanted this here to provide a clear outlet for that line of thinking. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Comment (Enter comments here and remember to sign your user name.)
5. Neutral This is essentially meaningless; Wikipedia operates by consensus, consensus can change. Dlabtot (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments on issue B

Please add any additional comments on this issue here that fall outside the above proposals.

As in my comments above, there are plenty of other options which might work. Just off the top of my head, impose a two week or 200 talk-page-edit mentorship, and after that if civility is seen to be a problem -even a minor problem- in the next 6 months, show the diffs to ArbCom. If ArbCom sees them as even slightly uncivil, escalating one-month, then six month, then indef blocks are issued automatically. A person under that kind of restriction will be expected to be more civil than a normal user, during the learning period. After a 6 month period wherein the editor edits at an average rate (for them), and with no civility complaints, the editor gets a clean slate, but only if civility is not a major issue in future ArbComs (if it is, the previous record becomes relevant to whatever ArbCom decides then). Common sense will be used, for instance the user should not have merely avoided articles of conflict for the period. The determination of whether the edits are uncivil must be made by ArbCom or someone or ones appointed by them, else bias of admins will be relevant.

One important point I want to emphasize is that the blocks are automatic and of specified duration. This will make it much less likely that the community will waste time on such matters.

However, such a tightening of policy should also be accompanied by protections on other matters, for example a tightening and formalizing of the (very loose) restriction on administrative actions based on content or actions by admins who may be biased on grounds of disagreement with an editor on content. Strict sanctions in WP need a consistent basis of both real and perceived fairness. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments! There is some discussion of the scope of this RFC on the talk page. My hope is to come away with some clear view after 15 days or so (or however long it takes to get lots of people to comment) along the lines of: The community feels strongly that X and Y need to change, and then start cranking out suggestions on how that change occurs. Maybe I'm being to mechanical. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Almost Every Single Day in my routine Wiki editing, I see examples of gross incivility from established users that is tolerated by the community, where a different standard would be applied to new users. Daily, I see blockable offenses from established editors that are either condoned, or no one bats an eyelash. This behavior demoralizes the community. It's appalling, discouraging, and disgusting, and reveals Wiki's core policies as hypocritical to ineffective. Until something is done at the admin and ArbCom level, it's difficult to opine on the wording presented in this RfC, because the core issue is that our civility policy is applied unevenly, depending on who you are and who you know and who you've gotten crossways with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to bring up this recent exchange on wp:AN as an example. I was appalled at the response SIS received for daring to take an admin to WP:AN. The user was told, [that admin] "is always like that. Jumping on people once in a while" or "This is totally normal stuff. [The admin in questions has] always been on that side of the argument " or "Oh jeez. Move along, nothing to see here" or 'Bye then. If you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.' You have to get about half way down the discussion until an admin defends the person bringing the complaint and agrees with her. I concluded my involvement with the AN with, "I wouldn't blame driving [the user] off from the project on [the admin in question]. While I think his behavior is overly aggressive and a little over the top, I don't blame [the admin]. Instead, I would blame this thread. A newbie came here seeking help with an admin that she felt was attacking her. Instead of getting support, or understanding, she was attacked by others. Personally, I find the response to her here, to be worse than anything [the admin in question] did elsewhere". I was ashamed to be an admin that day based on the way other admins chose to rally around their own than investigate the issue.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The sad irony is that Avruch called it “spot on” and elicited not a single note of comment by several editors – admins! – who often complain about RfA being so adversarial. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I put what SandyGeorgia said on my userpage [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

TOTALLY AGREE WITH SANDYGEORGIA. The low depths to which the standards of behavior here can fall is appalling. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We're pretty snippy with the newbies, and it needs to stop. Long term editors shouldn't get passes, and administrators certainly should not.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Sandy, but am far more guilty of (or afflicted with) a profound, almost fatalistic cynicism. My remarks here apply; see of course this. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia and Balloonman. I think the problem is that people are reluctant to speak out against incivility because their speaking out will tend to be interpreted as a threat of blocking – or as favouring one side of an ongoing dispute. The solution, as I see it, is to speak out against incivility but to do so extremely gently and diplomatically, as gently and diplomatically as possible, so as to reduce (though one can never eliminate) the chance that it will be interpreted as a threat of a block and incite a defensive, attacking reaction; also to watch carefully for those golden opportunities to speak out against incivility in cases where one is perceived as neutral or as on the same side of a dispute as the uncivil person. It's too easy to let these opportunities slip by because remarks which are not directed against oneself tend not to seem as bad at least until one examines them closely. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

Please add any additional comments that involve civility that fall outside the scope of the above two issues here.

Below I copied the discussion from Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC that very much relates to this page but after some mergers and redirects appears orphaned. --Irpen 22:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Cart before the horse?

It's all well and good to discuss whether or not civility restrictions are appropriate. They are, however, dependent upon the civility policy, which itself is poorly written to the point that no two individuals interpret it in the same way. It seems a little backward to decide whether or not this policy should be applied in certain circumstances when it is obvious that the wording of the policy itself is the cause of problems with civility restrictions. Risker (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Risker is quite correct - hence User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy. Really, I do think the official version needs to be drastically shortened along that line. Moreschi (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have read this before I responded on the main page. Well, by what definition is "fuck you", "asshole", "delusional troll", "full of shit", etcetera civil behaviors, and why are these kinds of comments routinely tolerated from established users? The inconsistency in application is a bigger problem than the definitional issues, and recent ArbCom double standards haven't advanced resolution of this issue. When even clear and blatant uncivil behavior is regularly tolerated, I suggest we need to focus more on consistent application of policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good point. My feeling on that is that we are unlikely to get anywhere asking for big changes. The community needs, at the very least, a clear answer to proposal B. Proposal A will likely result with no clear consensus between the three options. I don't think that either A or B are strictly dependent upon a rewritten WP:CIVIL. My plan is to see how this works out, then ask another series of very specific questions regarding the aims and implementation of the policy. Then we can get a good look at how the community feels on the subject. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility will always be a vague concept. However, people know it when they see it, and have general agreement. We just have to trust this. It can however be defined in more detail than this, though that might make a fine lead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think Moreschi has it more or less right. What one person recognises as civil behaviour may unacceptable to others. Phrases and words used in the daily lexicon of one region of the world can be considered shocking in others. (The verb "to toss" is a classic example.) We boldly say that contributions will be edited mercilessly, but then permit people to take grave offense when they are, or when their contributions to articles or to the general discourse are dissected. Is there really a difference between politely analysing an editor's personality in minute detail (making all kinds of assumptions and using pseudopsychiatric terms) and describing their behaviour using slightly negative terminology in one sentence? Why is it that some editors are blocked for saying (in some cases, in identical words) what other editors can say freely? The civility policy desperately needs simplification, and should be as short as possible. WP:NPA says comment on the content not the contributor; I think content reasonably includes behaviour and concept (the latter when one is discussing policies and practices, for example). Risker (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, I've been able to get through Wikipedia for years, in one of the most controversial of areas, with other people getting into trouble for civility violations right and left around me. I've had people take me to ArbCom twice, and a terribly hostile RfC. I edited for many months with most everyone, including admins, out to get me. And I've been able to say everything I needed to say, and almost everything I wanted to say. This is not because I only needed to say nice things. It's because I know how to be civil. So, I simply disagree that we need to have a watered down civility policy. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The_Dumbledore_principle ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, Martin, but that sounds more like it's due to your having a thick hide, rather than your mastery of civility. The problem is, not everyone has a thick hide, and it's unclear to me why they should have to in what is supposed to be a cooperative, collegial community. In fact, I've found that established editors who indulge in incivility often insist everyone should have a thick hide as an excuse for their (mis)behavior – which is why I find Balloonman’s AN example so disheartening. Certainly it's a must for admins, but why for average editors? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should focus less on the thick hide/thin skin dichotomy and more on what might be the general causes. Speaking of this as "thick and thin" turns it into a discussion on the recipient and we have an innate urge to (at least I do) want people to "suck it up" if it is something minor. I try to look at it a different way. As long as wikipedia is here and doing something right, people will be engaged, even obsessed about the project. That is a good sign. It is a sign that what is here is important enough for people to invest a considerable amount of emotional energy. If we take that and combine it with the various means textual communication both breaks down inhibitions and eliminates contextual clues, you get a recipe for problems regardless of the person's resilience. I've got a pretty thick skin, but that varies based on what is being criticized. I'm not replying to criticize the basic idea, just that we should be looking to preserve an atmosphere where people can be excited and devoted without fear of spite. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Risker is very much on the mark in her post. The cart is before the horse here. Why are we discussing the civility restrictions concept while people agree that the WP:CIV itself as it is now is so nonsensical?

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?] Let's fix the table before discussing the tableware! --Irpen 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the notion that there is anything at all vague about the concept of civility; any person sophisticated enough to be able to constructively contribute to an encyclopedia knows full well the difference between civil and uncivil behavior, the large number of uncivil editors who feign ignorance on this topic notwithstanding. Dlabtot (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A3 Wording

A3 currently reads "It is not possible to offer broad guidance with regard to low level incivility by long term editors. Editors and administrators should just each pattern of behavior against the editor's overall contribution to the encyclopedia but also consider the impact the behavior itself has."

Is there a word missing in the second sentence between just and each? And do you really mean to propose this as each pattern instead of each incident? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• good catch, fixing that. Protonk (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know about the "pattern" issue. the problem with "per incident" civility violations is that they don't provide evidence of future disruption (cause for a block). Patterns might, but "low level patterns" (like those fut Perf, Giano and others are accused of) fall into a huge gray area. A.3 is there to respect that gray area and note that we may not be able to write a one size fits all policy to fix it. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wider audience

Can more active participants please announce this RFC on, oh, ... the Request for Arbitration, AN, possibly Village Pump, ...

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The golden rule

I thought it might be necessary to link this. I think most people can definitely identify with it, whatever race, color, ethnicity, sex, height, or age you are (and much more), and I think that any rule with regard to civility needs to hold to this, at least implicitly and if not explicitly. I find it very curious (disheartening? entertaining?) that it isn't linked in WP:Civility, in fact. --Izno (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delisted from CENT

I have delisted this from WP:CENT due to inactivity. I think the conclusion is that low-level incivility is a serious matter, but there is no consensus on what to do about it. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)