 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic. |  | This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | | | |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 21 days are automatically moved. An archive index is available here. |
[edit] Wikipedia's code of conduct Do we agree that WP:Etiquette is Wikipedia's code of conduct (as the link currently in the first line of this page seems to imply)? If so, surely it should at least be marked as a policy? (Or perhaps that's another page that could be merged with this one?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] RfC on dealing with controversy I've drafted an essay here intended as a paradigm to mitigate disputes on Talk pages. I would appreciate some input. Brews ohare (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] What if... It says that before removing an uncivil comment in a discussion page you should talk to the editor who made it first, but what if the comment was made by a non-member editor with no talk page? It wasn't obscene or completely irrelevant, but was rude in tone, and implies that all such pages are not notable when many such others exist. ("Duh, it's a webcomic. Kill the article. If you don't, you're stupid.") I wanted to delete it because it was unconstructive, but the civility article wasn't really clear on whether I was allowed or not. -guest - Nov. 21 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.1 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 November 2009 - It would be easier to give a constructive answer if you told us what discussion page this refers to, so that we could see exactly what the context was. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Next week's "Policy report" in the Signpost ... will include discussions from this talk page. The "Policy report" will cover a different policy page each week from the conduct, content, deletion and enforcement policies, and this is one of the pages where the talk page already has enough interesting material from the past few months to put together a report, but anything anyone wants to add this week about the recent changes would be welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I opened an RfC at WT:NPA#RfC on partial merging and status of the No personal attacks and Civility policies with the idea of moving some material from NPA to Harassment, moving some over here, and changing that page to a guideline. Risker believes it should be the other way around, moving the more policy-like material from this page over to NPA and making this page a guideline. Feel free to discuss either here or there, and I'll follow both places and write up a summary for the Signpost on Monday. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Policy Report for Signpost The reaction to this report on recent changes to WP:SOCK was good. I propose we do the same kind of report on changes to WP:CIVILITY since maybe September 1, since there have been a lot of recent changes. The monthly changes are available at Wikipedia:Update/1/Deletion Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009. Say anything you like in your report, and I'll do my best to work in a sentence or two into the Signpost summary from everyone who participates, and I hope many Signpost readers will follow the link and read everything you said. My summary will be available at least a day before the deadline so that anyone can edit it. Feel free to add your report below. The SOCK reports were quite good; if you're stumped for ideas, check them out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Bumped down 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - Food for thought from past discussions: how much should our Civility policy be shaped by the exceptional cases that wind up at ArbCom vs. the typical editors? Should the policy document reality, or present ideal goals for conduct, or something in between? Does this page address the same questions as other policy and guideline pages such as WP:Etiquette, WP:No personal attacks and/or WP:Harassment, and is that a problem? - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Btw, also feel free to give feedback on the way I asked around for comments. I first asked for comments a few weeks ago, then I put a note in last Monday's Policy Report that WP:Civility would be the topic of the next Signpost, then I left messages on this talk page and the talk pages of related policies and guidelines, then I engaged the people who responded on their talk pages, and when all that didn't produce enough material for the Policy Report, I extended invitations to everyone who weighed in recently on this talk page (with a few reasonable exceptions). I think I got back as far as Protonk before the replies started coming in ... it looks like we've got enough now, but I welcome more feedback. We're working with a deadline of roughly noon-ish Eastern US time on Monday; the Signpost editors would like to have some time to review and copyedit before it's published. I'll start working on the summary from what we've got so far; feel free to edit the summary until I archive it on Monday. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
| Responses by NuclearWarfare | | Might as well get the ball rolling. I haven't followed changes to the policy pages, but I'll give my own two cents worth of what I feel is wrong with the policy's enforcement: "The issue with the civility policy is not that everyone is too civil, but that a small minority of editors completely ignore it while continuing to make valid points, and there is no easy way of dealing with that." Wikipedia:Civility/Poll noted that "the majority of people feel the current civility policy is too lenient, and that it is inconsistently applied and unenforceable". The inconsistently applied part is probably the worst. Because civility is the most subjective of all the policies, it may seem to editors on the receiving end of a civility block that they are being unfairly targeted. I'm not really sure how to fix that, but that certainly is something that could be brought up in the Signpost article. NW (Talk) 21:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | | Responses by Tryptofish | | I got a note from Dank inviting me to look here, and, while I don't claim to have any special insights into possible policy improvements, I can, for what it's worth, contribute this observation that I recently made on my talk page: Bullies show up from time to time on this website, and most good, thoughtful, editors are not very good at dealing with them, often just giving in. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Dank asked me at my talk whether I have any ideas about improving CIVIL to help editors deal with bullies. Frankly, I have to admit that I don't have any. Partly, it's like real life: if you don't have the self-confidence to punch a bully back, when it's justified, no amount of policy is really going to change you. Instead, I think community expectations for administrators and arbitrators will have to evolve over time to have a lower and lower tolerance for incivility. That, in turn, leads me to note that Wikipedia itself is evolving and maturing. As it (we?) mature(s), society will increasingly expect us to be the encyclopedia where anyone can find useful information, as opposed to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. With that maturation, I think we will need to come to expect a greater degree of professionalism from our editors. Not professionalism as in pay, but as in demeanor, and anyone can edit may have to evolve into anyone who is constructive can edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | | Responses by Proofreader77 | | (In keeping with my paralogic comment at the WP:Civility/Poll ...) There is nothing insightful/useful that I could say about civility policy that someone would not find reason to save the dif for use as proof that Proofreader77 should be blocked indefinitely or sitebanned. (Although perhaps that covers it concisely, while smoothly skirting the danger. Perhaps. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | | Responses by Johnuniq | | The three problem behaviors (WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL) are different, and I see no reason to confuse issues by simplifying or merging the three policies. It's quite normal for Internet forums to breach CIVIL, and we need a low-drama page to explain that such behavior is not permitted here. It's quite likely that someone breaching NPA or HARASS knows what they are doing, and strongly-worded pages are needed to make it clear that repeat offenders will be blocked. The purpose of CIVIL should be clarified in the lead. We don't have this policy because it gives us a warm glow; we have it to foster collaboration that builds the encyclopedia. CIVIL should also mention (like NPA) that edit summaries and talk page comments must focus on edits, and not on editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | | Responses by Camelbinky | | While every society has laws that do limit the most dangerous aspects of speech (yelling fire in a movie theater) most democratic modern nation-states do not limit speech or personal interactions beyond "dangerous" speach. Some Wikipedians (the politeness police) do though, and they should mind their own business. Yes, an editor that is rude is annoying and sometimes disruptive and his/her posts are unseamly to read, but is it worth the time/effort to "warn" them and have long diatribes and discussions about the behaviour? No, this is an encyclopedia, not a court. Ignore the bad speech if there isnt any bad conduct (eg- vandalizing of articles). We dont arrest the person who flips the bird while driving, we ignore it or curse back, we only care about the person who is physically a threat; same should apply to Wikipedia. Let people be rude and just ignore them. Freedom of speech above all, even if we dont approve of the speech.Camelbinky (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | | Summary for Signpost | | Summary is now available at the Signpost. | |
