Wikipedia talk:Civility

The initial Wikipedia:Civility policy was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history) before being copied here.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 21 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

A Big Question: Does this page make sense?

I would like to ask a Big Question.

In this discussion as well as at the RfC, especially here, so many people express the view that this page in its current form is a total mess.

Can we afford to have a policy page (and a provision that users may be blocked or put on a parole on its basis) that no two arbitrators, let alone admins and especially regular editors, whose conduct this page is supposed to guide, interpret the same way?

These discussions about some narrow aspects of this page are akin to discussing a choice of tableware for the formal dinner when there is no food to serve in the first place. Even userspace essays on the civility such as User:Geogre/Civility, User:Giano/On civility and User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy are much more sensible.

I do not doubt that ideally this project could use a good civility policy but it is better to have no policy at all than to have this horrid messy page carrying a {{Policy}} label that gives it a clout of authority. I think that what we need is a much simpler and clear guidance (simple enough that it would meet consensus) and such page must be written from scratch, for example in Wikipedia:Civility/Rewrite, and replace this mess.

Is there anyone at all who thinks that this policy as is stands now is good? Because I am 100% sure that those who run around citing WP:CIV have not actually read this page any time recently. --Irpen 23:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Wikipedia:Be nice ... Wikipedia:Dispute resolution ...

Start with the basics. /NewbyG (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be no tolerance of foul language in postings, being directed towards other editors. That'd be a good core to any colaborative project. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

An answer

Beginning 19 September, Wikipedia:Civility was given about a 70% re-write, [1] (236 intermediate revisions not shown). -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Improvements :) But it's still too long. The stuff on personal attacks should be discussed at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, the stuff on legal threats at Wikipedia:No legal threats, the stuff at harassment at Wikipedia:Harassment. We merely need to link to these other policies/guidelines, we don't need whole sections pointlessly duplicating their content. Making a threat is making a threat (ditto for a legal threat), harassing someone is harassing someone. These are very serious behaviours in their own right: the fact that they are also not civil is completely irrelevant.

While the end result needn't be quite as short as User:Moreschi/Alternative Civility Policy, brevity is certainly a virtue. The more rambling crap that can be snipped here, the better. Moreschi (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Irpen 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[2]. This is something like the version from April this year. /NewbyG (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing what's covered in WP:NLT

OK, as a next step, I am removing all the stuff that is redundant as being already covered by WP:NLT. Legal threats are not necessarily uncivil but we do not tolerate them here for completely different reasons outlined at WP:NLT. Editors who resort to legal threats should be block on the spot on the basis of WP:NLT alone and there is no need to for this page to be swollen by redundancies. --Irpen 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Irpen 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing what's covered in WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT

I marked sections redundant as being covered at WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT. Best would be to completely remove these redundant sections. --Irpen 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I pruned them, leaving a summary. The situation here is analogous to large articles that have daughter articles. We leave a summary in the main article, and link to the daughter. Jehochman ^Arrr! 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is better after you pruned them but still not good enough. WP:NPA and WP:HAR are fully self-contained policies rather than "daughter" policies of WP:CIV. Harassment and personal attacks are not tolerated not because they are "uncivil". --Irpen 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time. Perhaps you can delete the sections entirely, and reference those other policies in the See Also section. There is some rationale to keep a description of these other policies in this one. I think there is a benefit to providing visibility for related policies here. Jehochman ^Arrr! 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Links should certainly be maintained to all the key pages, such as WP:AGF and WP:BITE, WP:NPA ... These are best as inline cites, with appropriate summary text, or else they go in the See also section. /NewbyG (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time

For sake of comparison, this [3] revision of the Wikipedia:Civility/Workshop workshop retains the "stable" version of the project page, on 19 September before the copy-editing began. /NewbyG (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A diff with that can always be done. I don't think the live version should be set in stone and every change require long talk page discussion, but equally the rate of editing of a live policy like this should, as some have said, be a bit slower and the "workshop", advertise, approve, route is certainly one that should be done. Otherwise someone will turn up late to the disucssion, throw their hands up in horror, and revert everything. Unless the rewrite is so good that no-one complains! Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

More edits

[4] 60+ edits, in twenty hours. /NewbyG (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare the pair

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (Talk | contribs) at 02:03, 14 January 2008. [5] It begins...

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable.

/NewbyG (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning 19 September, Wikipedia:Civility was given about a 70% re-write, [6](236 intermediate revisions not shown). -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A Collection of Leads

1. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and using Wikipedia as a battleground, is prohibited. Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.
2. Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

   Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. *Civility — to avoid personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress, and which does not help build an encyclopedia

3. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable.
4. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. These principles reflect the commonsense expectation of civility and apply to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with fellow Wikipedians
5. Civility is behavior which helps to encourage the most collegial editing environment possible. Incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere it creates is detrimental to the project, and is therefore to be avoided.
6. Civility is proper, civilized, behavior toward fellow editors.
7. Civility is necessary to provide ALL editors with a pleasant work environment. The Wikipedia Code of Conduct together with the principle that states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view are core mandates. The production of an Encyclopedia require(s) conditions that maintain order and calm.
8. Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles guide editors on how to edit articles, civility is a code of conduct setting out how editors should interact. Editors should always be civil to other Wikipedians. Remaining civil, even during heated debates, keeps the focus on improving the encyclopedia. (CURRENT ONE -- 06:55, 24 September 2008)

I've numbered them so we can refer to them. I don't know what the indented one after 2 is -- if it was part of something else, or if its last half after the asterisk is another point, or what.

Of these, I like 1 the best. 4 is okay. 6 is at least short and to the point. 5 rambles. 7 is unclear, as I've already mentioned. 2, 3 and 8 are hopelessly tautological and could be replaced with the two words "Be civil." without losing any communicative power. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I concurr, 1 is clear and thoroughly explains the idea of the policy. However, I'm not so sure we should over emphasize the way admins are supposed to be role models, to the point where it is bolded. I think maybe just leaving it at the end as an extra would suffice. Valtoras (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Useful links

I've added back in two links from "Useful Links". They contain bits of pithy information even if short, and don't hurt anything here at this point, so hopefully they can stay for now until we have a better method of connecting the policy page to the many essays on civility related topics.(olive (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Couldn't we merge them into, I don't know, WP:How to be civil or something? Anyway, they're still in the category that we link to, presumably =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have, however, removed Wikipedia:General sanctions, which was wildly off-topic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The essays that I removed - which haven't actually been re-added - I'm... not quite sure why, maybe I bungled the edit summaries somehow - are Wikipedia:Be reasonable and Wikipedia:Be nice

Their entire content is:

Be nice

Be nice to your fellow Wikipedians. They are people deserving of your respect and your very best conduct. Be nice. It's good for the project, and it is the right thing to do.

Be reasonable

In pursuit of the continuing effort to cut through red tape and bureaucracy, it is helpful to be reasonable and act reasonably in all issues. What is being reasonable?

• Being reasonable means not beating a point to death after you have made it.
• Being reasonable means not disrupting Wikipedia if something is not going your way.
• Being reasonable means assuming good faith and not making personal attacks.

There might be a point to adding Be reasonable back in, but I really don't see how WP:Be nice adds anything to the discussion but frustration on the part of anyone clicking. The long and the short of it is, this is a key policy page. The links should be high-quality. However, things we don't link, like User:GT/Civility are much higher quality and more persuasive than WP:Be nice and other such links - not a good situation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That the links to user essays are useful is a personal opinion; this policy is for the general information of all users, and not just for those with a personal stake in particular Arbcom cases. --NewbyG (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in the dark as to this comment. Any chance of an explanation.:)(olive (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Sorry if I'm treading in something I'm not familiar with. Forget the question above.(olive (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

I see your point but I rather like the simplicity of be nice. We can go on and on about civility here which ...hey, wait just a second, we have... but it can all come down to just be nice to other people and things will run more smoothly. However, I'm not attached. I am attached to collecting all of these essays though, and to a way of linking them somehow to this Civ. policy. Civility is such a comprehensive idea we need comprehensive material for its description. Leaving it in place now, may ensure the essay doesn't become misplaced.(olive (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Why not create a category? That's the usual way of lumping things, and we could add a link to the category into the list. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course we already have a category there .... essays on Civility. The trick will be in figuring out how to somehow centralize all of these essays ....Have to think a bit. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Good idea Shoemaker, that should do it. What to call the cat? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to keep it simple, such as Category:Wikipedia essays on civility. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Category:User essays on civility. --NewbyG (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Aye, but that seems only to include User-space ones. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I was assuming that all the Wikipedia civility essays were of high enough quality to link directly. I'd say either ask the creator to userfy (if not a great essay), or link directly, or go ahead and create another category for the Wikipedia essays (but remember to include links to both categories between each other if they are in different branches of the category tree). Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FayssaIF has created civility and etiquette pages [7] of which the User:Essay pages is a subset. Perhaps these essays could just be included in FayssaIF's pages, and then those pages linked from here. (olive (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

The user links like User:GT/Civility are enlightnening and expanding of the conversation "What is Civility". But...care must be taken. A novice editor (with a chip on his shoulder, lets say) can misconstrue their meaning and see them as permission to continue unfriendly behavior. Uncivility is easier to see in others. It takes awhile before we, good faith editors, begin to self-edit and monitor our own incivility. I go for CIVIL 101 as the lead page.--Buster7 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Lead is excellent. But...I would make one point. It still uses "civil" to define civil. ((editors should always be civil to each other)). Nice would work. Or courteous. What about "professional"??? Isn't that the environment that we and all wikieditors like to work in? (I would make the change myself but I don't want to seem uncivil)...:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for addition

I propose something be added in about how rude it is to plop a speedy tag on an article within minutes of it's creation. Recent change patrollers do this all the time and it's really nasty and unpleasent. Jtrainor (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's irritating. Usually the best way to deal with it, is to place a polite note on the patroller's talkpage, advising them to re-acquaint themselves with WP:CSD, particularly the top part that says, "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete.". I also instruct such patrollers to not focus on the articles that have been created within the last 5 minutes, but perhaps articles which have been created within the last 24 hours, instead. In general, one polite "educating" note to a patroller's talkpage is all that's needed. If a patroller persisted with over-zealous tagging, then collect a few diffs, and notify an administrator to see if maybe they can better explain things. Speaking as an admin, if I went to a patroller's talkpage and saw multiple complaints that the patroller was antagonizing good editors, I would have no trouble taking action. But to be honest, it's usually not a problem. And on the flipside, there really is a lot of crap that's flowing in to Wikipedia very rapidly. Thousands of things get deleted every day. So some patrollers may get into a Charlie Chaplin Modern Times mentality where they may be hitting the "speedy" macro so often, they get a bit glassy-eyed. So please, if you see something tagged too quickly, don't take it personally. Instead, just recognize that someone who's fighting off the hordes, may have made a good faith mistake?  :) --Elonka 19:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree, entirely. Differences of opinion, even if expressed quickly, are not in and of themselves uncivil or rude. Forcing editors to wait some arbitrary period of time would achieve nothing but would increase the chances of a backlog building up. Dlabtot (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if a backlog builds up? We have no deadline here, and tagging an article within minutes of creation is rude at best and a violation of AGF at worst. Jtrainor (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if we don't care if a backlog builds up, let me change my comment from Differences of opinion, even if expressed quickly, are not in and of themselves uncivil or rude. Forcing editors to wait some arbitrary period of time would achieve nothing but would increase the chances of a backlog building up. to Differences of opinion, even if expressed quickly, are not in and of themselves uncivil or rude. Forcing editors to wait some arbitrary period of time would achieve nothing.

Sorry I accidentally obscured my actual point, which is that tagging an article within minutes of creation is not in any sense rude or a violation of AGF. Dlabtot (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)