Wikipedia talk:Civility

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

• /archive - old discussion to April 2005. -St|eve 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Use of ALL CAPS

Should the use of all caps be considered being uncivil? Unless absolutely necessary for formatting, style, or faithful reproductions, using ALL CAPS often means shouting and shouting is not civil. Example: “This is NOT correct.” (Unnecessary use of caps, facts can still be communicated well without the emphasis.) --70.240.190.133 21:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem: what IS the problem?

What does the first sentence of the first section, "The problem", mean? "Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of other contributors." Other than what? Is this true? Is it uncontested? The sentence has been there from the very first, countless editors have left it unchanged, but what..? Am I just having a stupid day? Could somebody paraphrase it for me, please? Bishonen | talk 10:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not very grammatical. It means either "Wikipedia contributors on the whole are not especially respectful of other contributors" or "Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of contributions" or maybe something else I haven't thought of—from the rest of the paragraph I understand that it means that we, as a lot, are rude bastards.

Of course, this isn't true. Mostly contributors are indifferent to each other, and as in all collaborative endeavours, there is a tendency to criticize what is bad, and accept without praise what is good.

I rewrote the first paragraph to better reflect things as I see them. Others should do so as well. Collaboration, it's the gift that keeps on giving! JRM · Talk 11:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Aahhh. Yes, having a stupid day, check. Thank you, JRM. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Civility and how to attain it

There's a new approach being formulated to deal with annoying personal remarks. One aspect being considered is the special case wherein the target of an unwelcome remark wishes to raise an objection.

I've recently come around to the idea that it may be better not to raise the prospect of bans or blocks oneself as this may be seen as a sort of retaliation - which could willy-nilly add fuel to the fire, so to speak. (To be frank, this is a mistake I just made last earlier this year with csloat on a gitmo talk page; let's all learn from my mistake.)

The upshot of this, is that "we who are innocent" must be patient - but we can also seek help. But while waiting for help to arrive, we can still say something like:

I wish you wouldn't call me a racist.

If a response comes back like

• I did not mean you, or
• Don't take it personally, or
• That's not what I meant

...then do not respond further. Either disengage, or ignore it. Let others help restore civility; you will have done enough. Uncle Ed 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Petty example listed with serious examples

I don't feel that

• starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."

should really go among the examples of more serious incivility. Any objections if I move it to the examples of petty incivility? (And please don't think I'm saying that it's okay to start a comment like that. I just think it's more in place with the existing petty examples than with the existing serious examples.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -- Reinyday, 11:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and changed it. I hope I'm not being too hasty in doing that without waiting for other comments, but it really doesn't seem to alter the basic message of the article. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Trouble with this example is that of course it's just a warning bell, or as it were, an "incivility schema". What follows might be any degree of incivility, from mild to extreme, or indeed none (well, in theory). Alai 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always had a high level of disdain for people who begin a paragraph with, "I don't mean to sound like an arrogant, ignorant, flaming jackass, but..." because it intuitively states the obvious. They are apologising in advance, knowing full well that people will react to them exactly as they have already indicated they will be making themselves appear. My take: if you don't MEAN to be <insert description here> then just don't do it. Make your case, or don't. If you are aware you are going to torque people off to the nth degree, why are you bothering to phrase what's coming in that manner? Tact. Such a simple word. Such a huge potential for damage. Ever wonder what one of the many things wrong with the modern world are? We as a species forget all about tact as a simple courtesy to the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of others. Weaponofmassinstruction 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Taunting

I have added language regarding taunting using the behavior of BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) as an example Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Removing comments

This page seems to endorse removing or - worse - altering comments percieved as uncivil. But that's a guideline, and a highly controversial one at that as I understand it (full disclosure; personally I violently disagree with it, as I think altering someone else's signed comments is likely to be far more disrespectful than whatever prompted your doing so). It does note in passing that some instances of this are seen as controversial, but I am still not comfortable with that; the overall message seems to be that it's perfectly okay, but lots of people think that is far from true.

On an unrelated note, while I'm here, I wish there was some text making it clear that critiquing a contribution, as one might in an academic environment, is about as far from uncivil as it gets, no matter how many contributers seem to think doing so constitutes a personal attack. It would make a nice balance, because while I certainly see value in this policy, it seems to me that far too often, it is used to hold a given page hostage to the often idiosyncratic perceptions of the most thin-skinned user who chooses to edit it. PurplePlatypus 07:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thoroughly agreed on both points. "Refactoring" other people's talk-page comments is simply forgery, since it leaves the other person's name signed to comments that the "refactorer" actually wrote. Moreover, it is likely to provoke a worsening of an already bad situation, since people are likely to perceive the alteration as an attack or censorship.

And yes, we need to make it clear that critiquing a contribution is always acceptable. Comments should be addressed not ad hominem but ad litteram. While people may feel bad that others dislike their contributions, that's just part of working on an encyclopedia -- in contrast to personal attacks, which are unnecessary. --FOo 08:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote the ArbCom - and this case is technically still in voting, but looks like a slam-dunk "accept" at the moment:

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.

PurplePlatypus 18:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:User du-0

du-0	This person does not understand dumbass (or understands it with considerable difficulties, or does not want to speak dumbass).

Template:User du-0 is up for deletion. I feel that it is inherently uncivil — and that this fact is entirely obvious. Opinions here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_du-0. — Davenbelle 03:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mergefrom Wikipedia:Etiquette

Someone suggested a merge, without filing a talk page entry. Will remove the tags for now. I disagree that Civility (a core principle) is the same as Etiquette (a peripheral guidline), but agree that they are related and should have some integration. -St|eve 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Restrict access to Wikipedia for some classes of people more likely to be offensive (reducing openness)

What kind of classes? Profiling by age, race, geographical location, ideology? Proposed change: just delete the sentence.

Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave Wikipedia or simply allowing the editor to leave -- whether or not that person was the offender or the one guilty of the offenses -- in order to reduce the level of conflict)

This sounds like overkill. Proposed change: "Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in wikipedia). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict." Also, the bullet point should be moved later in the list (ie after less severe remedies).

Request the use of real names to force editors to take responsibility for their behavior (although this is generally considered not desirable on Wikipedia)

Requesting real names would be especially impractical during an edit conflict, as people would be worried about the conflict spilling into real life. Proposed change: add ", and especially impractical during an edit conflict".

Thanks, Andjam 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes I suggested (feel free to revert). It's only official policy, it's not like it's anything important ... Andjam 06:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:

I am a great believer in the concept and the policy of WP:CIVIL. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, public civility is the only way to achieve peaceful coexistance of people with widely varying opinions.

A recent episode, however, has indicated to me that the policy should be loosened slightly. Editors should feel free, on their own User talk: pages, to react less than perfectly civilly to ugliness, harassment, racism, trollery, stalking, pestering, condescending -- ok, whatever annoys, bothers, or offend them. I'll use myself as an example here. A pest of a certain socio-political viewpoint, one with a hatred of people of my religion (and other people ethnically and/or religiously and/or socially different from the pest) and a strong admiration for early-to-mid-20th-century German political currents, was posting very rude suggestions on my talk page. I responded with a heartfelt and very well considered "Fuck off, Nazi." This was certainly an uncivil action on my part; however, the context of the remark and the location of the remark, in my mind, dramatically reduced the potential damage to the community that WP:CIVIL is designed to prevent.

The problem is that different people have different ideas of civility. "The coward does it with a kiss; the brave man with a sword." I think it's grossly uncivil to goad someone, even with polite words, into uncivil response. I think that condescending sarcasm, while it might cause owies to sensitive egos, is not an inappropriate response to perceived cluelessness. I think bitterness is not an inappropriate response to hate speech.

Allowing a bit more freedom of speech on editors' own User talk: pages will remove a tool for harassment and goading. If an editor is offended by something said on someone's User talk: page, there's no reason they need to go to that page again looking for other things to be offended by. If you're the easily offended type, take the time to become familiar with how an editor reacts to the sort of suggestion you're about to make before you make it. Nobody is forced to read anyone else's User talk: page, nor to engage anyone in particular in dialog.

In short, WP:CIVIL should be modified or interpreted to grant the right to say "Fuck off" on one's own User talk page, and only there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I really have any involvement with this, but let me state my complete agreement for the record, since I happened to be passing by. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 19:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm passing through too, following a link from your ArbCom election statement, but I, too, have to say I wholeheartedly back this. PurplePlatypus 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to revert your Talk page? That way, you don't have to look at the offensive comment any more, and the action is a clear message: "Leave me alone."--TJ 16:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

The article says: "Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)." How does one go about reqesting technical help in this instance? Shiroi Hane 11:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

abuse of this and related pages

Something ought to be said about throwing WP:whatever at people.

Probably WP:V is most abused, since many things are verifiable only with great difficulty — and people throwing around WP:V know this. (perhaps my source is a college textbook that I sold back to the campus bookstore, and now I don't remember the title or ISDN number — am I to buy and re-read books until I find the source???)

WP:NPOV is another one that gets severely abused, though at least that one is easier to defend against.

AlbertCahalan 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can't remember the name of the book, then how accurate would the recollection of the content of said book be? Andjam 11:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

New essay page

This article doesn't have a section for related links so I'll post this on talk. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons covers informal ways to resolve disputes and encourage polite collaboration. Durova 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Aim higher

I am starting to think this policy is suboptimal. Don't get me wrong, civility is much nicer than nastiness. But the thing is, profound frustration is possible even in cases where all parties remain civil. And it's certainly possible to be petty or condescending from behind the veneer of civil language. I just don't think civility is a high enough standard.

Users should be friendly to one another. It wouldn't kill us to be generally positive in tone when talking with people who disagree with us. I like to think I would be really, really surprised if someone were to get angry or frustrated over something I've written on a discussion page.

Every sentence you write in a heated discussion will affect how the reader sees you and your ideas. When you write something to score points on someone in an argument (rather than to explain your point of view, or to try to ask the right questions to understand the other point of view, which is what you ought to be doing), people pick up on that. And they either lose respect for you, or they start doing the same thing.

Ideally, a discussion is a search for enlightenment--about your own views, as well as others. And, of course, an attempt on all parts to make a better encyclopedia. Anything less makes Wikipedia less than it could be. (This means you, smartypants.)

Seriously--if you can't maintain an honestly friendly attitude while writing to someone, it means you're frustrated, impatient, or ticked off. It happens. What is one to do? Well, it depends.

1. Did the other chap write something genuinely provoking, or are you just a little too emotionally invested in the argument right now? (Careful, it's important to get the right answer here. Assume good faith.) If you find it's the latter, the good news is, there's a miracle cure. Take a break, get a cupcake and a little perspective, and read it again tomorrow. Chances are, in your mood, you haven't made enough of an effort to understand the other chap's point of view. The entire universe will be better off if you exhibit manful restraint and reply later.
2. So they're really being provoking, are they. Alas, it happens. The question then becomes, is this person a pretty good guy who slipped up? Or have you got a genuine jerk on your hands? If they just slipped up, the instant you realize it you'll feel better. Genuine friendliness should be within reach.
3. Oh, dear. Well, if they're just a jerk, and (whew) sometimes they are, it's okay to reach for dispute resolution after a few exchanges, rather than waste time making civil but unproductive arguments. Teams of highly trained masochists are waiting to parachute in and bang their heads against the wall so you don't have to.

Despite the slightly silly language, I really am quite serious about this. People with good humor and a friendly tone are shining examples to the rest of us--somewhere deep inside, we know that--and the effect they have on mobs of opinionated people is like magic.

As long as civility is our standard, that's all we'll get. If we can bring ourselves to ask one another to Be friendly, Wikipedia will be pleasanter--and more productive. Jorend 22:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Today, after recieving a "suboptimal" (and verbosely harsh) review on FAC, I went in search of a Wikipedia guideline for WP:Be nice but came here instead. I totally agree that being civil is not enough to keep editors happy, tempers cool, or diffuse a difficult situation. Friendliness or niceness is required.--Will.i.am 19:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Article about Civility

I like to start an article about civility. It was an important concept in the history of Europe and humanism. It surprises me that there isn't an article about this topic. Civility has to do with discipline, etiquette, living in the city, civilized conversation (Stanley versus Livingstone: 'Dr. Livingstone, I presume?'). It was derived from Roman and Greek antiquity.

I have found a similar topic: Civic virtue. So a special article on civility is not necessary.--Daanschr 16:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

South Park Criticism

I keep making a small section on the South Park page about how some people Critisize South Park, and people keep reverting it, what is the problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Park&diff=56852774&oldid=56852519 I think this is a perfectly fine section of it. People need to know about these kinds of things, and I am staying 100% neutral with my opinions, im just laying down the FACTS of what other people believe.

You need to discuss this on the Talk:South Park page, not here. Exploding Boy 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This policy must be destroyed for the good of Wikipedia!

Indeed. Take a gander at these words of wisdom: [1] -Zero^Talk 09:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put those words on the level of "wisdom". They are ones view on how they are able to react to everything well. Without the civil policy communities do not grow. They get bogged down by a small few who know they can handle everyone telling them off because they give just as much back. I say the person needs to think a bit longer about the implications of making something this major less than a basic necessity. If people want to say something that violates the policy it is likely they are doing it in hot blood and really just need to calm down and think about it without using emotive uncivil terms. Ansell 10:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was being facetious. I don't believe wikipedia would be as productive without the level of civilty and behavior required of us. -Zero^Talk 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You should warn someone before you do that :-P Ansell 11:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but... was facetiously mocking the guy the best way to demonstrate the importance of civility? :] --CBD 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't strike me as uncivil. A joke made in bad taste, perhaps. -Zero^Talk 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this correct?

I had an editor admonish me today: you should not be refactoring the talk page when you are the target of incivility. Is this correct? --ScienceApologist 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would ignore that, especially if you are refactoring to remove personal attacks against yourself. People must be civil, that is why this is policy. Ansell 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It generally isn't a good idea to go editing someone else's offensive words if those words are directed at you. The reason is that the original writer is likely to take even more severe offense at your editing than you did at the words themselves. So what you end up creating is an escalation of offensiveness rather than a defusing of the situation. --FOo 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. Interesting discussion. I think it depends if there are other editors around or not. If someone burns you it looks bad. Others may copy. If nobody is around just remove the flame. Or am I being too hypothetical? Matlee 11:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple, remove the offensive content, but leave a note saying you did and a diff to the offensive edit so people can see what you have removed. HighInBC 06:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Active goading

Is incivility just words? Or actions also? If an editor annoys another with an action (eg placing a counterargument between the lines of your talkpage comment, or rearanges your comments or re-titles them). Then makes 200 of the same actions in the week - is that not uncivil? It seems the only solution in that possibly hypothetical situation is to have a will of iron and to stay frosty. Matlee 11:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this sort of behaviour could fall under WP:Point? HighInBC 06:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fixed Sloppy Spelling

How is "fixed sloppy spelling" being rude? If someone takes that as rude, I'd say they either need to learn to spell better or be thankful that someone fixed their mistakes. - JNighthawk 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Fixed spelling" is fine. The judgmental tone caused by the adjective "sloppy" is what offends. The adjective is unnecessary.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott >

repetitively labels me as "uncivil" & deletes every comment & complaint that I write, particularly if I write about Scott.

So, I've decided to write about it here.

Shall Scott delete this as well??

Is there some law against wiki improving??

If not, then why delete my comments,

& my pages??

Hopiakuta 06:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, regardless of whether it had been Scott or some other puppet who had deleted my page, how may I have it revived??

Rather than having it deleted, I would have preferred

civil

discussion regarding its improvement.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 06:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

request for re-write

from the article: "There is a case where Wikipedia as a whole is not especially respectful of contributions, since anyone can edit freely." <-- could someone explain or re-write this sentence. I do not understand it. --JWSchmidt 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Direct citations supporting controversial arguments

I am looking for a little guidance here. Let's say that group x says group y is supported by the Communist Party, and a link is provided to where the group makes the argument. Would it also be okay to include links to the Communist Party's website if they substantiate group x's claim for the sake of verifiability? --146.145.70.200 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy -> essay

This isn't a policy. It doesn't read like one, and it doesn't actually state any policy.

Anthere and I started the page on meta. It was a discussion page about what to do about patterns of editing we saw, oh, about three years ago. The discussion isn't very relevant today, because Wikipedia is a very different place.

I've boldly changed the tag. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been policy for a very long time. You state "it doesn't actually state any policy." I disagree. The policy is that users are to be civil towards one another. This is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and rather remarkable. I would add that, my observation is that it does work as policy. So I would ask that you present a case as to how it is not a valid policy. Then we can discuss it and determine whether any changes are needed.

I will remind you of the groundrules for changing policies:

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

So after we have discussed it, and, assuming that there is consensus, we may change this policy. Sunray 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's begin the discussion. I concur with UninvitedCompany. This page consists of advice and guidelines. If anything, we should have a policy that says only "Participate in a respectful and civil way", and from there link to a page of guidelines for how to apply that policy to your daily editing. — GT 08:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I also note that we have Wikipedia:Etiquette which is better (marginally) than this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility is an essential and fundemental principal of wikipedia, it should not be anything but policy. Improve it if you see fit and can find consensus, but it cannot be optional or the system will break down. HighInBC 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC, I don't find it very civil of you to revert the proposed merger to Wikipedia:Etiquette tag after only two days on there, on the grounds that nobody was responding to it. Disagree as you may, you need to allow the discussion to occur before you can dismiss it and two days is not long enough. Furthermore, I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the proposal to no longer classify this document of community endorsed advice as "policy". Do you think that if this specific essay at Wikipedia:Civility is no longer policy, that all sort of chaos will break out and people will think it is okay to be uncivil? — GT 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your first concern, I think it is standard practice to explain the reasoning behind a merge tag on the discusion page, if such an explanation is here then I must have missed it. Very often people throw a tag there and leave, I am not implying that is the case here, but I saw no discussion taking place here. Nothing I did was not reversable and I do not think it an uncivil act of me, please take my word I was trying to improve the encyclopedia.

As for your second concern, yes I do beleive that the ability to tell new people that civility is a rule and not a suggestion is very important to keeping order. Wikipedia is growing at a tremendous rate right now and we need to remain civil more than ever before. HighInBC 06:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

GT says: "This page consists of advice and guidelines. If anything, we should have a policy that says only 'Participate in a respectful and civil way'." I agree that the policy could be better worded. As to advice, I think that it is incumbent on a policy to describe what is meant, i.e., to elaborate on the policy for clarity. However, his main point is well taken. I propose that we add a clear statement such as: "Participate in a respectful and civil way," or simply: "Be civil." Sunray 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

Regarding the merge tag, please explain your reason behind the proposed merge. HighInBC 06:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the pages cover substantally the same subject area and that Civility is the preferred title because it is more widely used as a link target. That said, the Wikipedia:Etiquette page is better structured, although it is of excessive length and many examples are poorly chosen. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. The seperation of the 2 pages seems to me to be based on the idea that while civility is policy, etiquette is a guideline. I has always seen it as an extension to the civility policy, but not a mandatory one. A place for suggested practices that perhaps should not be enforced strictly.

An alternative solution to merging them may be to transfer/edit material between the two after acheiving consensus. Of course making any structural or stylistic changes to improve either would be a boon to wikipedia aswell.

What do you think about those ideas? HighInBC 21:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made a note on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) encouraging others to join this discussion. Personally, I am uncomfortable with what is essentially a page of advice (as appropriate is it may be) being considered as policy. In my view policies should be clear, simple, and universal. This current page is none of those things, especially since one person might sincerely consider their own behavior to be civil and others might find those same actions to be quite the opposite.

WP:IAR is an ideal policy in my view. We could very easily have attempted to write a long document explaining the spirit of "Ignore all rules" and listing all the situations where it might be appropriate to do so, and therefore covered all the bases, but the page serves its purpose much better by only listing a single sentence and leaving it to outside discussion to properly apply that policy to specific circumstances. — GT 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I am glad you invited more people into this discussion. HighInBC 22:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the proper course of action is to remove the policy tag from this article, where it is misplaced based on the current content for the reasons outlined above, and then proceed with the merge. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And if that is what consensus determines then that is what should be done. But consensus is far. We have only three opinions on the subject of the merge. HighInBC 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to realize GT that our ideas are not totally in oposition.

You seem to be talking about a smaller policy in regards to civility which is restricted to non arbritrary rules, and then another page that encompasses the less than mandatory, harder to define nuances of being good to each other. Correct me if I am misinterpreting.

Where I am suggesting that content be moved between the two to make it acceptable to consensus and keeping the respective status of each on as it is.

The only real difference would be that perhaps in your scenario WP:Etiquette would have a different name. I am not opposed to it being names something along the lines of Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to be civil.

Hmmmm? HighInBC 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That is basically a correct summary of what I am seeking, HighInBC, though I have doubts about the usefulness of a short page that basically says "Be civil to one another" (maybe in slightly greater detail). It seems like common sense to me and the only people who would need to be commanded to be civil would be those who are not likely to obey policy anyway. — GT 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have had many experiences where a new user become civil once realizing it was not optional. Most places on the internet it is ok to attack the messanger. I was in a discussion about the age of the eartt on the earth talk page recently and I was able to get a rude person to talk civily by pointing out it was not optional. He is now a good editor. HighInBC 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There probably does need to be a distinction made between a Civility policy and a set of Etiquette guidelines. I wouldn't merge them, but they do need to be made clearer. One thing that is worth mentioning is that the use of diplomatic language can be done in an aggressive way. In other words, the spirit of the discussion is as important as the words used. Carcharoth 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And looking more closely, the etiquette page covers far more than just being civil (or at least it should). Definitely do not merge. Being civil is effectively just saying "be nice". Etiquette is a series of examples and rules. What to do in "x" situation. Carcharoth 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we need a policy about civility, but we definitely need a policy about incivility, and, for now, this is it. I think that we also need a guideline about how to be as nice as possible, and, currently, that is Wikipedia:Etiquette. I think that there's a lot of content that should be shuffled between the two pages right now, but I think that we need two separate ones. JYolkowski // talk 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't merge and don't remove the policy tag. This is a policy, and always should be. The policy is that we act civilly on Wikipedia, that's what this page is here to state. That doesn't need any rules, and indeed what constitutes civility is something that can only be guided. It's a similar issue to verifiability. It's a policy that you cite reliable sources, but we can only offer guidance on what a reliable source is. It's policy that you interact civilly, but we can only guide you in what civil behaviour is. Steve block Talk 19:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Very well said, Steve block, I think that says it perfectly. I oppose merging and oppose removing the tag identifying civility as a policy for exactly the reasons as stated above by Steve. User:Pedant 09:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to toss in my agreement with Steve block's succinct description of the policy-guideline relationship that should be extended towards this merge discussion. I'd also like to underline Carcharoth's point with respect to Steve's: etiquette is a list of procedures that apply to specific situations (which constitutes a guideline) whereas civility is a behavioural requirement (which is a policy). Thus, I support the shuffling of content to support these definitions and oppose the merge of the two. Hopefully my two cents helps to evolve the consensus or lack thereof, however I don't plan to actively participate in the merge proposal proceedings so leave me a note on my talk page if you want my attention regarding this comment. BigNate37_(T) 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

This is not generally how merges are done. Typically we vote, explaining rationale if opposing:

• Comment Why not explain rational for merging? And no this is not a vote but a poll to help test consensus(not determine it). HighInBC 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge - Jack (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - (from above)The seperation of the 2 pages seems to me to be based on the idea that while civility is policy, etiquette is a guideline. I has always seen it as an extension to the civility policy, but not a mandatory one. A place for suggested practices that perhaps should not be enforced strictly. HighInBC 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per HighInBC. John254 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. This is a core policy. It should not be watered down in any way with inclusion of the guideline on etiquette. Sunray 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's a good idea to merge. It's not watering down, it's simply putting all good ideas on a single page. Etiquette stems from 2002 and is probably our oldest behavioral page, CIV is basically a spinoff created about two years later. The reason Etiq was not flagged as policy ([2]) was because it is basically a page of short points of advice, with no real header text etc. If merged, it would use the text in CIV as header, and the two combine to form viable policy. >Radiant< 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Result: No merge

The merge tag has been on the article for three weeks and a total of ten people have made a clear statement one way or the other regarding a merge. My tally is: seven opposed and three in favor of merging. Thus consensus is no merge. On the other hand, there have been some suggestions for additions/revisions to the policy (see previous sections). These can easily be pursued here. In the meantime, I will remove the merge tag. Sunray 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR warnings

I was notified that my warnings about WP:3RR violate this policy. Could someone confirm or deny that for me? Thanks, Ansell 08:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks civil to me, warning about 3rr are better done on the users talk page. HighInBC 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Positive statement of policy

In the debate above under the heading "Policy --> essay," GT suggested a positive statement of the policy: "Participate in a respectful and civil way." I think we should add this as the basic statement of the policy. Thus the policy would state the expectations of what users should do, rather than only what they should not do. As I said above, I think that the elaboration currently in the policy (e.g., "being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly...) is fine to give background to those who want more information. However, we need a clear statement of what the policy expectations are. Comments? Sunray 20:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hearing none, I've added the statement "Participate in a respectful and civil way" to the "Policy in a nutshell" box. Sunray 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of sarcasm

This issue was raised in the WP:BLP Talk page but is relevant throughout WP space - I think we have a fairly clear consensus that sarcasm should never be used anywhere in WP space including edit summaries, except in article space where it is duly quoted with a reliable source. I am therefore adding it here as an example of incivility. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here. Thanks, Crum375 12:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who will take the responsibility for distinguishing between sarcasm and irony? Or are you banning irony as well? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who takes the responsibility for distinguishing civility from incivility in general? A good rule of thumb is to stay well away from that fine line. Besides, noting that sarcasm is an example of incivility is different from "banning" it; it's just noting a simple fact: Sarcasm, by definition, is uncivil. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that Crum375's proposal was in fact "sarcasm should be banned from all WP spaces as un-civil".[3] I would rather respond too soon, rather than too late, to such a sweeping policy change as Crum375 has proposed, especially as his "fairly clear consensus" only consisted of four others besides himself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm, according to Wikipedia, is "sneering, jesting or mocking a person situation or thing". Wiktionary has it as "A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony." Which of these behaviors is currently considered acceptable around here? "Jesting" seems benign, but I would dispute whether an unbarbed jest counts as sarcasm. I think it's the barbs that make it sarcastic. Is throwing barbs currently encouraged, under WP:CIVIL? I don't understand how this is a "sweeping policy change". I don't see anything changing.

I do recoil at the word "banning", which implies a sadly legalistic misreading of the civility policy in the first place. It's not about proscribing (or "banning") specific acts; it's about actually being civil, in the sense of treating each contributor with respect in all situations, including - especially - in response to others' incivility. Obviously, treating people with actual respect entails refraining from sarcasm, but I wouldn't call incivility "banned". That's very much the wrong end of the horse.

One does sometimes get the idea, when an editor proposes adding a "new rule" against something (which this isn't, but seems to be perceived that way), that their interest arises from some particular situation where they would like to invoke that rule. I'm certain there's a better way to deal with a sarcastic person than by throwing a rule-book at them, and if Crum375 is in such a situation, I hope he or she considers that setting an example of extremely civil behavior is by far the best way to call someone out for uncivil behavior. The difference will be apparent to anybody looking, and the previously uncivil party will realize that the ball is in their court, to rise to the occasion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. This isn't some police state where thought can be a crime. Sarcasm doesn't often help a discussion because it tends to be narrow and full of logical holes. It is rarely, if ever, uncivil however. Codifying such things is just really very unfortunate and won't actually solve anything. It would be deeply unfortunate if we were suggesting that someone should be blocked if they are sarcastic. -Splash - tk 23:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Splash - I wonder, are you working from the same definition of "sarcasm" that I'm using? I think "sarcasm" means mocking or scornful words - by definition it's dickish. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that if we already have editors trying to figure out what is meant by the word then it's a word too vague to build policy around. I am not a betting man, but I would put good folding money down on the proposition that if "sarcasm" is banned, suddenly 90% of what is said to certain problematic editors will be "sarcasm". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus - it's always been "banned". Sarcasm is rude, and rudeness is not acceptable. How is the fact that some people are fuzzy on the definition of sarcasm any different from the fact that people are fuzzy about what "consensus" or "verifiable" or "neutral" mean? You didn't answer my question above - how is this a change? Has sarcasm been condoned until now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that "consensus" and "verifiable" and "neutral" are all words that have a Wikipedian meaning. If I want to know what counts as "verifiable" and what doesn't, I go to WP:V, not Webster's. If someone tries to claim that I included information that wasn't verifiable, the argument is settled by WP:V. If we had a page Wikipedia:Sarcasm which spells out what sarcasm means on Wikipedia and clearly spells out that the unacceptable element of sarcasm is the intent to mock or belittle, not merely saying something with one literal meaning with the intent to convey the opposite meaning, I would have no problem with this.

But the fact that some people are fuzzy on the definition of sarcasm, and Wikipedia doesn't have anything clarifying what definition it uses, makes it a dangerous concept to pass rules around. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Antaeus, we do have something clarifying "what defintion" we're using. Try the article sarcasm. We're using the correct definition, and not some other one. Sarcasm does not mean "saying something with one literal meaning with the intent to convey the opposite meaning", and it never has meant that. You may be thinking of irony. I'm ok with asking that people know what words mean when they use them, and that's why I linked sarcasm where Crum375 added it. Mocking and belittling isn't an "element of" sarcasm, it's what defines it as sarcasm. If you're not mocking and belittling, it's not sarcasm; if you are mocking and belittling, it is sarcasm, regardless of whether you use irony to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

GTBacchus, it seems like what you are saying is "Wikipedia will use the correct definition of 'sarcasm', and if there's anyone who mixes up what is 'sarcasm' and what is 'irony', well, that's their problem." If that is what you are saying, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not foresee it being a problem to those people, but to the people that they accuse of violating WP:CIVIL by using "sarcasm" that is really just irony. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... if you read my discussion below with User:NuclearUmpf, you'll see that I'm in a rather different place just now regarding the wording of this policy. That said, maybe we do have to agree to disagree. If someone goes around accusing people of sarcasm whenever they see irony, that person should be corrected and thus learn what those words actually mean. I have no desire to tiptoe around other people's poor vocabulary. I use fifty-cent words sometimes, and it's pretty darn easy to look things up, here on the internets. We are an encyclopedia, after all; why should we coddle misconceptions about language? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Being sarcastic to someone else is being rude. If we allow that type of rudeness, then where exactly do we stop? When you use 4 letter words? When you use anatomical or sexual references? When you question the intelligence or integrity of the other? It is a very slippery slope. Certainly we are not a police state. A single rude outburst would rarely result in a block, if ever. But a repeated offensive pattern, coupled with other disruptive actions, could result in a block or other repercussions. I see no reason to exclude sarcasm from the other disallowed types of uncivil behavior and rudeness in general. Crum375 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, while I agree with you about sarcasm being rude (by definition), I would caution against thinking of civility in terms of what's "not allowed". Think of it rather in terms of what one should do in one's interactions. Civility means treating others respectfully, period. Saying sarcasm is an example of uncivil behavior is one thing. Saying it's "disallowed" or "banned" really gives the wrong idea. If you think of civility in terms of violations and enforcement, you're liable to miss civility entirely, and get rules-lawyering instead. If you think of civility in terms of respect, you're unlikely to talk about things being "not allowed".

Another important point is that, before you added "sarcasm" to the list of examples, it was already uncivil, and the policy already asked us not to be sarcastic, whether or not it used that word. I hope that makes sense - WP:CIVIL is not, nor should it be, an exhuastive list of every way there is to be uncivil. Being rude is rude, and always has been, whatever name it's got. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree with your comments. I agree that 'not allowed' may be too strong - but I would consider any type of incivility, including sarcasm, as disruptive to the development of WP. And disruption, when it becomes a pattern of behavior, can lead to blocks and other repercussions. I do think that sarcasm should be in the examples because it is, unfortunately, not that uncommon. Crum375 01:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fine to list it as an example. I'm going to add a link to the article, though, because it is true that lots of people are walking around with incorrect definitions of sarcasm in their heads. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not fine to list as an example since it is not an example of incivility. It's an example of a choice of a words that is likely to deprecate a course of action, sure, but that doesn't make it any more uncivil than me saying "don't do that". It is also not disruptive; the notion that it is is really pretty off the road. WP:CIVIL urges us not to be rude, it does not tell us what forms of 'speech' we may and may not use, and does not (should not) try to prescribe the manner and tone of everything anyone says. If people don't understand the difference between something like "oh yeah, because that'd be great, not" and "you are an idiot" then probably there is no helping them. Certainly telling me that I cannot say the former is just really pretty unhealthy. -Splash - tk 09:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, if someone said to me: "you are an idiot" or "oh yeah, because that'd be great, not" I would find both uncivil and unproductive. I see a shortage of civility and politeness around here, and WP:CIVIL is where we need to help educate people on what politeness and mutual respect is all about. We don't list 'sarcasm' as a major offense, only minor, but exactly for this example that you just mentioned, where people are simply not aware that they hurt the other side's feelings, we do need to list sarcasm as an improper form of communication. Crum375 12:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unproductive, probably. Uncivil, not unless someone is spectacularly thin-skinned. That entire "minor offenses" section is absurdly petty, much as it declares at the outset. Please don't lean the wrong way, please breath in and out quietly, please don't snore at night, please walk gently on the pavement. Wikipedia is not nursery school. -Splash - tk 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, WP is no nursery school. In nursery school, you say what you think without much consideration of what effect it has on the other side. Here we must understand that to be productive, we must be considerate of the other side's feelings. It is not a matter of skin thickness - it is a matter of tone and atmosphere, and work environment. By ensuring all of us are polite, we will create a pleasant work environment, which will enhance productivity and attract good people. Each time we make the other side wince or hurt their feelings, even in a minor or petty way, we are harming WP's cause. Crum375 12:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Splash, the "minor offenses" section doesn't say things like "please walk gently". It says things like please don't be rude, please don't talk down to each other, please don't make it personal, please don't be mean. Are those absurdly petty? What's wrong with understanding civility as actual respect? I'm not suggesting that you can't say "yeah, that'd be great... not", but I would suggest that, if you're trying to be civil and respectful, you'd probably find a better way to put it, wouldn't you? Surely sarcastic barbs aren't the best way we can express ourselves, particularly on the Internet, which is so poor at conveying tone? I'd be happy if we manage to cultivate a culture here where we all try to follow the advice of those philosophers from San Dimas, and "be excellent to each other". If WP:CIVIL doesn't mean that, then it's pretty worthless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comments about sarcasm

I've posted a note at the Village Pump, to see if we can get some broader input here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding. Sarcasm is almost always rude and incivil. The opposite is true for sardonicism. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

While it is rude technically I think you have to have pretty think skin to call it uncivil. No I do not consider all rude things to be uncivil. I mean popping gum is rude, I wouldnt call someone uncivil because they did it. Its bordering as the person said above on nursery school rules. The sad part is that many people resort to sarcasm to avoid being uncivil. I mean how many times can you tell someone you do not agree before a sarcastic comment comes out. I think people are not realizing the context of why and when people use sarcasm. Also calling it uncivil is going to create a giant mess of new evidence and WP:PAIN postings etc. The worst part is it leaves an interpretation as to how badly the person meant it. I have told an admin "you are as helpful today as you ever been" Is this uncivil? wouldnt context be needed? Is this just a tiny jab to make them get the picture? Is it preffered I just tell them "I think you are worthless"? --NuclearZer0 17:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... rudeness was already listed as a petty example of behavior that contributes to an uncivil environment, so I don't really see what's new listing a specific kind of rudeness an another example. The acid test for sarcasm is - was it intended to hurt the other person? That's what the word means. If you think someone's being sarcastic to you, you'd be pretty foolish to "report them" anyway. That's not good dispute resolution. Much better would be to say, "excuse me, but that came across as sarcastic and hurtful. Am I mistaking your meaning? Let's talk." When you told an admin "you are as helpful as ever", did you mean they're worthless? If so, maybe a better thing to say would be something like, "I don't think your suggestion is helpful here, and this is why:...", or if you're really at the end of your patience, "let's agree to disagree". I really believe that if you're being respectful, you'll never be sarcastic. If you slip, and say something sarcastic, it's pretty easy to go back and apologize. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding me, sarcasm is the border line, its what you can do currently to walk the line without crossing it. Adding it to lists of rude things, as if such a list isnt babying, is just telling people its no longer the line, its over the line. While I agree that their are many way you could say something, the truth is sometimes you just do not want to, I do not know if that makes sense to you. If I feel someone has been stalknig my edits and annoying me, while staying on the good side of the line, and they post on my talk page something passive agressive, my response would be sadrcasm, since its on the line, much like being passive agressive, however this is "officially" moving the line. I am not sure if people are mistaking civility for the appearance of, having people hold back what they want to say for fear of breaknig a rule or crossing a line just leads to more out bursts, like the admins have now and then on AN/I. I rather have a million sarcastic comments the flood Wikipedia with passive agressive comments and the F word everywhere. At least with sarcasm you know where they lie and their feelings. Also I did mean to tell him his comments to me were worthless. But as you can see, its a case where sarcasm got the point across without being blatantly mean by appearance standards. --NuclearZer0 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly neither of us is understanding the other. According to my understanding of the edit in question, no "line" is moving. The line has always been - "Hey, treat each other well". I'm certainly not talking about maintining the "appearance of civility" without being civil; I'm suggesting that we could try to treat each other with genuine courtesy and respect in all interactions. It does make sense to me that sometimes I just don't want to be considerate or courteous to someone, when I'm annoyed with them. In those cases, I think the best thing I can do is walk away from the computer until I'm ready to approach the situation maturely, not resort to sarcasm. Am I being unrealistic, to suggest that civility means erring on the side of more respect, and less scorn? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in what civility means, but as I keep saying, sometimes you do not want to walk away, sometimes there is no civil response. Anyway the main portion of my arguement is officially adding it will create a situation where sarcasm now appears in RfC and RFAr as official WP:CIVIL violations. Also its babying to have to point out whats rude and whats not. Oddly I am usually more for strict rules, but are you really going to add passive agressive to that list also? Sarcasm is subjective as from what I posted above you could not assertain if I really did think they were helpful so there is too much of a grey area in identifying it I believe and will cause a headache later. The other issue is its normally easy to brush off. What makes sarcasm to be sarcasm other then the targets understanding? The admin could have said I was being rude and I could have simply responded puzzled and stated, "I think you really are as helpful today as ever." Its like making it a 10 year jail term for people who run over squirrels, how do you really enforce this and is it necessary? Are you prepared for the influx of squirrel killer complaints and how do you prove they did kill a squirrel. --NuclearZer0 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I hope we're not going around in circles. I agree that sometimes I don't want to walk away or to say something civil. Sometimes, I don't want to eat well, or exercise, or work very hard at my job, or treat my fellow man with decency and respect either. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it understandable. I also understand that you're pretty much making an untintended consequences argument. The analogy to a jail term for hitting squirrels seems off-base to me, though. Nobody's suggesting anything resembling a penal code, are we? The list in question doesn't present itself as a list of "against the rules" behaviors. It presents itself as a list of behaviors that contribute to an atmosphere of incivility. It's true that rudeness, sarcasm, and passive aggression all do that. Enough of those flying around, and it starts feeling pretty poisonous. What makes sarcasm to be sarcasm is not the target's understanding, but the speaker's intent. Most definitions of the word include something along the lines of "intent to hurt". Since it's hard to read intent, WP:AGF would have us check with someone, before we conclude they're being sarcastic, like your admin asking whether you meant your comment rudely, rather than assuming you did. As for whether or not a list of rude behaviors is babying, that's really a complaint against the whole list, not just against one entry, isn't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right its more of a complaint toward the whole list and not appropriate for this discussion. As for the squirrel analogy its not about a penal code, sorry if you misundertood it for that, its a setup for the following questions that trailed the story. How can you enforce it? Sicne it is by my intent another admin really cant chime in and say it was sarcasm, because its more about my intent then their understanding as you put it. So you can check with 30 other admins but if I say it wasnt sarcasm, then there is nothing you realyl can say otherwise. Your comparison of it to WP:AGF I do not understand, most times I see that cited its because someone is being outwardly accused of something, like a sockpuppet etc. If combine sarcasm in this list with WP:AGF then you have a situation where I could tell the admin asking if I was being sarcastic that they should assume good faith, which I am sure would irritate them. See their question is basically asking me if I violated WP:CIVIL since its something specifically listed as something you should not do on a policy page, hence not assuming good faith. I think you are understanding me that I am saying it will cause more of a mess then it will fix. I keep breaking this down and feel its losing meaning everytime I try to give a simpler explanation. I forgot to address this, but it does present itself as a list of "against the rules" behaviors as its on a policy page that says what you are not suppose to do in relation to behavior ... its even bulleted like a list. --NuclearZer0 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What an interesting, two-headed conversation this is, with two threads running simultaneously... I guess I'm just stuck in my understanding that it's not about "violations" or "enforcement" or any of that. On the other hand, a lot of people will think of it that way. A lot of people will see a bulleted list like that, and figure it's a catalog of misdemeanors. Maybe the page needs more significant rewriting to get people away from interpreting the policy in a legalistic manner. When I brought up AGF, I was also not thinking of throwing a "hey, you need to AGF" at someone. I just don't think that way. I apply AGF to myself, not to others. I just meant that, if I think someone's being sarcastic, I'd prefer to approach them openly and generously before concluding that they meant to be rude. (I say "prefer" because I know I don't always live up to what I'm suggesting here.) If I suspect someone else isn't assuming good faith, and I accuse them of failing to AGF, then I've just added a second "offense" to the pile. Much better is just to explain my motivations, and make it clear that they are good-faith based.

To highlight the most pertinent point: I think your objection about providing fuel for Wikilawyering is a valid one, and I think the best way to address it is with something more substantial than simply omitting sarcasm from a list that's already there, and already problematic. I'd also like to hear what Crum375 thinks about the Wikilawyering objection. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think people just need to realize you arent creating Utopia here, if cursing and sarcasm are both uncivil and I can get cited with WP:CIVIL for either, im going to curse instead then. What we need are realistic rules. --NuclearZer0 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think of civility in terms of rules, except for one, and it's made of gold. If someone is "citing you with WP:CIVIL", it's likely they're missing the point. Nobody's suggesting making a new rule, just pointing out for those who weren't aware that sarcasm is rude, and always has been. Rudeness has always been discouraged. Nothing is new. I think (and hope) that "treat others as you would like to be treated" is a pretty realistic rule. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a case where you have to look at what will happen over what you want to happen. You want to simply add sarcasm, the truth of the matter is that now sarcastic comments will be appended to RfC's RFAr's etc all as legitamate evidence of a uncivil editor. Srcastic editors are not uncivil editors. Also as I said, not all rude things are uncivil, so maybe that idea of rudeness should be looked at. --NuclearZer0 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction you make between "rude" and "uncivil" is not a familiar one to me, but I'm willing to work with it. Do you think the whole list of "Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment" should be striken? Perhaps, coming from a different angle, it would be better if WP:CIVIL said something about how it's understood that we all are slightly uncivil sometimes, and that it's not a crime to be human and to have feelings, and to be less than perfectly patient and understanding. In other words, what if we said explicitly that pecadillos aren't "crimes"? What if it were made clear that riding someone's ass over petty rudenesses is itself rude? Maybe, because of defintions that are new to me, sarcastic editors aren't uncivil, but they aren't very civil either. I think that civility means more than avoiding uncivility; it means treating others with actual respect and consideration. As for RfCs and RfArs, I would hope that sarcasm has always been a valid thing to bring up in those contexts. People who use a lot of sarcasm are contributing to an unpleasant atmosphere; it would be great if those people toned it down a bit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page, just disagreeing as we pass. I think giving examples of rude things is treating editors like children, as most people should know what is rude and what is not. As for sarcasm contributing to an unpleasant atmosphere I think you are right, but as I said sometimes being nice doesn't work. I would give you an example but it would be violating WP:POINT. Perhaps say you had an editor that stalked your edits after the two of you had a disagreement, each page you went to, he went to also and fixed your spelling then left a note on your talk page everytime he did it and left a dif. Obviously they are doing this to bother you. What exactly is your response to this? Perhaps you can just walk away but after awhile people get tired of walking away, you can ask him to stop but he isnt breaking any rules. You cant threaten action through RfC or something because that is against policy, you cant curse him out, cant accuse him of doing it to bother you, and now you cant even be sarcastic. Wikilawyering exists, and this is just gonig to give those lawyers more fuel, that is basically the run down, and its not possible to stop it, the sarcastic person just has to say "it wasn't sarcasm" and its over with, your still annoyed at their comment and their is no penalty to them for it. Its making rules you cannot enforce fairly, and as I stated above, babying the masses. I gave an example of rude things that are not also uncivil, take another for instance talking on the phone on the bus, its rude, I wouldnt call the person uncivil for it. --NuclearZer0 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe our misunderstanding is that I don't see this as "making rules", but you're correct that Wikilawyering exists, and anything written on a policy or guideline page will be interpreted by someone as a "rule", and used to clobber someone else. I like to think we could get past that kind of crap sometime. In the situation you're describing, I think the clear answer is first to be extremely polite and respectful to the other editor, and if they persist in pestering you, to go to other editors and ask them to comment on the situation. Bringing in more voices is a great way to step back from a situation where one is feeling the urge to be rude. I don't see how sarcasm would help the situation anyway (more likely it would exacerbate it), so I don't see what you'd be missing out on if you don't use it. The best revenge is to rise above. Maybe I am unrealistic, or idealistic, or something. I have this idea that if we just all treated each other as infinitely valuable expressions of the divine, then all these problems would go away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is that Utopian society thinking I was talking about, you are creating rules for a perfect world and not the one we are dealing with now. If you want to lose good editors because of sarcasm then so be it. You are leaving people no real discourse for person aggravation. Its like a world where you curse and everyone turns away from you in disgust, and someone comes to hand you a fine. Narrowing rules creates problems especially since Arbcom says they do not work by the text but the spirit, but admins work by the text not the spirit, creating more text is just creating a bigger divide between a persons ability to defend themselves verbally and quite frankly babying. If we work by the spirit as I keep hearing then the less text the better, the less specifics the better. --NuclearZer0 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See, I'm not suggesting disgust, or fines, or rules. I'm suggesting that if you curse, people understand that you're frustrated and try not to exacerbate your frustration. I'm against fines. I'm more and more convinced that this page needs some serious work. You're definitely right, that it's important to judge policies based not on how much they reflect the right ideals, but based on what their actual effect will be in the messy world we live in. I think I'll be editing this page later, but I gotta go meet someone for lunch now. Thanks for the thoughtful and enlightening conversation, NuclearUmpf. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am only going to respond down here to help you and myself keep track of everything. I think we are on the same page now as much of my objection lies with Wikilawyering, the idea of adding more for wikilawyers when the page may need to be reworked is kind of the problem. If the page needs to be reworked then perhps we should cease adding to it until its reworked, no point in giving fuel to lawyers and if its covered under rudeness as you say, its not specifically needed atm. Enjoy your lunch and I thank you for the conversation as well. --NuclearZer0 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The effective use of sarcasm is dependent on tone and body language, both of which are essentially nullified on a text based medium. As other above have stated, it's a fine line and one that is more often going to be interpreted as being uncivil. Therefore, I think it's best to discourage the use of sarcasm in civil discourse among users and I would support Crum's original modification proposal. Agne 22:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Crum's proposal is correct, in the sense that sarcasm is a less-than-civil mode of communication and that adding it to the list of examples doesn't really change our policy at all. At the same time, NuclearUmpf is correct to point out that each piece of verbiage on a policy page will be used as a cudgel at some point by someone mistaking the intent of the policy. That makes it a bit complicated - I'm reminded of what L.B.Johnson said: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well personally, I think Wiki-lawyering is an overstated problem (across the board, not just here) and should not be used as a hypothetical "What if" in policy additions. Out of the many thousands of users who will read this page, the few who may use it for ill is small. As you commented above, Civility is in large part an "atmosphere" and sarcasm is a poison to that atmosphere. I disagree with Nuclear that there are times when sarcasm is needed for venting or what not. It's presented as a lesser of two evils compared to outright insults or curses but that doesn't discount that fact that nones of those items are productive in the slightest. Sarcasm doesn't help to foster a sense of civil discourse among editors and doesn't promote compromise and mutual respect. Therefore it runs counter to everything that the Wiki community tries to accomplish with this project and it should be strongly discouraged. Agne 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with Nuclear about sarcasm being necessary. I don't think of Wikilawyering as hypothetical, though. I've dealt with it way too much to think that. Sarcasm is poisonous; so it litigousness. I agree that sarcasm should be strongly discouraged, but maybe the correct way to do that is something other than writing it into policy. I think the best way to strongly discourage sarcasm is to set the correct example when presented with it. This policy page, meanwhile, needs some work, but I'm not yet sure exactly where to start. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may add another point, the current wikilink to sarcasm includes a definition of sarcasm based on irony: "a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound". This make the 'irony exclusion' somewhat illogical, as sarcasm could be viewed as an offensive form of irony, and hence excluded. I therefore suggest, if 'sarcasm' alone (which I personally prefer) is not acceptable, to use: "sarcasm (when intended to offend)" instead. This will exclude irony in a more logical way, as non-offensive irony would still be acceptable. Of course it is the overall tone that governs, not any wikilawyering. Crum375 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too invested in the "irony exclusion". I think that whole section needs reworking, maybe as something other than a bulleted list. I'm still thinking about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Although this extended discussion over the inclusion of a single petty example of civility that should be altogether obvious is a bit silly, I'd like to comment that not all uses of sarcasm are incivil, if they're not actually targeted at the person being spoken to. In particular, statements which criticize article content or the article topic may, while not necessarily productive, still not qualify as a personal attack on an editor. Deco 09:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I had a good conversation; I don't care if someone finds it silly. You're right that sarcasm directed at targets other than one's interlocutors is different. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I havn't actually got time to read the entirety of this thread, however, sarcasm, by definition, is uncivil as it is a statement pointed directly in a not-nice way at someone or something (if the something is the writing of a specific editor or group of editors, then there is no practical difference in terms of this policy). You may be confusing sarcasm with other forms of literary wit. Statements that purely criticise content in an objective way are not likely to be personal attacks, however, the difference between objectiveness and subjectiveness may only be in the context that the statement is made in. Trying to define that a priori is likely to be futile. (possibly the futility of this thread, am I wrong?) Ansell 10:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see how adding a note on sarcasm to a policy page will in any way make people less sarcastic. When someone who often resorts to sarcasm is shown a policy that sarcasm is not allowed, he will likely respond with more sarcasm. You can probably find examples of sarcasm used by arbitrators or even by Jimbo if you look around a bit. >Radiant< 10:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Noone is perfect, referring to Jimbo and Arbitrators doesn't mean sarcasm is somehow good for Wikipedia or civil somehow. Vandals who are shown the vandalism policy do not stop usually, does that mean vandalism is okay? Ansell 10:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying sarcasm is good or civil; I'm saying that you cannot prevent sarcasm by legislating against it. Vandals are not stopped by the anti-vandalism policy, but by being blocked. Surely you're not saying that we should block people for being sarcastic? >Radiant< 10:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Not in every case. I was trying to point out a similar analogue to this policy, which has blocking consequences anyway for consistent incivility. I would however see sarcasm, instead of an attempt at a cool-headed response to be classed as uncivil within that context. Ansell 12:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"You can of course change people's thoughts, opinions and behaviour by changing text on a page they never refer to anyway." Is this sarcasm? Opinions wanted - David Gerard 12:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if we add "sarcasm" we must must must add "smarminess" (faux-civility) and "passive aggression" - David Gerard 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO, it is borderline irony, and it would depend on the context that the person said it in. In the case that the statement was pointed at someone, as opposed to a rhetorical statement, I would say it is sarcasm. Who knows, I may be digging holes for myself by putting my opinion out on this one. Ansell 12:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: what would a hypothetical ban on sarcasm accomplish that WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK do not already accomplish? —Steve Summit (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 'ban' on sarcasm per se, any more than being WP:CIVIL is a ban on being 'judmental' or 'rude'. This is just an explanation that sarcasm is a form of rudeness, as some people seem not to be aware of it. It is included in the list of 'minor offenses', alongside other similar forms of incivility. The intent is to make WP a more pleasant working environment not to block, ban or legislate. All this is doing is reminding some people that using sarcasm, when directed at your fellow editor(s), is being nasty and impolite, and it creates an unpleasant atmosphere for productive collaboration. Crum375 13:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion (from a post on the mailing list by David Gerard), and I've got to say, this discussion seems like it was plucked straight out of the Onion or Uncyclopedia or something:

Online encyclopedia wikipedia bans sarcasm

...according to wikipedia user Jonathan Swift, satire is next...

This is beyond ridiculous. If someone is uncivil, he's uncivil. Period. No need to ban specific types of it, just don't be uncivil. Read after me: Don't. Be. A. Dick. It's as simple as that. Oskar 13:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

May I please steal that for Uncyclopedia? Thank you - David Gerard 13:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn that GFDL! People can just take whatever they want, and I can't do anything about it! Wikipedia is indeed communism! Oskar 13:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(User:Oskar Sigvardsson has now been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the new ban on sarcasm)'

Dammit! Oskar 13:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Crum375 appears to be attempting to revert-war his change in against multiple dissent. Which many would consider playing very badly with others, especially on a policy page. Is revert-warring less or more incivil than sarcasm? I call a straw poll.

Sarcasm is more incivil:

Revert warring is more incivil:

Note that this does not address the issue of which is more destructive to the editing environment - David Gerard 13:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Is a single revert now considered 'revert warring'? Crum375 13:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I counted three since yesterday. You're pushing sarcasm as being bad for the editing atmosphere but apparently have no concern about bad editing behaviour being bad for the editing atmosphere - David Gerard 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, we do already have a rule guideline against stupidity, which has in fact abolished all stupidity on Wikipedia, and therefore removed any motivation editors may have to resort to sarcasm even when sorely provoked - David Gerard 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would drop this subject if you can explain to me why 'being judgmental', 'belittling contributors', saying 'not to make this personal, but' are more rude or incivil that being sarcastic when intending to offend someone. Virtually all the counter arguments that I see above, including yours, seem to apply equally to all the 'petty examples', and hence are missing the point. Crum375 13:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair question. Does anyone have an answer? —Steve Summit (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec)IMO, this would be a substantial and far-reaching expansion of "the rules" and would probably have a net negative impact on our mission to write an encyclopaedia.

As it stands, people abuse WP:CIVIL - I recently had someone tell me to "shut the fuck up" shortly after complaining that I had violated WP:CIVIL by pointing out that the sentance he had inserted into the middle of another sentance was poorly written and suggesting he re-write it. People interpret these rules as broadly as they possibly can when applying them to others, and as narrowly as possible when applying them themselves. As has been pointed out, it's too difficult to define sarcasm precisely enough. It also isn't really all that incivil (it's better to be sarcastic than it is to come out and open call stupidity stupidity). Guettarda 13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the latest suggestion is to say "Sarcasm (when intended to offend)". Crum375 13:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it's unworkable, because anyone who says "you intended to offend" is violating WP:NPA by going after the (alleged) underlying thought, rather than the action. As opposed to doing the sensible thing, which is to say "your sarcasms offended me" in which case the person can say "sorry" (which is fine) or "screw you" which is incivil. Much more sensible than this mess. Guettarda 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If 'going after the underlying thought' is unacceptable, then we have a problem with determining vandalism, since the criterion there is not the actual vandal's output or words, but his/her intent, i.e. underlying thought. So by your criteria and logic we cannot enforce many types of vandalism because we would have to (God forbid) determine the underlying thought which would violate WP:NPA. I think there may be a bug in that logic somewhere. Crum375 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the bug in the logic is that "vandalism" is a Wikipedia jargon term for another jargon term, "simple vandalism", which is pretty clearly defined - David Gerard 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I try to avoid jargon and follow the official policy definitions, and this is the one for vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I just don't see how you can determine if something is deliberate or not, without knowing what the deliberator was deliberating, i.e. thinking. Crum375 16:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had people get outraged and scream at my arrogant abusiveness and get their work colleagues to post too when what I actually did was remove most of a badly-written hit-and-run IP edit (see Talk:X Window System). You appear to be trying to put in a rule "Your opinions should end where my feelings begin." Which is utterly, utterly unworkable, and isn't even a nice idea - David Gerard 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still awaiting your response to my question above. Crum375 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer is they probably aren't. But my objection is to your attempt to make it a rule, that you think by making it a rule you can "ban" it, that your first action is to add an idiosyncratic new bad idea, that you edit-war to keep the bad idea in, and that you then deny edit-warring - David Gerard 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems we are drifting from the message to the messenger. But since you raise the issue, let me respond. First, I specifically agreed above that 'banning' or even 'disallowing' sarcasm is not our intent here, any more than banning rude behavior per se. So by saying that that's what I 'think' you are misrepresenting my position. Second, I did not 'edit war'. Today, you reverted me twice - while I only reverted you once and hit my normal 1RR limit for reasonable 'discussing editors' (often it's 0RR). Yesterday I did revert 3 times, but only because the editor involved ignored our discussion thread here, where there appeared to be some support to the idea, and just kept reverting. I personally don't consider that edit war per se. Getting back to the message, if you do agree with me that sarcasm is not substantially different than the other 'petty examples' already cited, then I still don't understand your rationale. Crum375 15:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

David Gerard, are you and I on the same page, that the civility policy is emphatically not a list of rules, and that the section of examples in question should be rewritten, so as not to come across as a statute? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Random section break

Obviously sarcasm is far worse than edit warring, because an edit war can be stopped by clicking on the 'protect' button (which I have just done), and conversely, at the moment user pages have no such button to stop them from being sarcastic. I shall have to ask Brion what would be the best way of implementing that; I think there was discussion earlier of mandating Pavlovian helmets for editors with an electrical feedback mechanism. Any volunteers to test it? >Radiant< 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the five hundred volts through the user's chair feature which inexplicably is not only not in Mediawiki, there doesn't even appear to be an open bug for the feature - David Gerard 14:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Confession

I probably started all this. User:Sbharris came onto WT:BLP comparing living bios to torturers and despots. The most coherent response I could formulate was to post links to Uncyclopedia articles. He then claimed I had broken Godwin's law. No really, it's all there. Go look. - David Gerard 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - torturers, then Hitler, then Godwin, then Uncyclopedia, then more torturers - David Gerard 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this whole discussion is pretty torturous (snap!). Oskar 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Audio version coming soon. I do think that if we have a line-item listing of "sarcasm", we have to have one for comparisons of fellow editors to torturers - David Gerard 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)