Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Changes

What do people think of these changes? They were based on comments above, fixing all the problems brought up, which should have been obvious, as I fixed bits immediately after people talked about them, such as Sdsds comment above. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow. Civility is any behavior which encourages or allows a collegial editing environment. Incivility, (as defined on Wikipedia) is belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that causes conflict and stress. Such behavior destroys the collegial environment.

Martin I do have a couple of problems with this as per other comments, although I think simplicity is a good idea:

Incivility must be defined in a more general way . The way this is worded it seems that these are two examples of incivility, but I think incivility is more than this.

Use of the word stress is referencing a reactive response. Dlabtot comments on that, as did I.

As I said above I would be reluctant to use the words "stress", "dissatisfaction" because we are describing and generalizing reactions. Really all we can say is that an environment is generally not a supportive work environment after that reaction is individual.(olive (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes, we don't want to give the false impression incivility is defined by the reaction of the victim of incivility rather than the uncivil action of the perpetrator. If editor A insults editor B, the question of whether editor B is offended by the uncivil behavior is irrelevant, because it also poisons the environment for editors C through Z. Dlabtot (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008

I can't see why these wouldn't be easy to fix.(olive (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

The changes to paragraph 3 subsantially changed the tone. THAT would need quite substantial discussion. Changing something from 2We accept editors are human, so realise mistakes will happen" to "If you mess up you are EVIL! EVIL EVIL! SCORN SCORN!" - No. Let's keep it neutral and not pre-judge the editors as no defense possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Olive, taking the above as a case in point, are you saying that we need to define civility and incivility in a manner which includes the general environment of editing, and the manner in which an editor influences that environment to be more positive and collegial, or more negative, tense, and combative? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if I understand you correctly. The paragraph traditionally had an opening sentence about the standards all editors must follow and was followed by a description of civility, and then of incivility . Each of these was a general description of the environment incivility creates and incivility creates. We have to remember, it seems, that the rest of the article describes more specific acts of civility /incivilty . So this opening paragraph should be less specific and more about the general environment.(olive (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

Shoemaker could you clarify what you mean.(olive (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

The meaning of the 3rd paragraph was not changed [1].

Changed from

The community realizes that editors are human, capable of mistakes, and so a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern. A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern.

to

The community understands that editors make mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not a great concern. However a pattern of gross incivility is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, even a single act of incivility can cross the line if it is bad enough. Extreme personal attacks such as threats or extreme profanity are enough to instigate a block even if there is no general pattern of incivility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. There is no change in meaning in the third paragraph either explicitly or implied. (olive (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

This draft of paragraph 3 conveys the same information as the previous version, with some improvement to grammar/style, and should replace it, I would say. The other changes included in the these changes diff just above were not wholly sucessful, in my book, and probably need to be workshopped more. /NewbyG (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I really do like the word "collegial," as it really conveys what the atmosphere is supposes to be like. It also allows a positive rather than negative definition of civility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"When I use a word, it means just what choose it to mean - neither more nor less." - Alice in Wonderland. It would seem that this definition of civility: "Civility is any behavior which encourages or allows a collegial editing environment." is following Lewis Carroll's advice, because that's certainly not the definition that appears in any dictionary.

Secondly, Wikipedia is edited by a significant number of non-native English speakers and schoolchildren. "Collegial" is not a word they'll understand. Nor is "belligerent" or any of the other words that are getting thrown about here as if they're perfectly acceptable for writing basic policy.

Thirdly, I strongly oppose the change in tone of this section of the third paragraph: "a few, minor, isolated incidents are not in themselves a concern" has now become "a few minor incidents of incivility are not a great concern". That actually says they ARE a concern, but not a major one.

We are not edited by robots. People are going to have bad days, they're going to be stressed out. We need to explicitly recognise this. This statement is the only statement in the whole policy about this matter, we cannot change it to explicitly condemn people for being human. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of these edits to the project page is to make something clear and precise, and which all our users can understand. We need to use simple words, and use them properly. Collegial sounds awkward. /NewbyG (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, however that word is as far as I can tell the most accurate way of saying what we are aiming for. I might suggest that the current mes....ah..... paragraph does not say it in a less awkward way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

SH. At no time is Wikipedia written for school children ... never, ever ... and if there are such users around they will learn from the vocabulary .... They can use dictionaries, and they will become more mature readers from reading something that doesn't play down to them . Wikipedia is written for a intellectually, mature audience . Simple Wikipedia addresses the need for second language users, and immature readers until they can handle Wikipedia . I would never go to French Wikipedia and expect the language there to be simplified because my literacy level in French isn't that of a native speaker. This is English Wikipedia and the language used, English, should not be dumbed down. Simplicity and clarity, awkwardness are different issues. Sure the thing has to be clear, but dumbing down language doesn't make it clearer. We are not writing a dictionary definition we are writing a collaboratively decided upon way to help our editors deal with all of the concerns that abide within 'Civility". That people are having bad days are stressed out and so on is covered in the policy, and the intro implies humanity when it discusses mistakes.

Martin added a version that is simpler than some of the other versions . But if you don't like it, work with it, change it, edit it.(olive (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia or a grade school reader or a school for ESL? The simple english wiki is here. If a not-so common English word is the best way to convey something, we should use it; just link it. That's one reason we have wikilinks. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In articles, yes. in policy, no. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If we had suitable simple words to use, there's no need for linking. Editors should behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. The maxim "comment on the content, not on the contributor" should be followed whenever possible. Behavior tending to cause unnecessary division or strife within the Wikipedia community is considered harmful. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this, and with the expectation that improvement can and will be made; editors are not expected to be perfect. --NewbyG (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on recent discussion

• Stylistic preferences: How this policy is written depends on style preferences of the editors who actually write the Policy. Hemingway and Stephen King prefer a pared back style. Dostoevsky did not. Wikipedia cannot depend on the personal, however brilliant, style of any well-known author upon which to model the style of writing on any its articles/policies/ guidelines. Talk about edit wars!

• Collaboration: Editors come to this encyclopedia with certain writing styles and that's just fine in my mind . We, none of us, has the right to ask an editor to edit some other way or to not come to the "editing table" because we don't like the style. Collaboration is about finding ways to deal with many editors, many styles.

• Complexity:Wikipedia is at its best, an encyclopedia for the somewhat mature intellect whatever the age of the reader. It is, remember now comparable in accuracy to Brittanica. For those who do not yet have that development, (not a negative simply about development) we have a simplified Wikipedia, and dictionaries so words can be researched. A reader who cannot understand some of the language suggested here might have a difficult time using Wikipedia with, as an example, such articles as this. We have to have consistency across the encyclopedia

• Stylistic preferences are not the same as mistakes in grammar and syntax. A more complex style may not be preferred by the majority of editors. That's fine. I would argue most of the concerns about grammar, syntax errors as mistaken. Even if these were real errors, they are easily corrected and don't seem to be the kinds of issues that should be reason to revert. Just my opinion of course.

• That this article is now protected is highly discouraging. Major efforts were made to discuss points on these pages and additions were made with the understanding that multiple editors were in agreement, or with the comment that efficient editing could take place within an article, because a bare bone version of the paragraph in question was added to provide a working canvass onto which changes could be made. Reverts were not made by multiple editors. Comments that seemed to indicate editors were not discussing this material (ad infinitum in my case) are somewhat disappointing. Edits, that were single edits, were very much in line with discussion, that is, to simplify the language.

I can honestly say this is pretty confusing. Discussion seems to have been discounted, reverts made, edits made that seemed to be in line with discussed points, discounted and reverted, and the article locked down. Too bad.(olive (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, it does seem to me that changes were being made that were not agreed to here first. I saw Littleolive add a paragraph that had been discussed, but then others began making substantial (undiscussed) edits and reverts. It seems we all need to remember that this is policy we are dealing with and abide by the banner at the top of the page:

"... When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus."

With respect to style: I don't think that we should confuse readability with style. Good writing and editing tends to use language that is as clear and simple as possible. Sunray (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree in part although I think readability and style are interconnected . I think you're right that on Wikipedia good writing should be clear and simple . How simple may be the issue here. No I'm not attached to my so called "style ' at all. I realize it can be complex. (olive (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

And I agree to edit your contributions any time. :-) Sunray (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks...:0)(olive (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

See section above. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I would say that the edit war, if any took place a month ago (mid/late July). This currently is workshopping. /NewbyG (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the talk and making edits based on the comments. SH reverted that, but it wasn't an edit war, so I don't see why protection was put in place. Frankly, I don't think you can make this into a really technical matter. People know incivility when they see it. Perhaps those who don't know, (for example autistics) or don't yet know, simply can't manage in this environment. Thus keeping things simple and focusing on the environment created is the better course. You can't define civility as a technical matter. Yet civility is basic to WP. Thus, don't try for a perfect definition, and focus on the effects of incivility. But do give examples, as they will help those who are able to understand the basic concept.

Sorry I haven't read the back issues of this page, but you'll notice that civility is not an article, but incivility is. I think "collegial" is the definition of civility which is good for this encyclopedia. That encompasses all the things really necessary, all the things editors need to get right to edit here.

"Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. A colleague is an associate in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office.

Thus, the word collegiality can connote respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it."

The article on respect is not well developed, however if one combined the two words "collegiality" and "respect," I believe that is a sufficient definition of the atmosphere and qualities of interaction that wikipedians should work toward. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Martin. Your edits where fair and based on the discussion and perhaps more clearly reflected SH comments and desire for simplicity, than on any other editor's comments, so I was surprised to see that the article was protected. However here we are.

We can, both describe the environment we are trying to create and the behaviour that contribute or detract from that environment . I see no reason to think it has to be one or the other . Well let's just keep trying and see what we can come up with.(olive (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Maybe we should all assume that whatever version an editor writes is an honest attempt to make something work here,eh? Just a thought.(olive (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Martin's edits were consistent with the discussion (and I agree with them), but unfortunately they were not checked out here, so I cannot fault Shoemaker's Holiday for reverting them. Could we perhaps discuss them now. Here are his changes to the second and third paragraphs:

"The Wikipedia community requires its members to stay civil. Civility is any behavior which encourages or allows a collegial editing environment. Incivility, (as defined on Wikipedia) is belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that causes conflict and stress. Such behavior destroys the collegial environment.

The community understands that editors make mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not a great concern. However a pattern of gross incivility is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, even a single act of incivility can cross the line if it is bad enough. Extreme personal attacks such as threats or extreme profanity are enough to instigate a block even if there is no general pattern of incivility."

I like that his version (and Littleolive's) got rid of the essay-like statement: "It is, perhaps, easier to define its opposite..." This doesn't belong in a policy statement (and is arguable). I thought that Martin's edits were consistent with Littleolive's version that was discussed here.

I would suggest we retain the wording: "Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow..." It doesn't seem to me to be good form to say "The Wikipedia community requires..." We cannot generalize about what the Wikipedia community does or thinks. Likewise in the second paragraph: "The Wikipedia community understands..." Let's just say: "it is understood that..."

With those modifications, I support Martinphi's changes. Sunray (talk)

Strong oppose for reasons given above. Definition of civility that isn't anything like any normal definition of civility. Enjoinder to uphold this unupholdable standard of Civility. Use of words not understandable by a substantial proportion of our editors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to Sunray's changes. Shoemaker, what are you doing editing here if you don't believe in the policy at all? If that is so, then all you can do is try to degrade it as a standard.

I agree that the definition of civility is specific to WP. But many other definitions are that way, such as the definition of vandalism. That's basically OK: we don't have to stick to real-world definitions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the draft is agreeable, I would suggest "a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a great concern". The first paragraph still does not seem an improvement. /NewbyG (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy or guideline?

If I might point out, the Five pillars links to both policies and guidelines. Guidelines it links to WP:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Do not include copies of primary sources. However, let's compare.</nowiki>

WP:CIVIL summarises several things that will remain policies: Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:No personal attacks, WP:Harassment, WP:LEGAL, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and so on. I by no means want to argue that those aren't, and should not remain policy. However, WP:CIVIL is subsidiary to them, providing summaries of each, and recommendations for following them. That is the standard role of a guideline page, not a policy page. Now, if it only summarised policy, that would be fair enough. However, it also contains sections that, while obviously best practices, are completely unenforcable. We cannot, for instance, force people to apologise.

The difference between policy and guideline is not whether it is important, but how subjective it is. WP:CIVIL, if you ignore the policies that it summarises, requires a fair amount of subjective evaluation, and so a little caution is necessary in enforcement. Frankly, WP:CIVIL is all over the place, unlike the more focused, specific, and, indeed, well-written policies WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, or WP:LEGAL. Indeed, I would ask one question for those wanting WP:CIVIL to remain policy: What parts of WP:CIVIL which are clearly policy level are not covered by one of the policies WP:CIVIL summarises? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment seems more advisory in nature. [2] Giving guidance, isn't that what guidelines do? --NewbyG (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen users be required to apologize as the terms of unblocks, I'd also say we need wider discussion on this before its altered, maybe an RFC, since this is such a longstanding part of our community values. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. What if, um, civility policies instruct as to the kind of community that needs to be preserved, and that civility guidelines advise us of the correct procedures to adopt in relation to specific problem areas or editors or interactions where civility needs to be addressed. Some guidelines might look just like how-to pages. Not many policy pages would look like how-to pages, though. This needs further discussion. --NewbyG (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading from Wikipedia:POLICY#Policy_and_guideline_pages "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.". If we need to spin off the how-to part of this page, that would be preferable to changing it to something that would permit more violations of civility to occur. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would much rather see it as a guideline for reasons I've just enumerated: manifestly, forcing someone to change their attitude is futile, while advising someone to change has a higher success rate. Also, I don't agree that people shouldn't have to apologise or accept blame for actions to be unblocked, as it goes against the principle of nemo tenetur se detegere. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's why guidelines are advisory. They advise specific courses of action, and specific consequences, clearly. --NewbyG (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If people are violating community norms by being uncivil, they are asked to change, if they refuse, they are forced to consider change with blocks, if they refuse to consider, they are banned from participating in the community. Simple as that. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See the discussions above for refutation of your claim that " if they refuse to consider, they are banned from participating in the community." -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the fact that Civility, just like all other Policies, isn't an iron-clad, zero-tolerance, sudden-death rule, doesn't mean it isn't Policy. Second, most of the discussion that I read on this talk page does little to convince me that Civility is suffering from massive decay. Instead, I see a very small number of people who apparently have an issue with how certain things have transpired. I see such as an exception, not the rule. Which is not to say that we shouldn't listen to people who have complaints. But the presence of complaints does not mean all of Civility is invalidated. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the administrative tools as a weapon is a terrible way of dealing with things. Look at Giano, for instance. Use of the civility policy as punishment has made him more resentful of the Wikipedia community than he should. The blocking tool should be used to limit harm to the encyclopedia first and foremost, and while I agree that a m:dick or two makes for a poisoned atmosphere which may warrant a block, we should never use it to force people to change their ways. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Using an extreme set of incidents to define the norms of the community is not something I agree with. Over 100,000 blocks have been made on WP, the number that have escalated to Arbcom is probably under 1,000 if not under 500, so using an example that has gone to arbcom as the justification of a policy change, probably is not a good idea. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm simply giving Giano as an example that force is bad to change minds. Yes, it is a rather extreme example, but that doesn't illegitimise my argument. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Giano is a bad example to use here - see "tough cases make bad law". — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And are you certain that this is not a case of bad law making tough cases? -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad law, or bad enforcement, perhaps. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Whether this page is a page or a chicken, or an egg, may or may not be disputed, or under discussion, or over simplified or extra special or super-sized or something". /NewbyG (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Being civil is a basic expectation of editors. Making this "just a guideline" sends the message that it's OK to ignore it, which isn't the message I've gotten having edited here for a little while. WP:CIVIL is not simply "recommended." Like all rules, there are times when it has limits, but they are very rare. I would put it as policy, since editors who cannot abide by it are just as detrimental to the project as those who refuse to follow NPOV or verifiability, if not more so. SDY (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean we don't have to follow WP:RS because it's "just a guideline". How about WP:Notability? Hey, if they're just guidelines, I suppose I can make a page on myself. Don't worry - since Reliable sources is also just a guideline, I can find plenty of sources.

In other words: Being a guideline just means that application is somewhat subjective, not that it can't be enforced. =) Plus, as I said, most incivility would still be forbidden at the policy level - personal attacks would still be forbidden, likewise harassment, legal threats, etc. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we're here to build an encyclopedia - sometimes, we will argue about things. What's more, we need to be able to argue about things in order to build an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The usual pattern that I've seen for organizing policy goes like this (using the US legal system as a parallel example):

(Pillars) *1. Basic principles (fundamental expectations, like the Constitution's requirements for equal protection under the law, WP:CIVIL as it is now)

(Policies) *2. Rules that logically derive from the fundamental principles (the actual rules, such as laws requiring that the state provide a public defender, WP:NPA)

(Guidelines) *3. Guidance that explains how to follow those rules or but isn't a logical extension of the law (procedures and processes, Miranda warnings including advising an arrested person they have a right to an attorney or WP:WQA)

(Essays) *4. Nitty-gritty details that had to go in writing somewhere but aren't enforced (pure guidance, such as police officer training or WP:COOL).

WP:CIVIL is more fundamental than WP:NPA. If you are breaking WP:NPA, you are breaking WP:CIVIL. All four levels of documents relate back to the first level: the commandments, the charter, the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Arguably, WP:ETIQUETTE should be the "Level One" document, but it's currently a guideline (3). (To be honest, this actual four-level split is a blatant ripoff from pharmaceutical company QA practices.) SDY (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility is a behavior guideline and always has been. It is not a policy because Wikipedians as a community don't treat it as they do other policies. It is a strong suggestion for how to behave, but since we all fall short of civility in the eyes of others from time to time, having a policy that enshrines "civility" inevitably leads to the watering down of what Wikipedia means by policy. Compare to other policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP. Those are community norms that we adhere to unfailingly. In contrast, civility is an idea everyone agrees should be followed but people dispute what is and isn't civility. Having civility be a policy makes the idea of policy itself a joke. Suddenly we have people arguing that things like WP:N, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MoS should be policies not understanding that policies and guidelines are not strictly hierarchical. They just represent different ways of offering advice for how to edit Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hold that WP:CIVIL is more important than the other policies you mentioned. If there is no community, there is no encyclopedia. That we fail WP:CIVIL does not mean that we should give up and turn this place into a shouting match. SDY (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You certainly are entitled to that opinion. However "importance" is really not the marker of a policy. Treating civility as more important than the policies I listed is one of the major problems with Wikipedia. The point of this website is to write an encyclopedia, not to build community. The community is a side-effect, not the point. And the "shouting match" strawman you built there is a bit of a stretch. If you really think if this page is listed as a guideline instead of a policy that all hell will break loose, I'm not sure you have the gumption necessary to build a Wikipedia community in the first place. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the irony of personal attacks during a discussion about this policy. SDY (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking you think that "I'm not sure you have the gumption necessary to build a Wikipedia community in the first place." is a personal attack. If this is so then we are VERY different people when it comes to what offends. In any case, there is a guideline on my User talk:ScienceApologist for you to follow if you think I've been uncivil. Cheerio. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Although, using a guideline may require more subjective judgment, I would suggest the difference between guideline and policy has more to do with the over all structure of the editing processes. Policy is a more fundamental aspect of the processes and represents a foundational aspect without which the encyclopedia would probably flounder. A guideline represents a second story aspect of the processes , the walls as it where, and although not considered mandatory, still builds upon the more fundamental base of the policy, adding a more complete structural process for editing. Civility in my mind is possibly the most fundamental of all policies since without it a collaborative community would and could not exist. Although Wikipedia is about building a encyclopedia it is also about the collaborative building of that encyclopedia. Both are equally important. For this reason I would not support any change in the policy status of Civility.(olive (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

...and although a guideline for behaviour, Civility is officially a Wikipedia policy.(olive (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I would argue that Civility is the more holistic aspect, of which WP:NPA, and WP:Harassment as a couple of examples, are more specific aspects or subsets, of the more general "mother" set, Civility.(olive (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but "although it's a guideline, I want it to be a policy" isn't really a very good argument. Why should the English language be raped just to justify the status quo? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2008

Edit conflict: Maybe check that comment Shoemaker. Civility is a policy. I present an argument whether you agree with it or not , and I 'm not excited by your use of the word "rape" which is a very strong word to use in these circumstances.(olive (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps it was unclear: I was referring to "...although a guideline for behaviour..." Basically, by definition, it's a guideline. People want it to be a policy to give it perceived extra prestige. However, let me point out something: Up until a few months ago, WP:HARASS was a guideline. I actually organised the effort to raise it to policy. Does that mean people weren't blocked for harassment while it was a guideline? Or that it wasn't important? No. As I argued, successfully, a policy is a situation where there are exceedingly few situations where deviating from the terms set out is acceptable. Guidelines are ones where occasional violations are tolerated. Given that WP:NPA, etc, are policies, the only part of the Civility guideline that would no longer be policy are the essay sections - the ones giving advice about how to deal with situations, such as apologising, or how to deal with rudeness by others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, Civility is a WP policy and that's what this discussion is about. If there are people who prefer it to remain a policy because that gives prestige to "Civility" then that's another issue. This discussion is about reviewing the WP: Policy, Civility, and its potential for becoming a WP: Guideline. One could say, Civility is a Wikipedia Core Policy, that acts as a guideline for editing behaviours of the Wikipedia collaborative community. The fact remains that at this time, Civility is a Wikipedia Policy and not a Wikipedia Guidleine.(olive (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

SH, those quotation marks you are using[3] - who is it that you are quoting? Yourself? Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do a text search. It's a quote from Littleolive oil. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That is untrue. Dlabtot (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true of the exact quote I gave later. Quotation marks have multiple uses, not all of which set off exact quotes. The first one is a summary of the argument as I read it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that in the same post that you manufactured a quote, you also talked about the 'rape' of the English language. Dlabtot (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose downgrading this core policy to a guideline. There is already enough wikilawyering over this, along with a lot of feigned ignorance about what constitutes civil discourse. Collaborative editing and working towards consensus can only be achieved in a civil environment. Dlabtot (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose to be perfectly clear as per my comments above.(olive (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

  But there is nothing to downgrade. Guidelines aren't on a different level to policies - look at WP:RS, which is ultra-important, and look at WP:M, which isn't as much. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think it's a belief of most of Wikipedia that "guidelines aren't on a different level to policies"; if we change this policy to a guideline, it will appear to be a downgrade, and it will encourage people who don't like to be civil. You may think their interpretation is wrong, but the only way a policy/guideline has any effect is in how it is interpreted. Leave this as a policy so that there's no room for misinterpretation. Besides, civility is as key to the way that discussion pages work as NPOV (another policy) is to the way that articles work. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose downgrading the policy to guideline. Fostering civility is the responsibility of any community, whatever the goals of that community are. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to create an online-community, but this is a collaborative project. It is a fundamental cornerstone of any collaboration to remain civil. It is therefore policy. Even in traditional print-houses like Britannica civility must be maintained to write that encyclopedia. An incivil editor at Britannica will be fired and replaced, however regretably. -Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Leave it as it is. Downgrading the importance and necessity of civility might send the wrong message, really, and without clear and co-operative communication we really are nothing. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed changed for the reasons I've given above, this should stay a policy. MBisanz ^talk 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose vehemently. This is the second core principle of Wikipedia behind NPOV. Whether it is followed in the main or in the breach matters little. It is a principle that each contributor is entitled to civility, and their right to reproach people who fail to offer a civil approach is explicitly endorsed. This cannot be downgraded. Hiding T 18:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I am surprised that we are (once again) debating this. Did someone not read the archives? This is core policy, and integral to one of the five pillars, to wit: "Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil..." It meets the requirements of a policy in that it is a standard that all users should follow. A great deal of work has gone into providing a definition of civility and examples of what constitutes a breach. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, and am having a hard time believing this was even suggested. I don't want to see what will happen if we tell people it's not all that important to be decent to one another. BOZ (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Common sense tells us this can only be a guideline. Policy/guideline tags do not determine importance, which is what the opposers seem to be basing their opinions on. It's simply impossible to have a strict definition of civility, and it's a very bad idea to treat it like a rule to enforce. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't follow you at all Ned. Common sense suggests nothing, and it is in fact a very bad idea to have as a rule that we do not have to treat each other civilly. Some of us remember USENET. It is, and always has been a rule that we can expect to be treated with respect. People who wish otherwise have the right to fork. Hiding T 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand me here. It's not civility itself that should be "downgraded", but rather this page. Maybe what we need here is a two tier system like we have for WP:NFC. There's a policy, then a guideline to go with the policy. Here we could have the policy "be civil" and the guideline on how to deal with situations involving civility, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't pretty much all of the policy pages have parts which drift more towards "suggestion" and "best practice"? As a rule, Wikipedia doesn't have iron-clad rules, so that makes sense to me. And I think they're far more useful that way. Dividing every Policy into a formal statement of specific rules, with a separate page of guidelines to back up that rule, is missing the point. The fundamental theme is the Policy, not the page which writes it up. This is all along the lines of WP:BURO, WP:IAR, etc. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is civility "a widely accepted standard that all users should follow", or is it something that "should be treated with [...] occasional exception"? Well, it's the former I hope! And I actually have the impression that it is the former, for the majority of editors. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Civility is no standard and follows no standards, very often it is in the eye of the beholder and it always depends on the situational context. There can be no binding description of what incivility is other than possibly "always do your best to approach your fellow editors respectfully and cooperatively, regardless of their behavior or edits". This page appropriately tries to be a guideline as in "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur." — and it should be marked accordingly. I believe that some of the opposers (probably not mistakenly) fear that a change to guideline would make Civility less enforceable. But that's just part of a more general problem of guidelines almost never being enforced, for reasons of involving delicate and complex judgement calls. The answer to that problem should not be: "Let's 'policify' that page I like/think important", or "let's 'de-policify' that page I don't like/don't think important". Comments based on either of that should be disregarded as the meritless personal opinions they are, and the users who made them should hereby feel chastised for their intellectual dishonesty (conscious or otherwise). user:Everyme 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's amazing how uncivil discussions about civility are. I do not feel "chastised" or "intellectually dishonest" for expressing my "meritless personal opinion." SDY (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's actually a good example of why civility is important. I started off reading the comment as someone who doesn't necessarily agree, but at least understands the argument and where it's coming from. But then you get to the end and it's like, OK, there really wasn't anything worth reading after all. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• I should have inserted a paragraph break after "marked accordingly". Everything after that is just me ranting about a pet peeve of mine (thinly veiled personal preconceptions posing as superficial arguments). user:Everyme 22:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a clear and cogent argument for marking civility as a guideline. It isn't downgrading it in the breach, as it isn't treated like a policy in the breach. How many exceptions to CIVIL can you think of off the top of your head that are totally valid. Now how many exceptions to BLP can you think of? Should they have the same level of procedural force (the parts that aren't summarized)? Protonk (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The editor who said Guidelines aren't on a different level to policies is flat out wrong. Moreover, those who think that policies and guidelines are the same shouldn't care whether the change is made or not (after all, they think the two are the same, yes?) and thus really have no reason to participate in this discussion. As for me, I think civility is important enough that we need a policy on it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Downgrading civility from a policy to a guideline would be saying that civility is not as important as we used to think it was. I can't agree with that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Guidelines are different than policies in that they are subject to exception from time to time. There is no exception to being polite and civil. That should be a universal truth here. It is easier to enforce this as a policy than a guideline. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose to the idea that Civility should be considered anything but Policy. • In order for an encyclopedia anyone can edit to work, civil discourse has to be the rule. We must strive for civility. The alternative is disaster. We're trying to work on a serious encyclopedia, and our interactions with each other should reflect that. • Indeed, I find the idea that Civility should be anything *but* one of our core policies so foreign that I can't help but wonder if I'm seriously misunderstanding what has been proposed. • The fact that people are frequently uncivil does not mean that Civility should be considered a Guideline. All the Policies are violated quite often. Pages are vandalized, unsourced material is added, opinions are pushed. That doesn't mean they aren't Policies; it means the violations are all the more egregious. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• comment While all policies are violated, other policies are treated as policies by the community and the violations are corrected with full community support. That is often not the case with violations of WP:CIV and hence the suggestion that since the community treats it more as a guideline, that it be identified as such. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per the many and well thought out responses above. Editors should be welcoming to one another not empowered towards inappropriate behaviours. Banjeboi 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question to those who oppose 'downgrading' to a guideline

How do we as a community ensure that as a policy Civil behaviours are exhibited by all editors and remedies for behaviors that are not Civil are appropriately applied to all users? Does the current Civility policy contain the appropriate tools and remedies to support Civility across the project?-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No policy provides any "tools." The tools are the ones we have in place for any violation: community consensus, blocks and Arbitration decisions. And we can't ensure that WP:CIV is applied perfectly all the time. We're only human and mistakes will be made. There's no way to make this 100% air-tight. Even regular courts recognize that. I'm not sure what you're proposing with this statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This Request for Comment on whether CIVIL should be considered a 'policy' or a 'guideline' is the result of discussions above on how Wikipedia as a community actually implements CIVIL. And while obviously "There's no way to make this 100% air-tight", there are significant areas of concern that this 'policy' has more inequality in its application than most other 'policies'. Is the current CIVIL the most appropriate way to achieve the desired ends? If not what is a better approach?-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you felt this needed its own section. My opinon: whether it's a policy or a guideline is rather irrelevant. Unlike WP:V or other policies/guidelines, Civility is a basic part of our social contract. Unfortunately, it's also a contested personal opinion as to what is actually uncivil. The current policy does the best we can with such a fluid concept. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy is really nothing more than what we expect. Articles fall short of WP:NPOV, editors fall short of being WP:CIVIL, but that doesn't change that we expect articles to be neutral and editors to be polite. This "downgrade" sounds to me like "people aren't being civil and we aren't enforcing it very well so we should just let it slide." I have a problem with that. SDY (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are policies 'prescriptive' or 'descriptive' - there are schools of thought on both sides - If they are 'descriptive' then they should actually describe what we do. If they are 'prescriptive' they should be worded in a manner that the community is willing to consistently apply/enforce. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Policy is by necessity prescriptive. WP:NPOV does not say "articles are neutral" (which may and may not be true), it says "articles must be neutral." Editors fall short of that expectation, and editors do what they can to fix it when they find it. Are the tools used to enforce the expectation inadequate? Possibly. That it's hard to do, however, does not mean that it's not worth doing. SDY (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that when one wants to "enforce policy", whether that's civility or neutrality, they seek consensus and work with others to establish what the problem is, if any, and what the appropriate remedy is, if any. That's how it's done for any purported policy breach at Wikipedia. No one person determines what is neutral, and no one person determines what is civil. It's a community effort, and the community through consensus determines what is appropriate and what isn't. It's why we have RfCs, mediation, ArbCom, etc. It's also what keeps policy from being gamed or wiki-lawyered. People wanting to "enforce policy" often are wanting to because of a content dispute. "He was mean to me. Punish him!" [so that I win the dispute]. Only the checks and balances of the consensus-building process can determine whether someone broke the "rules" of the community, and only that process can determine what needs to be done about it (punishment, reform, cool-down period, or even ignore it). To me, when one says "enforce policy", it's all the more reason to examine why they want it enforced. What are they trying to accomplish. I look at that before I ever look to see if the policy has been broken. Why? Because I think "Thou shalt not game the system" should be policy as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet another rephrasing of my question: Does WP:CIVIL, as it is currently written and applied, provide the best/most effective way to achieve a civil environment for everyone - or can we do better? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question was:

How do we as a community ensure that as a policy Civil behaviours are exhibited by all editors and remedies for behaviors that are not Civil are appropriately applied to all users? Does the current Civility policy contain the appropriate tools and remedies to support Civility across the project?

I answered that. The answer is that consensus defines civility, defines when it is exhibited and when it isn't, and provides remedies for when it isn't. The current policy covers "Dispute resolution", which is our consensus building process. The rest is filler. By including information on DR, yes, it provides the appropriate tools. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And when you gave that as an answer, I realized that I had not phrased my question in a way that allowed you to understand what I really wanted to know. And so I re-phrased it: Does WP:CIVIL, as it is currently written and applied, provide the best/most effective way to achieve a civil environment for everyone - or can we do better?' Do I understand that your response to my new question still is "Any issues with current wording and application of policy get washed out in the consensus process."? If so, does that also mean that we should not be looking at ways to make the policy and its application better? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Civility is vital to Wikipedia working smoothly. I oppose any endeavour for this to be anything other than a policy. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Lol policy. Isn't the idea that policy reflects community standards, not the opposite? I've never seen policy as enforceable – merely descriptive of what, in practice, is enforced. So the obvious question is: is civility enforced as policy, or is it enforced as a guideline?. I say it acts like a policy – there are few exceptions to "try to converse civilly, and we'll get more done" (which is different entirely to "censor your comments to avoid offense"). — Werdna • talk 12:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So if we junk Civility, does that mean it's okay for everyone to be foul-mouthed, rude, crude, socially unacceptable, etc? Hardly a way to build an encyclopedia. Seems that would be counter to cooperative consensus building. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for this addition?

Note that many of these behaviors are contextual and subjective. What to one person is a "rude comment" may be to another writer perfectly polite. Err on the side of caution and take it seriously when someone accuses you of incivility.

Personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is currently being discussed at Arbitration Enforcement for violating his ArbCom sanctions against incivility, and who has publically declared that he is 'ignorant of Wikipedia's standards of civility' (his words, not mine), has made an addition to this policy that looks to be an attempt to excuse his own misbehavior. Is there a consensus for this addition? Dlabtot (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) There is no consensus for this addition. I believe the Policy as written, without this addition implies that incivilities are sensitive to personal interpretation, so for that reason I can't see the need for this addition. The specific wording,"What to one person is a "rude comment" may be to another writer perfectly polite", opens the door for the justification of incivilities, so I would definitely remove that line at the very least. I would add that the list of incivilities in this section describes behaviours that for a majority of people would be extremely offensive. These aren't trivial examples. My opinion of course.(olive (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)) ::Will you lot please stop attacking Science Apologist? Yes, he's under restrictions. No, that doesn't mean knee-jerk reverting anything he does is appropriate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Your comment seems to be wildly off-topic. Wikipedia operates by consensus; the question here is whether there is consensus for adding wording to this policy that essentially vitiates it. Dlabtot (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, the point here is not about SA but that the policy is essentially complete without this statement, rendering the added statement as redundant. I believe the addition opens the door for any editor looking for justification for incivility, so we need to think clearly as a group about its usefulness/appropriateness.(olive (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)) I'm sorry, but his statement seems fairly harmless. If we were just arguing about whether it was necessary, that would be one thing. But that's not what you did: You dredged up his entire past history, but did not actually quote the change that you wanted discussed. It is very clear, therefore, that you don't care about the content of the change, only who wrote it. If you want to discuss the actual change, start a new section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC) This diff, which appears in my comment above, is the change being discussed. Your assertion that I did not include it in my comment is a falsehood. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC) You neither quoted nor discussed it, except to further attack SA. A link is not an inclusion in your comments. Start a new section and discuss the problems with the diff in question, I'll archive any further attacks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:Edit warring on talk pages is inappropriate - As is hiding comments made by other editors. Please review WP:TALK I've made no personal attacks. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to report my alleged behavior in the appropriate forum. Is someone's self-declared ignorance of standards of civility, and demonstrated inability to abide by this policy relevant to the discussion of that person's edits to this policy? You seem to think no. I disagree. The question here is: Is there consensus for this edit?

SH, I suggested removing one line, and actually now rereading the policy as a whole, would remove the whole thing. Its not necessary because it is redundant, and as mentioned above vitiates the policy. Personally, for me at this point, who added it is not a consideration, although I can understand the concern. This is a Policy page and a consensus is probably the best way to proceed on a addition to Policy that is not supported by, at the very least the editors commenting here. No one removed the lines, perhaps the response had this been a knee -jerk reaction. This is a discussion, so your comments are noted, and perhaps we should continue on.(olive (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

What is the 'wrong message' that this sends? Where is it duplicated? And why would it be inappropriate to again remind editors that people from different cultures/situations may see things in a different way than you do? We duplicate lots of information. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The "wrong message" is that it says "it's OK to be offensive and rude as long as you didn't mean it." Civility demands that you consider what they hear, not what you say. SDY (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think everyone would just ignore "Err on the side of caution and take it seriously when someone accuses you of incivility." ? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd expect that people would follow that. It's just that the two statements could be read as contradictory. SDY (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is the false assertion that civility is totally subjective and open to individual interpretation. Some indefinable thing that means something different to everyone. But that's not so. We have a means for determining what is civil and what is not. It's called consensus. On Wikipedia whether a comment is 'rude' or 'perfectly polite' is determined by consensus, just like everything else. If the consensus is that a comment is 'rude', then that judgement must be respected. Otherwise, we'd be even more overrun with people making absurd claims about not understanding for example, that insults or name-calling are uncivil. Dlabtot (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If CIVILITY is determined by consensus, then it IS completely subjective. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. A consensus is a general agreement of many, versus the subjective interpretation of the few, or the one. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Subjective generally refers to the individual. Consensus defines a group rather than an individual supporting a mode of behaviour in editing ensuring, as much as is possible, that multiple views of a topic have been investigated rather than just the view of one person.

In multiples places in the Policy, editors are advised as to the actions to take if they face incivility, if they themselves are uncivil or have been accused of incivility. "Err on the side of caution and take it seriously when someone accuses you of incivility." is redundant. by which I mean , the statement doesn't give us any new information, and its inclusion implies the rest of the Policy doesn't give us enough information either. This weakens the wording of the policy, the technical, structural aspects of the Policy. If more information is needed then another section, with fully developed information and the consensus of a group can be added. A few lines tacked on the end of a section, that allows for individual interpretation isn't really constructive in terms of clarifying this policy.(olive (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

Whether something is shorter than centimeter is objective, whether I typed THE in caps is objective. Whether or not telling someone 'dont be silly' is rude/incivil is subjective. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. That's why a group of editors pooling their subjective opinions and working towards a group consensus is likely to more clearly represent a community's wishes than is the opinion of one editor.(olive (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

Representing the consensus of the comunity, and STILL subjective. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything is subjective as some level or another. Doubly-so on Wikipedia, where things are -- by design -- in a constant state of flux, rules are determined by consensus, and WP:IAR is Policy. Pointing to Civility and saying "It's subjective" is not advancing mutual understanding. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important the readers of this guideline realize that civility is in the eye-of-the-beholder and that some people may take offense even when we don't intend it. That's the gist of those two sentences, or it was meant to be anyway. The problem is that a lot of people think their conception of civility is objective when it in fact is not. Whether something is rude or not rude is a subjective point, but that's not a bad thing: it's merely something we must keep in mind when we are in discussions. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, although I'm convinced that most editors realize civility is a subjective judgment . I do believe though, that the list of incivilities listed here are relatively severe and that very few people would find them not so. There is a point where the group agreeing an incivility exists is larger than the group which doesn't think it exists. I guess I see the policy page as representing that larger group. If a comment needs to be made about the subjective aspects of incivility and article's implied information is not strong enough , then perhaps a new section should be added, based on agreement from multiple editors. Just a thought.(olive (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

I agree with Littleolive. Good policy is not subjective. It may be qualitative. For it to work well, there must be criteria against which one can measure a breach. A great deal of thought and discussion has gone into making this policy workable. There is a definition of incivility and a number of examples. That takes it out of the subjective realm. Sunray (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

So if 'good policy' is not subjective. And we have 3 hard and fast items that are overwhelmingingly endorsed by the community and therefore as non-subjective as behavior related items can be. Then anything that is not a covered under those 3 'non-subjective' rules is to one dgree or another subjective and therefore not a vilation of CIVIL because policies are not subjective? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you distinguish what you are doing here from trolling? Sunray (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, its not irrelevent nor off topic. Nor is it "generally disrupt[ing] normal on-topic discussion" and my intention certainly was not to " baiting other users into an emotional response" - I am following logical application of interpretations that fellow editors so that we can see what the implications might be. I am sorry if discussing CIVIL is emotionally troubling for you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not "emotionally troubling" for me. However, there is a great deal of side-tracking and very busy posting. And, of course, this has all been debated on these pages before, so it does seem somewhat disruptive to me. However, if others are fine with it, no problem. Sunray (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

'This should be a policy. 100% this should be a policy which is strongly enforced. And no the policy is not based entirely on subjectivity, as an action based on it, such as blocking, can always be reviewed to see if there's consensus for it. Sticky Parkin 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

so if we have to wiat for a review of the blocking action to know whether or not an action violated the community's current consensus, how would the initial editor or the administrator making the block know this before hand? In either case they would be making subjective interpretatin of the policy- something that two editors above have outright declared is bad policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Red pen, all policies on Wikipedia are open to interpretation. Wikipedia has no hard rules. Still, everything's done by consensus. It's not "completely subjective" as you said above. It's group-opinion, community, not arbitrary single-editor subjective-random-interpretation. Someone gets blocked, they can appeal right away. If an admin upholds the block, that's group-opinion, but even then it can be appealed again. Three admins uphold it, again group-opinion. The dispute resolution can go on and on, with greater consensus solidifying along the way. It's not simply one person's opinion of civility at play. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another edit conflict but thought I'd add this anyway.

I would like to clarify. At no time have I described anything as bad policy. This discussion ensued following the addition of material by an editor in a policy page without consensus. Let's not lose sight of what began the discussion. I have agreed that judgment is subjective. As long as we have human beings we have subjective judgment. Subjective may be defined as that pertaining to the individual, but not the group. On a page where policy affects the fundamental workings of a large community, the input and finally, agreement based on the opinions of multiple editors must determine judgment. Policy pages underpin action . Those pages, again, have been written and agreed upon by multiple editors . So although initial comments and discussion by individual editors may be characterized as subjective, the ensuing policy represents the agreement of many editors, and at that time can longer be characterized as subjective, but is in a sense a holding place for the collective wisdom of the individuals involved, and provides agreed upon information to assist in actions taken by admins and editors in dispute and editing situations. Although the discussion of subjectivity on Wikipedia is interesting in a philosophical sense, we probably are not making much progress on the article in question, so perhaps we should move on.(olive (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

And I would like to clarify that I have not attempted to re-instate the above language until community consensus supports it. Upon the revert, SA was not following community procedure when s/he edit warred to attempt to get it back in.

But, after BOLD and Revert comes Discuss - which we are doing here - and I am trying to figure out why people oppose stating what appears to be obvious for anyone who has done any study of anthropology or sociology or traveled to different parts of the world or even spent time in different socioeconomic milieu: that different cultures and sub-cultures consider different things Civil and uncivil. That the interpretation of an act as Civil or uncivil is subjective based on the interpretor's culture and background. And that editors should keep this in mind when they say something that might be interpreted as Uncivil or when something is said to them that they interpret as uncivil. The original language and placement can likely be tweaked, but as a general idea for content that will help remind editors.... I am still not getting why there is such opposition. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think there's a problem with removing SA's statement - it's at best a neutral comment, and probably not terribly useful. But that's not how this section began: An appropriate, neutral comment would have been on the lines of "The following text has been added by X to the end of Section Y: (quotation here) - is there consensus for this?" To instead give a screed against the person, with only a link to the diff, not even quoting it, and that given after three or four links added just to attack the person - that's just totally not on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone opposes the ideas ... Well I shouldn't speak for anyone else.... but rather just its placement, wording and usefulness. I have suggested, and do again that if information in this area is needed then a new section be started with the input and agreement of other editors. The lines SA added might be worded to not create loopholes for incivility , and no, I'm not saying SA intended that. If the idea is important it needs to be tweaked as you say, moved to its own section, and agreed on by multiple editors.(olive (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

or alternately a line placed in the introductory paragarph... something like:

Civility is a standard which all Wikipedians are expected to follow. Although difficult to define, and often considered to be subjective, civility might best be defined as that which creates an optimum collaborative editing environment, and incivility defined on Wikipedia, as personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and are therefore to be avoided.

Not attached to this in any way just an example of what might be possible. I realized that the opening pragraph is about incivility so adding a bit about the positive collaborative community might be useful.(olive (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

support It doesnt make the point quite a strongly as I would like, but it is a good move in the right direction and we can see if it helps.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust of olive's proposed wording. However, as it is to be policy, I think that we should remove the argumentation about it being difficult to define or subjective. I would suggest the following changes:

Civility is a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow. Although difficult to define, and often considered to be subjective, Civility might best be is defined as that which creates an optimum collaborative editing environment. and Incivility is defined on Wikipedia, as personally-targeted, belligerent behavior or persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and are therefore to be avoided.

That seems clear and relatively straightforward to apply. Only someone gaming us would argue it, IMO. Sunray (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Dlabtot (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

strong oppose it patently is subjective. Claiming it's not is simply misleading. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What is subjective about it? Sunray (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I really like the streamlined quality of this paragraph after Sunray's changes, I first changed this intro paragraph to include a point about the general subjectivity of civility, since that had been a major concern of a few editors, not the policy mind you, but just a general point about the nature of civility. I am not opposed to having that kind of point in the paragraph.(olive (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

How about this:(olive (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Civility is a standard that all Wikipedians are expected to follow. Although, often considered to be subjective in nature, on Wikipedia, civility might best be is defined as that which creates an optimum collaborative editing environment. and Incivility is defined on Wikipedia, as personally-targeted, belligerent behavior or persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This behavior and the ensuing atmosphere are detrimental to the project, and are therefore to be avoided.

How does describing Civility as 'subjective' advance our goal of having a good working environment for colloborative editing of this encyclopedia? Or does it make that goal more difficult to achieve? That seems to me to be the criteria we should use for this policy. Dlabtot (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How does closing our eyes to the fact that perceptions of civility/inciviltiy are inherently subjective help the project?-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe what it does is to provide a particular kind of environment in to which the editor comes. The acknowledgment that people are individual may help to create a better collaborative environment. That is, the Policy admits to the individuality of each editor but goes on to make it clear that here on Wikipedia this is how multiple editors have defined civility . I don't think it hurts to acknowledge the individuality of the editor. I'm fine with either version, though. Nice "boat" by the way.(olive (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

To be frank... If any wording, including "subjective" creates loopholes for any editor or admin. at any point, to behave with or sanction less than civil behaviour, then Sunray's wording would be best. It is the cleanest, clearest wording we have so far.(olive (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Does refusing to say "It is raining outside" actually keep you from getting wet when you walk out the door? I think its really bad policy to actively incorporate denial into policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Which editor has proposed actively incorporat(ing) denial into policy and what words did they use to do so? Dlabtot (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole basis for the line of thought that: if we dont include the word 'subjective' in the policy then we wont have to deal with the very fact that makes this such a very tough issue - percepctions of civility are culturally subjective and we are dealing with one of the most culturally diverse communities ever - where there are innumerable subjective ideas of what is civil/rude - but we can pretend that the differences dont exist and that it isnt hard if we dont mention that it is 'subjective. --

I think I am looking for wording along the lines of "While perceptions of what actions and language are civil or rude may vary from culture to culture, the Wikipedia community expects all editors to act in a manner whichs helps foster a collaborative working environment on Wikipedia..."

Something that acknowledges the individual differences that we bring to the project, but that says while here, these are the cultural norms that we have agreed upon expect from everyone. The Red Pen of Doom 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to acknowledge that due to various cultural differences and articles that cover controversial subjects and whatnot, incivility will occur. While individual events are unavoidable they are not accepted or tolerated. To throw up an arbitrary and overdramatic parallel, incivility is like death: it is unavoidable, but that does not mean that we do not take every sensible measure to avoid it. This is obviously not the language for the policy, but this is what I bellyfeel that it should say on the matter. SDY (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)