Wikipedia talk:Civility

Back to the proposal for recodifying incivility

Dear colleagues

In June I proposed that it was high time the current list (in the yellow box below) be better organised (blue box below); people were generally supportive, although a few issues were raised. The proposal was overtaken by the Civility RfC and was archived without resolution. I have included the archived discussion in a click-and-show banner below, and under it I respond to the salient issues raised in that discussion. Tony (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
• Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform.

The proposal below (A) moves from the worst to the mildest (or at least does this a little better than it currently does); (B) conflates similar points; and (C) groups the points into their two logical categories—direct rudeness, and strategies—numbering the points for easier reference by admins and other editors. The wordings currently at issue are underlined.

It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as (i) the intensity of the language/behavior; (ii) whether the behavior is one-off, occasional, or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behavior, and whether that request is recent; (iv) whether the behavior has been provoked; and (v) where the behavior is repeatedly directed at the same editor(s), the extent to which the behavior of others, and issues of content, need to be treated at the same time.

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions, directed at another contributor;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and references to groups such as social classes or nationalities in a derogatory manner;
• (c) Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing them of slander or libel;
• (d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");
• (e) Belittling a contributor because of their language skills or word choice.

2. Other uncivil behaviors

• (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• (b) Harassment;
• (c) Lying to mislead one or more editors, including deliberately asserting false information;
• (d) Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;
• (e) Publicly volunteering another person's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform;
• (f) Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb").

Responses by Tony1 to the previous discussion, stored below:

• (1c) Carcharoth wondered whether, on occasion, calling someone a liar is better than ignoring what looks like a lie. In my view, calling someone a liar is a regrettable personalising that is likely to alienate; far better to question the statement rather than the person. But removing "calling someone a liar" (and for that matter "accusing them of slander or libel" from 1c would be no big deal, since "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" covers this, and retains the "ill-considered" more strongly.
• (1e) "Belittling a contributor because of their language skills or word choice."—People are not happy with this, seeing it as inhibiting free discussion about language. IMO, the critical bit is "belittling", so why not retain that alone? "Belittling a contributor." (i.e., for any reason).
• (2e) Dabomb queried how publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform is "uncivil": I have no problem in removing this, since there's benefit in shortening the list, and surely it's covered by 2c. Carcharoth was concerned that "technically, using {{sofixit}} might breach this, as would grumpily saying "well, do it yourself then!""—I think there's concern in this regard, since those examples are of directly asking or telling someone to perform a task rather than volunteering their time (including behind their back). As irritating as this might be to some rviewers at FAC, there's nothing one can do about it except to say "no thanks, I review".
• (2f) Carcharoth called into question what it means, and the difficulty of distinguishing genuine puzzlement / lack of understanding, from fakery. Vesal had concerns about this too. I must say that I agree with these concerns, and would be happy to see 2f go. Casliber linked to the relevant part of the Disruptive editing guideline; the issue, I think, is whether this bit needs to be expressed at policy level, or is good enough in that guideline alone.

Archived discussion of the blue proposal

The second arrangement certainly seems to be clearer than the first. Chillum 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I too like the revision, more structure and easier to read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

an extremely good step. We should take care though not to suggest that the listing covers all the possibilities, and to emphasize that gross pursuit of lower level incivility can be as damaging as occasional outrages. DGG (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I believe your first concern (not all the possibilities) is covered in the lead ("can all contribute to"), which is non-exclusive. I would support your point about the undesirability of pursuing lower-level incivility (it partly depends on context, yes?), but I feel that should be treated in a separate discussion and a different section in the policy. Olive (section above), I take your point about the potential generality and specificity of terms such as "rudeness", but I think it is probably best that it appear on two levels (heading and first point). I think no editor will cite the whole of Section 1. "Direct rudeness" in support of a request that another editor "cool it" (more likely to nail it with a specific 1a, 1b, etc), but it's a useful structural distinction, contrasting with less direct linguistic behaviours. I'll leave it another few days before implementing this, to see if anyone else comments. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the reorganization of the list a lot. However, I have a question about one example: "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform;". How can this be considered "incivility", even if indirect? It's unethical, no doubt, but to say uncivil... Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here for a moment (though I like the above list), I'm wondering how genuine criticism can be made under the constraints given above. It is possible that genuine criticism can be twisted into being depicted as incivil, and thus criticism would be restricted to those who can dress it up in carefully chosen words (which would disenfranchise those who are more blunt, sometimes by choice, sometimes by not being as wordy in their language skills). Some examples:

• "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" - belittling is not good, but sometimes issues like this can impede discussions, and there needs to be a way to point such things out without being accused of being incivil. Ironically, saying that someone is incivil becase they were blunt and used a particular word, instead of a flowery sentence to say the same thing, is itself incivil under this definition.
• "calling someone a liar" - not nice, but sometimes the alternative (of ignoring what looks like a lie) is worse. The way this should be presented is "If you think someone is lying, what are the right and wrong ways to deal with it?".
• "Publicly volunteering other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform" - technically, using {{sofixit}} might breach this, as would grumpily saying "well, do it yourself then!". Or is this referring to humorous comments like "Great idea! Glad to see you are volunteering to do this! :-)". But maybe I'm missing the point and this refers to something else entirely, such as actually listing someone as doing something, but listing them without their knowledge.
• "Feigned incomprehension" - at the risk of being ironic, I don't have a clue what point is being made here. Sometimes people are genuinely puzzled, and a little explanation, while taking time, can help move things forward. Quite where you get from that to "feigned incomprehension", I'm not sure. This "obstructionist strategy" is certainly something I haven't encountered often, but then I generally just explain things when asked.

Apologies if the above points have been covered before. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one - Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27, as far as the last one goes - a link'd be good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone feigning stupidity. A more common way of not getting the point is by ignoring stronger points of an argument and only responding and refuting less important parts of a posting. It is disrespectful to not pay sufficient attention to what other people post, and I find it equally frustrating when no effort is put into expressing oneself clearly and succinctly. I had added the latter point to the policy page, but I believe it should be merged with this "refusal to get it", because the common theme is to respect the time that other people volunteer to this project. Vesal (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Renewed discussion

Please contribute: Tony (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tweak "Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb")." to something more along the lines of "Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb") or selectively ignoring key points in others' comments", and link to Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27, as they are similar phenomena.

I do not have a problem with "Belittling" as the verb carries a connotation of snidness, ridicule or patronising tone within it. Trying to comment constructively on someone's habits and offering a solution is inherently different.

Ultimately I support substituting the newer and easier to read version. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier comments about 2e and 2f. 2e is minor impoliteness at worst (e.g. SOFIXIT as a response--but perhaps you have something more serious in mind? and 2f is very hard to tell from a genuine incomprehension--it's sort of a variant of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I think this is getting overspecific. I'm not comfortable with 2d--using someone's quotes out of context is sometimes a very borderline sort of thing and I think it too should not go on the policy page. But I'm still concerning with the "it's not on the list " sort of response. It would be necessary to say over and over again that the list is not exhaustive. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WRT 2e, I agree with DGG; it's not proper Wikiquette, but hardly blatantly disruptive or uncivil. Other than that, I like the revised list. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I too support the new list format, based on its improved organization and economy of words. I think item 2e can be safely omitted, as noted above, it's a subset of 2c and perhaps overly specific. Item 2f though should be kept and perhaps generalized to advise against any form of sarcastic commentary that could be misunderstood or contain partially-hidden insults. Regarding the note above that there may be a problem with 2f due to "difficulty of distinguishing genuine puzzlement / lack of understanding, from fakery. ", I think that is why 2f is needed. If someone expresses puzzlement, the reader should not be expected to figure out if the person is faking or not. Expression of genuine puzzlement is of course not uncivil.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments. First, the current policy appears to be written in American-English (behavior), but the new version mixes both American and British English; is there a reason why this was done? Second, can we find a better name for the second category, "Other X" feels like too vague a formulation. MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, can't turn off that automatised spelling in my brain: I hope "behaviour" was the only glitch. I've made it "Other uncivil behaviours". Any way of improving on that? Tony (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about (d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");, even though I agree with the main thrust. I frequently will delete material with an edit summary of "gibberish", which I suspect many people would think meets this criteria. The most recent example would be removing the sentence "The 2nd Single was also created as a doll" from an article. That certainly passed judgment on the text, and described it accurately: I couldn't repair the text because there was no way to even figure out what the editor was attempting to convey. I don't think it qualifies as being uncivil, though. We need language that distinguishes being judgmental towards an editor as opposed to having passed judgment on a piece of text. The first is off-limits, the second may or may not be reasonable.

On a more minor issue: despite having been raised in America, "behavior" still looks silly to me. I note that Tony still couldn't make himself type it in his comment above.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would remove 2e and 2f as not really uncivil (and also somewhat redundant). However, I would include a warning that the list is not exhaustive. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have one further comment, which I hope will show how difficult it is to interpret guidelines and policies about behaviour and conduct. Has anyone here (including Tony1, who wrote the original list) been accused of being incivil, and have you ever written anything that could, according to this list, be interpreted as incivil? If you have, do you agree that you were incivil or not? If you were, then what would you consider an appropriate response to what you said, both for a one-off incident and for repeated incidents showing a pattern? Rather than point at others (which might lead to incivilities), it would be best if people pointed at examples from their own editing history. I have been intemperate at times, but I hope I haven't been truly incivil. It does show, though, how things are in the eye of the beholder. I can guarantee that nearly everyone who has been accused of incivility has had a less rigid view of their own conduct than others have had of that same conduct. And vice-versa. In other words, it is very very difficult to be objective enough to say someone else is being incivil, and to then without bias apply the same standard to yourself. My view is that there should be a scale of incivil behaviours (maybe even one of those compass/square distributions to allow an orthogonal scale for how brief or chronic the problem is), rather than a single word "incivil" which is overused and overloaded with different meanings. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume that your point is that the interpretation of any guideline on civility—current or new—requires a number of factors to be weighed up; you mention one-off versus a continuing pattern; the intensity of the language. I wonder whether you are suggesting that this very point might appear in the lead to this codification. If so, I believe it's an additional, or at least a separable issue, that may well be decided on now. But a scale of uncivil behaviours seems to be getting into very complex territory for a written policy; do you have any suggestions? Tony (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A scale might well be unworkable, but the alternatives are a set of bright-line rules and grey areas where admins and others have to use their judgment on how to handle things. Stuff on a scale could include (in no particular order): gross profanity, intemperate remarks, chronic behaviour over weeks, months and years, one-off incidents rarely repeated (on a scale of years), low-frequency repetition (outbursts every few months), repeated incivility after earlier (not recent) requests to stop being incivil, outbursts on a user's own talk pages after being blocked or provoked, repeated incivility towards the same person. And those alleging such behaviour should clearly distinguish such types and provide diffs and context (though this is usually left out because it would implicate them as well). Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things people should consider when looking at incivility: (1) What caused it? Ask the person what caused them to say that and find out what the context was. That should always be the first step. Don't assume you know everything. Trouble with this approach is that in fast-moving or widespread and escalating disputes, sometimes action is needed to stop things spreading further. (2) If there are problems other than civility, don't ignore those or concentrate on civility to the exclusion of everything else. In particular underlying content disputes need to be resolved. (3) If there is personal animosity between two users, they need to be called out on it and told to calm down or avoid each other, use dispute resolution or mediation, or talk things over (off-wiki if needed) and sort out any bad blood between them. (4) If there has been provocation or baiting or gaming of the civility policy, that should be dealt with as well. There's probably more, but I would hope that those dealing with civility complaints are aware of all the above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you think a substantial lead to this recodification is in order, setting out these matters that might weight on the interpretaiton of incivility in relation to it? If so, I suppose I could have a go at drafting it for the blue box above. I think it would serve a good purpose as guidance for admins in particular. Often, the administration of WP policies comes down to the balancing of several issues, and perhaps this should be given more official recognition. Tony (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Carcharoth's concerns, I have bravely drafted a lead (blue box above) that attempts to outline the main judgemental parameters without getting into details that might be problematic in this overarching section. I think this makes the proposal more of a substantial change than the precision re-write it has been until now—please provide opinions. Tony (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah, net positive I guess. If it serves a purpose in making someone stop and think a bit about some context before branding a behaviour as incivil or otherwise then it has done its job. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording of point (v) could be improved, as the point about considering content issues applies everywhere, not just for point (v). I'm also (pedant mode here) wondering what the difference is between incivil, uncivil and non-civil? I also thought incivil was a word and uncivil wasn't, but maybe it has caught on? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. Incivility is a word; incivil is not a word. One can commit incivility by being uncivil, or by behaving uncivilly, but there's no such thing as "uncivility" or being "incivil." Woonpton (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Looks like you are right. Of course, a better source would be good as well, but I've learnt something there, or I'm unlearning a bad habit I got from cries of "X is being incivil" on Wikipedia... See also incivil, uncivil, and incivility. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe both "uncivil" and "invcivil" are acceptable, whereas the "in" must beused for "incivility". If we're down to spelling, the proposal must be nearly ready!

Point (v): it would be nice to simplify it, and the run-on from the lead clause is a little clunky. The first phrase and the bit about content could simply be excised. How is this?

"and (v) where the behavior is repeatedly directed at the same editor(s), the extent to which the behavior of others, and issues of content, need to be treated at the same time."

The extent to which other people's behaviour needs to considered appears to accound for the direcdting of incivility to the same editor, and as Casliber says, by default involves a look at content. Tony (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• To me, the blue box is looking good now. I've attempted to integrate the comments of participants in this discussion, and I note that these editors are very experienced in dealing with civility issues at a high level. I hope no one minds if I implement the blue proposal late today; if there are problems, perhaps they can be sorted out subsequently; it's likely, I think, that there won't be problems. Tony (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend proceeding with the new version. There may be room for further improvement, but it's superior to the current version so there's no reason to wait longer. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about " Ill considered accusations of impropriety" which seems vague and maybe old fashioned, but I think this is a big improvement and would say go ahead. Is one-off meant to be one-of. Thanks Tony. Nice work leading this change.(olive (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, Olive. "One-off" is standard and formal English, I hope. If not, it could be changed to "a single occurrence". "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety" could be reworded as "Accusations of impropriety without proper foundation." What u think? Tony (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen "one -off" used anywhere ... my problem... so I will certainly take your word for it. Also maybe "accusations of improper behaviour without proper foundation". I'm not attached to any version but probably like the "proper foundation" better than ill-considered as more accessible to understanding for more readers. Personally I like ill-considered better but it may be a little stilted. Anyway, your choice, and thanks for considering my comments.(olive (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Probably too many "propers" in my example so why not ignore my comments and continue with "ill-considered".(olive (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Looking at the page for the first time (attention directed here from AN), my first reaction is that accusations of impropriety don't belong here, unless they are deliberately false. Most accusations of impropriety are made in good faith even when erroneous, and responding to one with a counter-accusation of incivility will just lead to a death spiral. For example, the current wording makes a complaint about deletion of warnings from a user's talk page into incivility -- it is only uncivil if the complainer knows that such deletions are permitted by policy. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And concerning "one-off", I'll second Olive's point: this is a wording that Americans never use and won't understand except by deduction. For Americans, "one-time" would work better. Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not something I've heard often, but I know very well what it means (I'm American, since it seems relevant here). Granted that I might be an exception. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this debate: "one-off" is a normal part of my vocabulary, and I was raised in the states (and the preceding five or six generations were born there). Perhaps it's a regionalism? I also wish that someone would take my complaint about 1(d) seriously: making judgments about text is part of an editor's job, and it's unreasonable to say that it shouldn't show up in an edit summary. Only acting judgmental towards another editor should be considered a problem.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, "one-off" has been replaced, since people did raise concerns about it. The policy needs to be an easy read. Kww, making judgments about text is sometimes hard to tease apart from the personal. If someone called my text "rambling crap", I'd find it a little painful personally, and I take encourage of my text. I don't think this interferes with normal criticism of text. It just needs to avoid extreme language and to take a "kinder" tone where possible. Tony (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pruning and tweaking needed

• I think a good pruning is needed. I trimmed extraneous wording by striking through (except in a couple cases where i messed up. Not sure how to make this proposal in any other way I also added some comments on areas that are in need of expansion or clarification:

(a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions, directed at another contributor

(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and (insert: "derogatory") references to groups such as social classes or nationalities in a derogatory manner;

(c) Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

(d) Judgmental tone in edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

(e) Belittling a contributor (combine with d)

• 2. Other uncivil behaviors

(a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves

(b) Harassment; (needs clarification. I think this is a key point actually as, for example, the incessant posting of unwelcome comments and notices on an editor's talk page and in other discussions where they are involved is a common strategy to game the system, taunt, bait, and harass. The filing of numerous frivolous reports to hound an editor and to constantly keep them on the defensive and to smear them is also a common strategy deployed by abusive editors)

(c) (trimmed a bit in front. I meant to strike it) Misleading one or more editors, including deliberately asserting false information;

(d) Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them; (I would add to misrepresent what they've said here. this is another common approach to go after editors. You take something they said out of context, perhaps a joke to a friend, and pretend it has insidious meaning and significance) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps suggestions on how to avoid doing these things would also be helpful. For instance suggesting saying a statement doesn't comply with a guideline or contradicts something istead of saying it's a lie or a misrepresentation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, CoM—I've removed the struck-through bits you suggest, except for 2a "even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" (seems to add important context), and 1c "ill-considered" (open to suggestions on that one, of course). Thank you. Tony (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I remain concerned that a civility policy will always be open to interpretation, selective enforcement and gaming. But if we're going to have one it should at least be tight.

What does it mean that ill-considered accusations are uncivil? As long as editors are careful about thinking them through they're allowed? :) Maybe that one should just be dropped all together?

I think the mainfocus should be on making sure we focus on content rather than contributors, and that we encourage and demonstrate courteous, collegial, and respectful treatment of one another. There are just too many ways to say and do mean things to people without using any inappropriate language. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly where to put this, so I'll drop it clumsily at the bottom, here. :) When I first read the "New codification of incivility" heading at WP:AN, I'm sorry to say that my gut feeling was a little less than hopeful, but looking at the two page versions, I'd like very much to applaud the effort -- the new version seems more accessible by far, to me. On the subject of 1c, it felt to me like "for instance, calling some a liar [or vandal]" was missing from that, but it's probably not required. Distinguishing "ill-considered" accusations strikes me as helpful; where accusations can be justified with evidence, I'd rather people didn't hold back legitimate claims of abuse. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

"(f) Feigned incomprehension ("playing dumb")." There's a byzantine section above discussing various changes, so I get that this was changed very, very recently, but why was this part specifically removed? I see barely any discussion, still less consensus to remove part of a major guideline.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I did the rewording of what was a poorly organised codification. I made subsequent changes on the basis of advice here from other participants. A number of people wondered whether this point (f) was worth retaining, particularly as it's very hard to nail on someone (easy to wriggle out of). User:Vesal's post (see the grey banner) partly concerns the larger issue of deceptive engagement in debates: "I've never seen anyone feigning stupidity. A more common way of not getting the point is by ignoring stronger points of an argument and only responding and refuting less important parts of a posting." I myself feel that it's probably covered by WP:AGF. In the end, there's little one can do when users game the system; especially by going right up to the limit of civility / reasonable behaviour without distinctly crossing it. Some users are masters at it. User:Stifle wondered whether it amounts to incivility in the first place, and might not be better handled in another category.

I wonder whether you might point to examples of this behaviour, where (f) would make it easier to pin a claim of incivility on the user. Would it make a substantive difference? (I don't mind if it goes back in, but there's advantage in brevity, so I guess we'd need to see that it is worth the extra text.) Tony (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Feigning incomprehension can be uncivil not because the feigner is playing dumb, but because the feigner pretends that the material is too poorly written to be understandable. The difficult, of course, is to distinguish between feigned incomprehension and real incomprehension. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it that way, but that rationale for status as incivility makes sense. The problem is, then, that it's subtle and complex, hard to distinguish from other types of deception (which abound, let's face it), and hard to nail. Unsure. Tony (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In theory, almost every behavioral violation that occurs during interaction with another editor could be considered uncivil because it would be a deliberate act that the editor knows or should know will potentially upset the other editor's equanimity. Edit warring, for example, is uncivil because it undoes another editor's efforts. I think we're better off concentrating on behaviors where incivility is the main element of the edit. Playing dumb and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are for the most part varieties disruptive / tendentious editing. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

can i use phrases from this..

to quote about incivility, towards the general editing community?Stakingsin (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistent

Why is this policy not used consisently? I was told that someone calling me a troll and someone saying that I was attracted to feces wasn't uncivil. I was told that calling someone lazy was uncivil when the user was obviously lazy to not look at the sources. I was told that calling someone a liar was uncivil even though their edits showed that they were lying. I was told that people being uncivil is allowed in long debates. Many editors including admins said all of this to me and the user that said that I was attracted to feces is an admin. Joe Chill (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves" gave many editors a chance to assume bad faith on me whenever they felt like it. Joe Chill (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an inherently difficult policy to apply utterly consistently and objectively; but it is absolutely necessary. We rely on the experience and skill of admins (and indeed of all editors) to use the policy to minimise incivility and maximise harmony and cooperation. Tony (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Update/1

Nice to see all the work being done on this page. I've done the diffs for September up through today; hope that helps. It seems to me that you guys are mid-way through the process of getting everyone on board, so it's not up to me to say whether you've got consensus or not, and I'll probably just use the last version of the month for the finished Update. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Add civil reversion of text as an issue

Proposed addition: Use of a one-line Edit Summary to justify reversion of documented material may be construed as an act of incivility. A Talk-page justification of such reversion is mandatory, and must directly address the specific reasons behind any guidelines invoked as justification of reversion, such as WP:Fringe, WP:Soap, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH or WP:POV. Brews ohare (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for Proposal

A one-line Edit summary justifying reversion of documented material as "Irrelevant and off-topic section, does not belong on this article" or "POV, non-mainstream section" is obviously inflammatory for the reverted editor whose lengthy attempt at composition and tracking down of sources and (possibly) drafting of figures is summarily dismissed by an apparently off-hand few-word description. It is pretty clear that the contributing editor doesn't think the contribution was "off-topic" or "POV", and will conclude that the reverting editor has got it wrong. Simple civility and assumptions of good faith editing require more explanation than flag-waving: in the absence of more specific guidelines, such unjustified reversion is a violation of WP:Civil. If discussion of a reversion really evolves with further exchange on the Talk page into WP:DEADHORSE, that kind of thing can be dealt with using Talk page guidelines, and has no bearing upon the initial reversion justification itself.

IMO, abuse of the one-line Edit Summary is rampant, and is employed often as a knee-jerk reaction without real appraisal of the reverted material. The above addition will have the beneficial effect of forcing reverting editors to actually think about what they are doing. Brews ohare (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comment That's incredibly gameable, and slows down what may be non-controversial editing, such as removal of blatant POV-pushing. Definitely not an appropriate addition. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Shoemaker's Holiday: Please notice that the proposal is for sourced material; that is, documented contributions. I'd argue that one-line reversion of sourced contributions is always controversial. I'd argue further that inappropriate use of the one-line Edit Summary is a major cause of escalating Talk page incivility. You are not going to avoid a Talk page discussion this way, but you are going to start the discussion in a polarized atmosphere. Needless to say, once a contributing editor has been poked in the eye, he is less likely to engage in reasonable discussion.

Blatant POV pushing is readily explained on the Talk page using a few words to point out why the sources do not support the contribution, or are not authoritative. (The reverting editor should have engaged in this exercise anyway, before making the reversion.) The major objection is not that this requirement is "gameable", but that some editors are addicted to hit-and-run usage of the one-line Edit Summary, despite its limitations. They simply do not wish to engage the contributing author, but prefer to attempt decisions from Olympus. That approach does not work. Brews ohare (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure I agree with this inclusion or not. My initial reaction is that this can refer to a more complex situation than this one line edit of the policy indicates . For starters, if this were to be included. I think "sources" would have to say "reliably sourced", and an "act of incivility" would need to say "may be construed as an act of incivility".

If an article is contentious, though, everything would/could be seen in a different light.

That said I have seen this kind of reverting used in a way that "games " the system in the opposite way from what Shoemaker is describing. If this kind of editing is an act of incivility it might be a subtle, subversive one since it can antagonize an editor but worse it can help to erode a civil editing environment.

Re Shoemaker's point: POV is a debatable and subjective issue, so an edit summary and revert for assumed POV may not be the best approach in maintaining or creating a civil environment. Discussion is usually better for the feelings of all involved.

An important issue perhaps that deserves more discussion.(olive (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Reply to olive: Modified accordingly. Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd say the change is problematic in its present form... I've seen the problem such reversions can cause, but this language is far too restrictive, especially the second sentence (and the "mandatory" language). If the text is added at all, I'd be more comfortable with something along the lines of "Use of a one-line edit summary to justify reversion of documented material may be construed as an act of incivility. Explaining such reversions on the talk page can help to avoid disputes." (That is to say, guidance rather than a "law".) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ckatz: A mandatory requirement may seem extreme, but inasmuch as we are dealing here with reversion of a contribution that took possibly hours to assemble and document, it seems to me not excessive to ask that a reversion should be accompanied by the reverting editor's thought process (if only to show there was one). My expectation is that "reasonable" editors already will see the need for a Talk-page discussion, and only the "cavalier" editor will try to get away with the one-liner, and thereby become embroiled in a heated Talk-page debate. Only a mandatory requirement will affect this editor's behavior. Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I share the concerns expressed above, that the proposal is too strict and too gameable. However, I would see a lot of good for saying something similar, as applied to marking the reversion as a minor edit, without an edit summary. I've definitely seen some editors abuse that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tryptofish: I'm not clear what you are suggesting. Is this a good paraphrase?

Marking a reverting edit as minor m in the editing check-off box with no further comment may be construed as an act of incivility. At a minimum, a one-line Edit Summary justification is mandatory.

Brews ohare (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm suggesting this instead of, rather than in addition to, what you proposed. And, like you, I'm only talking about a "reverting edit" that reverts reliably-sourced material, not reversion of vandalism and such. In the case of reverting reliably-sourced material, the m should not be checked, and there should be a meaningful edit summary. Cf: Help:Minor edit#When not to mark an edit as minor. My point is that misuse of the minor edit check-off can be uncivil. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment WP:BURDEN begins: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This proposal seems to want to shift the burden in the other direction. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dank: The presumption of this proposal is that the reverted material has been documented. Thus, in the view of the contributing editor WP:BURDEN has been met. The reverting editor, however, possibly disagrees, or has some other objection. This disagreement should be aired on the Talk page, rather than using a one-line edit like "Failed to meet WP:BURDEN", which clearly the contributing editor will object to, and which will end up in an unnecessarily heated debate on the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This proposal is uncommonly silly, and seems designed to gain the upper hand in an ongoing content dispute. I echo Dank's concerns about shifting the burden. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Skinwalker: I'd appreciate some reasons why this proposal is "uncommonly silly", as a pejorative description does little to advance understanding. I also point out, as I did before in replying to Dank, that there is no shifting of the burden for documentation implied by this proposal; to the contrary, it assumes a documented contribution has been reverted that apparently already has met WP:BURDEN, at least in the eyes of the contributing editor. The proposal simply requests that the reverting editor explain any objections to the sources already in evidence, which explanation must already exist in the reverting editor's mind if the reversion has valid grounds. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment This proposal seems eerily similar to another at the VP. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Cybercobra: There is no similarity with WP:V wording, as that proposal suggests abandoning WP:BURDEN, and this proposal does not. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me this may be more appropriate for WP:Etiquette but I can see where situations might arise where deleting material without sufficient explanation goes beyond simple rudeness or carelessness to disruptive behavior. But if the situation did arise, I would would think it would end up in dispute resolution whether suggested addition to the policy was there or not and it would still be a matter for the people trying to resolve it whether the additions or the deletions were unreasonable. I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways people can engage in disruptive editing if we just say do not engage in disruptive editing (see WP:BEANS).--RDBury (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RDBury: The reason dispute replaces discussion and ends up in dispute resolution is because civility is lost and hostility takes its place. The idea of this proposal is to keep the temperature down by getting off on the right foot, which is to say, to avoid poking the contributing editor in the eye before discussion even begins in the Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is a slippery slope at this point until editors are required to give detailed explanations before making any edit at all, as anything less would be perceived as uncivil. On the other hand, reversions to obviously good faith edits should in some cases be explained politely, this hardly seems to warrant a change to existing behavioral guidelines. 141.158.68.228 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition: Sorry if the above comment seems to be ambivalent. I don't really understand what the proposed addition would be. Something like the following might be acceptable: "Repeated reversion of material with only perfunctory reasons given may sometimes be viewed as uncivil." However, it is clearly not going to be actionable ("sometimes viewed"), and in extraordinary cases where it does factor into an evaluation, it is already going to be superceded by brightline policies like 3rr. In short, I would only add such language to the guideline that could be adequately hedged in terms of existing policies. 141.158.68.228 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 141.158.68.228: The only edits that are subject to explanation in this proposal are reversions of documented contributions. There are many reversions that require little explanation, or a one-line summary explanation, but reversion of documented contributions are singled out in this proposal as evidencing some thought and some care in tracking down sources, and therefore worthy of greater attention. As you say, reversions of good faith edits should be dealt with politely, and IMO "politely" means their reversion requires a real explanation on the Talk page. At present that often doesn't happen, leading to unnecessary strife, so a change to existing guidelines is in order.

There is no vague boundary like "sometimes may be viewed" in this proposal: it is black and white - if you revert sourced material, explain your evaluation process on the Talk page. That is the civil thing to do. Brews ohare (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. In that case, I unequivocally oppose such a proposal. What, exactly, does "document" mean? Who assesses whether a proposed edit has, in fact, been documented? (etc.) This proposal is poisonous to the project, and should be killed. 141.158.68.228 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 141.158.68.228: I don't think that there is anything unusual in the term "documented" - it means that published sources have been cited that support the material. To establish reversion of sourced material, one must have a reason, and if you don't have a clue whether the sources support the material or not, then the place to find out is on the Talk page: ask about it. It is irresponsible to revert material without justification because you don't know whether it should be reverted or not, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - no, this is phrased in far too harsh a way. It will be widely ignored (or not known), but then permit sanction: i.e., enable drama. The general point that not explaining edits can be construed as rude is fair enough, but see WP:EP#Be helpful: explain's first paragraph for the sort of way that can be expressed as guidance. It could be easily adapted here to note the point that not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Rd232 ^talk 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rd232: I was not aware of WP:EP. I believe the present proposal falls under discuss major changes. From what I see so far, I'd say most editors do not want to describe their evaluation process for reversion, even though responsible behavior requires that they have formulated one. So your view seems likely that only a "recommendation" to be sensible will fly.

I'm uncertain how well that will work, as it appears that a goodly number of editors actually do not understand the material they revert. It would be so nice if they were required to engage the contributor in a civil discussion instead of starting out with swords drawn. Brews ohare (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the other editors that this is way too harsh. Besides the "mandatory" wording (which is just completely unlike WP, see WP:IAR), the subjective term "documented" could cause lots of issues. There is a such thing as properly documented info; however, many editors fail to understand this. Some people add info, and link a source that barely mentions the topic (WP:OR), or use an unreliable source, but claim "It is documented!" (WP:RS).

1. Example, someone could claim from a primary source of baseball statitistics, and claim, "Barry Bonds has the most home runs in major league baseball," or using that same source, say, "Barry Bonds was the greatest baseball player of all time." Do we really need to explain WP:OR and WP:SYN every time someone is offended that their "documented" info like this has been deleted?

If someone takes offense to their edit being removed, then they can simply start the discussion on the talk page regarding the removed information. Forcing editors to explain every deletion of so-called "documented" information would stall improvement of the project. Angryapathy (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Angryapathy: Hey, thanks for your contribution here, which comes closest to an actual appraisal of the proposal that I've seen so far. The term "documented" apparently needs elaboration, although you seem uncertain that, however it is described, it will be understood. I like your example, which seems very to the point. Here is my scenario as to what happens in your example: the statement "Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player ever [1], [2]" is reverted with the one-line summary "Violates WP:SYN and WP:OR" My guess is that the Barry Bonds enthusiast will find this to be a rather abstract justification, and being an enthusiast will go to the Talk page and ask "Why the #%$%^& was my sourced contribution reverted? Everybody knows Barry Bonds is the greatest ever." Which will force a heated exchange on the Talk page. Wouldn't it be better if the reversion said "Supplied sources inadequate; please see Talk page", and on Talk a subsection titled "Barry Bonds" said "Refs [1] & [2] indicate specific achievements of Barry Bonds, but it is conjectural that these accomplishments make him the greatest baseball player ever." One might even make a positive suggestion: "Why not source his accomplishments, and let the reader draw their own conclusions?" In this second case the contributor sees immediately what the issue is and will either rephrase the contribution or abandon the insertion. Probably the WP article would benefit from a more accurate statement and the identification of the sources. One might even hope that this editor will develop a more sophisticated notion of contributing from this exchange, instead of leaving a drawn-out argument about how great Barry Bonds is with a bad taste in the mouth, regardless of how it all turned out.

I have in mind reversions of rather more complex contributions than this, however, and maybe a more detailed description of the text to which the proposal applies is in order. What do you think? Brews ohare (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your last statement that you have in mind more complex revisions than the one I mentioned is precisely the reason I mentioned it; while I do agree that removal of properly documented should be explained, your proposal would have more far-reaching effects than complex edit conflicts with truly proper sourcing. Your proposal is too Draconian and is not in the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. While it would be nice to have a longer explanation of certain reverts, I don't think the talk page should be a place to explain the pillars of WP to every inexperienced editor. Real discussions could be lost in the sea of, "None of the sources make that statement, see WP:OR" (which would fit in the edit summary for the Barry Bonds example). Most editors will go to a user's talk page to remind the user to read the five pillars.

I think some editors (including me) will get lazy in the edit summary. No offense to your proposal, but seems to be getting little support. Maybe you should focus on clarifying what should be added to an edit summary. WP:ATA has a nice list of arguments to avoid in deletion debates, like, "Topic fails WP:N," which should be, "No reliable secondary sources mention topic." I don't know if edit summaries have a similar type of page.

I see your intentions are good; trying to head off arguments/edit wars ahead of time. But you can't have something be mandatory when you can Ignore All Rules. Angryapathy (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Angryapathy: Thanks for your remarks. You clearly have a greater familiarity with guidelines than do I, and I'll look into your suggestions. In the meanwhile, could you propose an alternative wording that might be acceptable and might impact the "lazy" one-line reversion? Brews ohare (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of something like Wikipedia:Edit summaries to avoid. That might have a broader scope than Wikipedia:Red flags in edit summaries. Rd232 ^talk 14:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Rd232: That seems like a good idea to me too. Can you tell me (perhaps on my Talk page) what steps to follow to introduce such an article for consideration? Brews ohare (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have a much clearer idea of what would be involved, contentwise. Just take Wikipedia:Red flags in edit summaries as an example; it is just an essay, so there's no particular procedure to follow apart from sticking that tag on it. Probably you should start by drafting it in your userspace though, and move to WP: space once it starts looking useful. Rd232 ^talk 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think RD232 has the best solution. WP:CIVIL doesn't seem to be the place for comments about edit summaries. If you two can get it started, let me know, I'd like to put my two cents into it. Angryapathy (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that comment ("doesn't seem to be the place") provoked me into trying to prove the opposite... I've added a subsection Avoiding Incivility, with some points arising from the discussion. Rd232 ^talk 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The proposer of this RfC is currently a party at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, where his view of what constitutes "documented material" (and indeed "civility") are under examination by ArbCom. I think that this proposal ould simply pander to the agressive spinners of pseudoscience which we occasionally encounter on Wikipedia. Note that there is no requirement that the source actually says (in the eyes of a normal reader) what the inserting editor pretends it to say. Physchim62 (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is a silly idea. The proposer has not demonstrated a good understanding of how to work well with others. I recommend closing this discussion now per no chance this will be accepted. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, it's a clear case of WP:KUDZU. And it's not even a good rule, in that it empowers fringe POV pushers even more than they currently are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could deal with the proposal in language that is appropriate especially on a civility talk page...Leave out the editor and just deal with the proposal, workable or not, and whatever the outcome. The fact that the editor here has asked for and wants comments and has asked for them publicly is a sign of efforts to work with community input. Lets assume good faith. I find the tone here surprising and unexpected. (olive (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I wondered if it was supposed to be ironic.... Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncivil to mention the editor if their motivation and approach are germane to the discussion at hand (here defending Physchim62's comments rather than Jehochman's). Protonk (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)