Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::I think it's because usernames have a greater potential for affecting people on a wide scale. With a comment, it can be struck through, deleted, or even ] or ] if needed, and will usually be eventually buried in the edit history or talk page archives. But with a username, that editor, if generally or relatively active, is out their "in public" for everyone to see; in other words, the editor's username is repeatedly popping up at articles, projects, or talk pages. ] (]) 23:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::I think it's because usernames have a greater potential for affecting people on a wide scale. With a comment, it can be struck through, deleted, or even ] or ] if needed, and will usually be eventually buried in the edit history or talk page archives. But with a username, that editor, if generally or relatively active, is out their "in public" for everyone to see; in other words, the editor's username is repeatedly popping up at articles, projects, or talk pages. ] (]) 23:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::: That's a good point and I suppose you're right, but if incivility relies heavily on context, and I agree that it does, I wonder what context could be assumed by {{User:Cuntfan}}. Wouldn't this clearly be used in a playful manner that is ''not'' directed at anyone in anger? ] (]) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.
In a series of edits at Misplaced Pages talk:Civility/sandbox I've reduced this policy from 24k of general advice to 8k of moderately clear instruction. In the process I have noticed a few curiosities, such as that there is no reference to interaction bans; offensive usernames are mentioned only in the nutshell summary; one of the sections sent users almost directly to RFC/U. Also, WP:Harassment does not reference sexual harassment. Anyway, the present version is what a coder would call "not maintainable" - it is full of partial copies of old versions of stuff, rather than having one single place where criteria are set. It is also what they would surely call "bloatware"! There's no use having a policy if people never finish reading it.
I find it so strange that so many people will step up to trim down articles to the quick, whether they need it or not, even though the naive person would think the more stuff in an article the better, yet for Misplaced Pages policy, which everyone admits is excessively long, it is like pulling teeth to redact a single sentence. Anyway, I present this version and all the diffs in its history as proposals to break that trend. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Disability and other legally protected characteristics not protected here
According to the Foundation's Non-discrimination Policy set in Jan. 2006 disability and "any other legally protected characteristics" must be protected on all projects for all current or prospective users and employees. This is non-negotiable. There was an attempt to write a policy called WP:DISCRIMINATION that unf. failed. One way or another these principles need to be clarified. ~Technophant (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but is that an issue to spend a lot of time here? This is about being civil to all and I find it hard to specify that further for any special cases; other than listing it among an existing listing (like Technophant just did). So I support the brief addition and would leave it at that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I added this edit as a suggestion as to how this policy can more clearly protect people with disabilities. I also added a link to the policy in the See Also section. ~Technophant (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
As there seems to be some disagreement regarding which words are profane or inappropriate, I wonder what the community thinks about setting up a list of agreed upon words that should be considered "banned" in polite conversation, as least when directed at someone, especially in anger. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As there seems to be some disagreement
That's your problem, right there. We've been down this root before. How the f*ck do you set up a list that can't be gamed? --Pete (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think a good start would be to assert that calling someone a "cunt" is inappropriate. We might use the list from the FCC and/or BBC, as they have long identified several words that are never appropriate. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Apparently in some nations it's not considered offensive to call someone (say) a clever cunt. To Australians of my generation, it's always offensive, but younger folk seem to have different rules. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see some sort of "bright line" too, but it's not cut and dried like (say) 3RR. --Pete (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard that one before, but I think cultural differences like that can be accounted for on a case by case basis, as in the English language, "cunt" is almost never appropriate, especially when used in anger against another. How about, "whore", "slut", "bitch", or "asshole"? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree that those words should never used to describe another editor, but if we had a list, abusive editors would simply select words not in the list, and the list would have to grow all the time, and would then have to include bowdlerized forms of the words. I don't see any way around administrative discretion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Right, and admin discretion would not be eliminated by identifying a few terms that should never be directed at others. If I called someone a "vagina", admins would use there discretion to determine if I was trying to Wikilawyer the list, which would in no way imply that it was exhaustive and that any words not on the list are expressly approved. You seem to be saying that admin discretion should determine all cases, and I think that's why we do not have a clear consensus on gender specific epithets as always inappropriate. Some admins are apparently fine with editors regularly calling others cunts, other admins seem to be against it. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we're looking at "case by case", how about WP:NPA, especially when used in anger? Some editors seem to get away with all sorts of angry abuse. --Pete (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right, and speaking of absolutes, WP:NPA says, "some types of comments are never acceptable", including: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets." Well, "cunt" is an epithet, and is therefore "never acceptable" per WP:NPA. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
And how often are these things enforced? As I say, some editors have been abusing others for years without any expressions of remorse or indications of shame for the hurt they deliberately cause. --Pete (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that some have gotten a greenlight to abuse others, but if nobody ever stands up to them and their enablers, they will continue to do so ad infinitum. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've no problem with such a list. Also, the culture excuse, never held water with me. It's quite simple, really. If enough editors say to you "don't post 'that' word in anger, anymore", then one merely doesn't post 'that' word in anger, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Fuck no! See WP:CREEP and WP:NOTCENSORED. What's next, official warning templates pointing editors to this list? I can be be perfectly passive-aggressive without using any bad words. I can even insinuate that someone who makes such a suggestion is likely of diminished mental capacity and may have his head in an anatomically hard to reach place without using any word that is likely on such a list. This is not a practically realisable suggestion. And on the other hand, if we can get clear consensus that some words should not be used, what do we need the list for? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
1) WP:NOTCENSORED applies to article space, not discussions amongst editors. 2) It's not really instruction creep, as WP:NPA already forbids some language: "some types of comments are never acceptable", such as "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets". "Cunt" is obviously an epithet, so by logical extension the NPA policy already forbids use of the word when directed at someone else, in anger, and with the intention of insulting them. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
So you don't need a list. Introducing it is indeed WP:CREEP. "Anger" and "intend" are hard to ascertain. So you make a list that makes the easy part more complex, and does nothing to address the hard part. Note also that the list opens up new ways of lawyering - 1)" Nobody told me about the list", 2) "Yes, I called him a stupid sonofabitch, but that's not on the list", 3) "Yes, I called him a stupid sonofabitch, and it is on the list now, but that was't on the list when I was told about it". Also 4) "He called me Pete, and that's on the list (where I just put it). To quote one of my favourite actors from one of one of my favourite movies: "I don't swear just for the hell of it. Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands." Seven dirty words describes an historic example of the "usefulness" of such lists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ignorance of policy is never an excuse to break it, and admins already use their discretion regarding incivility; e.g., if I said, "I'm having a cunt of a day" I probably wouldn't get blocked, but if I said, "this cunt Stephan Schulz is ruining my day" I probably would get blocked, if it was obviously that I was directing it at you with the intention of insulting you. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ignorance of policy is routinely accepted as a reason to avoid sanctions - which is a) understandable (we have users from a wide variety of different cultures and backgrounds, and an exceedingly baroque set of policies, guidelines, standing sanctions and precedences), and b) even codified in some cases - see WP:3RR. But to come back to the heart of subject: You seem to be granting admins a lot of discretion anyways. So why codify the trivial part? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As things stand now, there are no offensive words unless an admin decides to enforce this policy. If anything, defining a few examples would decrease admin discretion, not increase it. I.e., I don't think something as tangible as a epithet should fall to the discretion of admins. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
1) WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an essay, not a policy. 2) It only applies to article space, not to editor interactions on talk pages. 3) Tyranny of the majority is still better than tyranny of the minority, which is what we have in a de facto manner right now. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Systemic bias, policy or not, is a huge problem for Misplaced Pages, wherever it impacts on the project. Describing the use of naughty words as a tyranny is just a little bit over the top, surely. HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
At first, it appears that User:Rationalobserver was concerned about incivility in general and was trying to define it. However, it now appears that he or she is concerned about particular polarizing editors, one of whom habitually uses a particular word that most editors consider offensive, and that Rationalobserver is trying to draw a line around that editor. First, if we were to develop a list of banned words, abusive editors would either bowdlerize the words or use synonyms or other substitutes. There is a real problem, but the solution to it is not policy creep. The problem is that "the community" cannot deal with editors who polarize "the community", who have strong supporters and strong opponents. (In an entirely different context, we see the same problem at Gamergate controversy.) Community enforcement cannot deal with editors who polarize the community. Unfortunately, the only answer is ArbCom, with all of its limitations and slowness. Rationalobserver: If you think that a particular editor should be banned, ask the ArbCom to ban him. If you think that making a set of rules to change the behavior of a particular editor will help, I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm a she, BTW. My only intention here is to see if there is any support for a "naughty words" list. There apparently isn't, and I accept that as consensus, assuming that is the consensus. However, I cannot for the life of me imagine why you want the use of epithets to be based on individual admin discretion, but I see that most of this project appears to be set up that way, so as to maximize the power and influence of admins, while minimizing the recourse available to non-admins. There is currently disagreement regarding certain words as epithets, but how can WP:NPA expressly forbid them when they are not even defined anywhere? I.e., how can you forbid epithets, but refuse to define any specific epithets? Are words only epithets when admins decide they are, or are some always epithets even if certain admins don't think they are? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Far from helping civility enforcement, a naughty words list would complicate it, because then some editors would use words that we had forgotten to put on the list, and the number of editors who deprecate civility in general because they think that civility consists of the avoidance of naughty words and nothing else would increase, and some editors are smart enough to realize that civility should be more than the avoidance of naughty words. Rationalobserver: If you are concerned that particular editors get away with habitual incivility, then at this point the only remedy is to ask the ArbCom to ban then, rather than attempting to legislate a policy intended to hem them in that will not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There are two points. First, all words need context to evaluate. And secondly, having an incomplete, indeed, massively incomplete, list is more than useless, as, as pointed out above, all it does is invite wikilawyering. And thirdly (well, yeah, I cannot count), the list increases workload for admins (who, apparently, must keep up with it) and maintainers (who must keep it up) and editors (who must keep up with it). For the really obvious cases, we need no list. For the marginal cases, deciding which way to go is not trivial. And on the other hand, if some admin failed to sanction an editor for an obvious attack, a list will not fix that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's because usernames have a greater potential for affecting people on a wide scale. With a comment, it can be struck through, deleted, or even RevDeleted or WP:Suppressed if needed, and will usually be eventually buried in the edit history or talk page archives. But with a username, that editor, if generally or relatively active, is out their "in public" for everyone to see; in other words, the editor's username is repeatedly popping up at articles, projects, or talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point and I suppose you're right, but if incivility relies heavily on context, and I agree that it does, I wonder what context could be assumed by User:Cuntfan. Wouldn't this clearly be used in a playful manner that is not directed at anyone in anger? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Survey
Oppose - In addition to the other reasons listed, if there were a list of banned words, abusive editors would either use words that had been omitted from the list or would bowdlerize the words, and would then wikilawyer in unblock requests. Incivility cannot be defined precisely, but Judge Stewart's rule applies. We don't need a list. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Support - An across the board censurship of words thrown towards editors, in anger. The biggest myth on Misplaced Pages, is that editors have rights (example: freedom of speech). We don't have rights, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Support I think we could agree on a few words that should never be directed at another user in anger, but to leave the application of this policy completely open-ended gives admins too much discretion. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Not because I support editors using cant or incivility or bogan talk, but because such a list would be abused and gamed and ultimately ignored as pointless. I think we know the measure of editors who use such words in an abusive way. They cheapen themselves and the project. Those editors who shine out as exemplars do not use such words. They do not need to.. I could not support sanctions against an editor merely because they were too stupid to find a way around using a word on a particular list. That would indirectly sanction behaviour that was abusive but inventive. "No, Editor A you can't call Editor B a cunt. You do that and we'll ban you. Yes, Editor C, you may call Editor B a vagina, that's quite okay." --Pete (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Your list and my list would be different. In many cases, the behaviour that leads to the use of words that some don't like is a far worse problem for Misplaced Pages than the the "naughty" words. Persistent POV pushing springs to mind. HiLo48 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Better to deal with the context of 'bad' words and behavior than create a hard list, which will be very difficult if not impossible to do on a global encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Civility is about intent, not the bloody words you use. Rather than a list of naughty words like you would ask a child not to say let the community make it more clear that they expect civility to be enforced. As the policy is worded only the most egregious cases are really actionable. Chillum17:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
