Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 5 August 2018 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Civility/Archive 19) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 12 months

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The initial Misplaced Pages:Civility essay was largely authored by User:Anthere and others at meta:Incivility (history, Jan-Feb. 2004). It was copied here and put into substantive form ("Civility") by User:Stevertigo (Feb. 2004), who earlier raised the issue on wikien-l. & (Oct. 4, 2003). In codified form, it was thereafter referenced as a statement of principle and soon after considered "policy." Long before the creation of the formal policy, User:Jimbo Wales wrote his Statement of principles, wherein certain points echo the idea of civility. User:Larry Sanger raised the issue of "making more civil," , & (Nov. 2002) after reading User:The Cunctator's essay "How to destroy Misplaced Pages" (Mar. 2002). User:Jimbo Wales picked up on Larry's point , and thereafter User:Ed Poor and others kept it alive, until the need for a formal policy came about in late 2003. Also, note a poll on editors' thoughts on the policy at the time in 2009.

This page was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civility page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Civility of editors with autism and/or Asperger's

Seeing such editors getting blocked and losing their rights for uncivil incidents, maybe I can ask what editors with autism and/or Asperger's are expected in accordance with this policy. I'm not trying to generalize or offend the kind or anything like that. Well, I'm one of them... actually, "moderate". However, I'm concerned about the well-beings of autistic editors and those with Asperger's. Can they cooperate? Can they be civil? Can they follow this policy? What do people expect from us autistic editors and them with Asperger's? I'd like thoughtful opinions and responses to this. I hope I'm clear about what I was saying. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HONEYPOT. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: is asking some very interesting questions not just a single question. Can I expand on some of them; I have no answers but feel that the community has responsibilities to editors on the spectrum. In many ways autism is a gift- and leads to a highly focused editor- something that I will never be myself.

• Civility towards editors with autism and/or Asperger's- how does the community cope with that challenge? How does it create a benign editing environment that dissipates conflict situations? In a conflict situation, how does it recognise that an editor on the spectrum will feel the threat disproportionately, and is likely to throw a more extreme response?
• Clarity of definition, and clarity in describing the step that need to be taken to diffuse a situation. Is it adequately explained in the policy: an an editor on the spectrum will be more likely than most to follow the policy (which in some cases will be seen as evidence of incivility). Do we adequate explain the concept of apology and give the steps needed to give one?
• Appropriateness of sanction. Should our sanctions be autism aware? If an editor does not understand what he has done to cause offence- is punishment morally justified? If the answer to that is yes- how effective is it going to be? If the punishment was designed to modify behaviour- does it?
• Civility of editors with autism and/or Asperger's. George asks some interesting general questions about the nature of editors on the spectrum-'Can they cooperate? ( I would say yes but it will be very difficult- a personal goal) Can they be civil?( I would say yes almost all of the time but it is diffcult if non-autistic editor keep changing the rules!) Can they follow this policy? (I would say yes no problem if the policy is rewritten to be clear and unambiguous) What do people expect from us autistic editors and them with Asperger's? I would say that they haven't even understood that it is a question. Thanks for raising these questions- now lets see the community start to address them. ClemRutter (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I've worked with two or three self-identified editors with those conditions and absolutely have been able to do so for the benefit of the encyclopedia. It's a real shame for self-identification to be needed, but in the heated, but often surprisingly caring, environment of Misplaced Pages it's often of real benefit since many editors are willing to apply a bit more consideration if they know a person has one of those conditions. Still, self-identification must be a personal choice and there's always the possibility that some will use it against you. George, you ask, "What do people expect from us autistic editors and them with Asperger's? ... Can they cooperate? Can they be civil? Can they follow this policy?" I can't speak to expectations, but my experience is that their actions and comments often seem to indicate that they fail to catch the underlying, often unspoken, social and emotional subtleties behind things, which cause their comments and actions to sometimes being seen as being somewhat askew from what would ordinarily be on point or most helpful. They also sometimes come across as being cold or abrupt, which is sometimes mistaken for being uncivil. As I understand it — and FSM knows that I have damned little to base this on — deficits in social cognition are common in both conditions. The editors I've worked with, and who I consider to be successful Wikipedians, keep this in mind and at least intellectually adjust for it even if it doesn't come naturally to them. Though this certainly doesn't only beneficially apply to just folks with those conditions, they're also open to evaluating, taking, and inculcating criticism, both constructive criticism and less-civil criticism, and not just ignoring it or replying aggressively to it. That's my experience. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• The same policies should apply. Asperger's isn't the same thing as stupid. Also, if someone has a personality that profits from clear rules, then great news, here we make such rules explicitly codified.

I can see no reason why anyone with Asperger's or HFA (and capable of managing WP:COMPETENCE) should not be able to manage CIVIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Andy. This user's behavior is no exception, right? To me, since the second block, the user, self-identified as autistic, used awful language toward another user, which led him to being indef. blocked. Earlier, he was productive, but a couple of blocks must have motivated him to behave worse (to me). --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you @Andy Dingley:. That is non autistic thinking. That a productive editor can be triggered into non civil behaviour shows that WP is not Autism aware. I haven't followed the case study back fully but there is something dreadfully wrong in a system that allowed it get to the point where the productive editor felt it acceptable to resort to such language. My experience with autism comes from teaching CS in secondary schools- where we attracted every child with a statement. The rule of thumb there was- when you personally felt like killing the child- that was the time to say 'you poor thing- relax a bit and we will try again" and when personally you felt like walking away and saying 'oh it doesn't matter' that was the time to be strict and lay down the rules.

I've got to say that I have enjoyed meeting many wikipedians and based on that experience I reckon that WP has been built on the back of Asperger's- as generally we are a supportive community where the Aspergic thrive.

So in the case study we have have two incidents to consider.

• What triggered the productive editor, and where was the 'I can't cope button- help quick' At that point he physically cannot see the OPs POV. Could we change the left tool bar, to include one- labelled Help-I feel I am being targetted or even Cool down- button. This could be configure to send a layoff message to both editors concerned, and maybe semi-protect the article---
• What triggers normally reasonable editor to always apply draconian sanctions which just make the situation worse. Is this because their confort zone has been challenged- do they enjoy the certainty of the WP world, and not being good negotiators throw the equivalent of a two-year olds tantrum. If this is the case we need to assist them too, which may mean rewriting entirely the sanction system! Rewrite it so- 'blocks' become requests to block and if the editor has self identified as 'On the spectrum' the RFB has to go an AutismArbCom. What we need is mediation skills.

This is important- should it be discussed in detail at Wikimania (I won't be there) where I suspect there will be many editor with personal experience who may be able to help. ClemRutter (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have (diagnosed by a doctor, not self-diagnosed as commonly found on the Internet) what used to be called Asperger's Syndrome and is now called "High Functioning Autism" as the mental health profession keeps redefining various conditions, IMO largely based upon gaming the insurance and disability systems so that people in need are not denied coverage.

I have been editing Misplaced Pages for Since January 1, 2006 (first as an IP, registered on Jun 9, 2006), have made 37,000 edits, and have never had a block or user restriction. I believe that most people would consider me to be a productive editor.

I make no effort to keep my condition a secret (and I give my permission to others on Misplaced Pages to comment on it whenever and wherever they choose), but I don't go out of my way to advertise it. Doing so might help those who are already friendly and cooperative to better relate to me, but it would also give assholes and trolls ammunition to attack me.

There are a wide variety of conditions that are lumped together under the umbrella term "autism", but for me, my condition manifests itself in the following ways:

• I have trouble reading other people's emotions. In face-to-face interactions I have trained myself to watch for things like faster talking, flared nostrils, dilated eyes, etc. and to deduce the person's emotional state from that, but for me it is a conscious effort whereas it comes naturally to most people. On Misplaced Pages I have to watch for taking things too literally, missing sarcasm, and not detecting annoyance/anger in others.

• I am very detail oriented, and prefer well defined WikiGnome activities to more open-ended tasks like new article creation. As is common with those with Asperger's, I have a high IQ (tested at 167) and do very well with complex technical tasks.

• I rarely if ever get angry or emotional about anything anyone on Misplaced Pages writes, and I am often puzzled when someone assumes that they can read my mind and assign an emotion to me that I do not have. Sometimes people try to make me angry, and instead their efforts amuse me. On the other hand, I get annoyed more easily than most when someone appears to be wasting my time.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Language?

What's our current policy on "unparliamentary language"? Has this changed recently? My perception is that our practice, or at least our acceptance of it, has shifted of late. Is language itself a breach of CIVIL? A contributing factor, or something irrelevant to be particularly ignored? Should it be, or become, such a factor? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley: I'm unable to comment on what our current policy might be, but I think our policy should take into account the extremely diverse nature of the body corporate that works on Misplaced Pages - men and women, young and old, highly educated and not-so, those who are white-Anglo-Saxon protestants and those who aren't, those whose self esteem relies on display of unparliamentary language and those whose self esteem doesn't, and so on. Abrasive and offensive language doesn't build content. What is worse is that abrasive and offensive language has the potential (I assume) to drive away new contributors including potentially strong contributors. It is unlikely we can legislate for the sort of behavior we want, but we can model it, and draw the attention of those who display unparliamentary language that there is a better way to get the job done. Dolphin (t) 12:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Vox recently published a pretty convincing article arguing that notions of profanity in the English language have shifted significantly over the last couple generations. Words like fuck, shit, and damn are no longer considered very offensive (e.g. even the prudish New York Times now feels comfortable printing "shithole"). Instead, language that denigrate particular groups is now considered the most profane: nigger, faggot, cunt, kike, etc. Not sure if this deserves mention in the policy, but if anyone ever wants to cite it: . Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Question on profanity

The section of the policy on identifying incivility states "1. Direct rudeness: (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions"

Here's my question--do we mean that, or can people let profanities fly without recourse? I ask because I've brought it up in the past and have been shut down, being told that profanity does not equal incivility. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Apparent behavioral problems at Holly Neher and related pages. I'm seeing policy showing one thing and practice showing the opposite.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

From your work at XfD you are probably aware that there can be a disconnect between different constituencies here. At XfD it's between what ought to happen according to NOTABLITY and what actually happens at XfD. I'd argue that the same thing applies here. The policy wonks who create and maintain this policy (and I don't use that term pejoratively: I'm a self-identified policy wonk at other policies) are a different constituency with different goals and standards from the constituency who believe and become involved with what ought to happen when the policy is violated (who are often folks more concerned with editor retention than with civility). Where our system breaks down is that even if we had a huge RFC with hundreds or thousands of participants to make this policy say exactly what most of the people involved in that RFC discussion think it should say, that does not mean that it will be enforced that way. The only way to achieve that is to pass (and enforce) something like a desysopping policy that says that any admin who is asked to sanction someone for a violation of this policy but fails to do so will be desysopped. And that's not going to happen (and IMHO would be a bad idea). Some things here at en-WP which have the policy label are mostly actually only descriptions of best policies, not policies which are going to be enforced without a considerable showing of disruptive or NOTHERE editing. (The Edit Policy is one such on the content side.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That certainly seems to reflect actual practice. It sure seems to deflate the term "policy" to a significant degree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In any complex system such as this, including the real world, there are going to be rules which are rigidly enforced, others which are going to be ignored or near-ignored, and a bunch in between those extremes which are enforced to varying degrees of intermittency. Which rules are treated which way often bears no relationship to their importance or the seriousness of the harm they're intended to prevent (even when everyone agrees on the issues of importance and harm), probably largely due to simple human nature. Moreover, since our policies here at WP are, philosophically at least, not even really rules (see the first sentence of the Policy policy (not a typo)) that sets up yet another constituency clash between the "there are no rules-ers/wiki-ists" and the pro-bureaucracy "yeah they're rules, get over it" factions. (Full disclosure: Though I'm flexible, I'm mostly in the latter faction.) So the situation I described in my last post isn't particularly surprising. Nonetheless, I think that most — not all, but most — of the time we strike a pretty good balance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with incivility

I recently adjusted the text in this section () so that editors are not instructed to always adopt a wholly passive response to incivility, though it has been reverted by Andrew Davidson. Considering that the WMF's policy on civility is inconsistent, editors should not be instructed to behave in a certain way. My wording emphasized that editors can choose how they deal with incivility, while still offering up the view that some responses may be more productive than others. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Several changes were made and none of them seem to have been discussed here. This is not acceptable process as this is policy, not a personal essay. And the changes do not seem to be an improvement. For example, advice to be "calm and reasonable" was removed. That is not passivity; it's sensible advice to react moderately rather than in kind. I oppose the implication that editors should escalate or react hotly instead. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't discuss anything because I chose to be bold. I figured this page is being closely watched and people can easily revert if they object, which you did. Now, we are discussing.
In certain situations I do not believe it is sensible to react "moderately". There are editors here who are bullies - they use intemperate language in order to intimidate people and get their own way. This does not benefit the encyclopedia, and it does not benefit individual editors if they believe that they have to just sit back and take it. Sometimes a few strong words used back at bullies can make them stop. It doesn't always work like that, but editors should not be steered away from that option if they believe it would work.
I removed the "calm and reasonable" instruction, but I did not replace it with "react hotly", therefore there is no implication; editors can choose how they wish to conduct themselves. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• The main point of our civility policy is that editors should not just act as they please. Instead, they are expected to act in a "respectful and considerate way". If editors behave otherwise then they may be sanctioned and that may still happen if they were provoked. Our enforcement of this is quite haphazard but that's another issue. I still oppose the wording change. Andrew D. (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The civility policy states one thing, but how it is implemented is another. My viewing of ANI and other pages shows me that editors are allowed to be quite uncivil to each other; as an example (that I am sure you are familiar with), it has been stated several times recently that telling another editor to "fuck off" is not considered sanctionable. If this is the case (and I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the current position), editors (and new editors in particular) should not be given the impression on this page that their only acceptable response is to accept it and then pursue it through dispute resolution, because ultimately their complaint will just be thrown out. If my alternative wording is read carefully, I think it will be transparent that it does not advise one type of response over another, it merely reduces the imposition of a passive response. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: as you have not responded to my last post, can I assume that you acquiesce to my position? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Getting the last word is not significant. My bold !vote is still there and still represents my position. Andrew D. (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Consistency regarding American and British English

I tried making the policy consistent regarding the spelling of "behavior/behaviour". My edit was reverted with the reason project space is agnostic WRT Engvar. If it's agnostic, there's no reason to revert, and there's reason to keep the edit for consistency. Bright☀ 12:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't seriously think it would be desirable for editor A to change all "behavior" to "behaviour", while editor B does the reverse? Would it be helpful to have an RfC and spend a month battling over which spelling to use? (Answer: no.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully there's a policy that says "don't revert a change if it's neutral", which should have been followed here since the revert reason is claimed to be neutral ("agnostic") while on the other hand, the edit was made in good faith to improve the page and make it consistent across policies. The correct thing to do would have been to leave the improvement alone and not revert, or give a reason why the edit is detrimental. Either way saying "let's not discuss this" is not helpful and reverting a neutral edit is not helpful. Bright☀ 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Look, we understand that you didn't understand, and it's admittedly not obvious, but exactly because Engvar choices are arbitrary on project-space pages, and there is no objective criterion by which we might choose one alternative over another, the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change. Yes, that means pages will be mutually inconsistent, but that's the way it is on an international project. EEng 03:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

the choices of a page's early editors are left in place absent some good reason to change The choice of this page's early editors was "behavior". It was years later changed by a single editor to "behaviour", probably in the name of consistency though we may never know. Either way "stable version", "status quo", or "the choice of early editors" is not a valid revert reason. You should in the future avoid revert reasons such as "not needed", "status quo", "choice of early editors", "agnostic regarding change" and so on. Bright☀ 04:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, and maybe that change should not have been made (perhaps there was some discussion about it) but given that it was made -- five years ago -- it should have been let lie; though MOS does not apply outside article space, we do follow the principles outlined at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety pretty much everywhere.

I hate to pull this on you, but (1) when you have more experience you'll understand, and (2) you should probably be directing your attention to the current ANI thread about you , particularly the bit about wikilawyering and dropping the stick. EEng 05:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I was thinking that I recognized the user name from somewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

it should have been let lie This is exactly the argument I am making and the argument WP:OWNBEHAVIOR is making. I made a change that was not detrimental. You reverted it with the reason "agnostic regarding change", another way of saying that the two versions are equivalent (Engvar choices are arbitrary) so your revert is a no-reason revert. I hate to pull this on you Then don't. Using "seniority" to justify your actions is also an indicator of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 05:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I'd say there's about a 50% chance you'll still be editing three months from now. EEng 05:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I was just about to say I'm surprised there haven't been any insinuations of blocks yet. Well-phrased, it insinuates a block but does not come off as a threat. Bright☀ 05:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. If you don't start listening to what experienced editors are trying to teach you, and instead keep up the wikilawyering and WP:IDHTing, you're likely to end up blocked before too long. EEng 05:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was clear the first time. You reverted an edit with an "agnostic" reason and then when approached with the relevant policy in the talk page, you imply the other editor should be blocked. "Wow" is not a reasoned reply. If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Bright☀ 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You're on a roll at the moment but arguing and arguing over "u" is absurd—that kind of approach is not compatible with a long-term career at Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If I said anything incorrect, please correct it. Otherwise it seems you're just gloating that you have a "long-term career at Misplaced Pages". Bright☀ 07:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Classic Passive-aggressive behavior. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL. If you can't address the issue don't comment, and in particular don't make personal attacks. Bright☀ 08:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You could also read my post of 17 July 2017 on this page. My simple advice is - drop it. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I read your post, what does it have to do with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR or this edit? You made a comment that can be construed as WP:PERSONAL and then direct to an unrelated reply, an explanation would be helpful. Bright☀ 08:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Addition to wording of "No personal attacks or harassment" section

Scout MLG made an edit that I reverted for technical reasons but could be something to discuss adding. The addition was to the last line of the section and added the Misplaced Pages linked term of bans. Since the term generally means a site ban, I thought perhaps wording it a little more precisely might be an improvement. Many, if not most bans are decided for more than just an editor's conduct with others but also a pattern of editing and long term abuse. A legal threat generally receives an indefinite block and can lead to talk page editing being revoked but the most common type of ban used for harassment or continued personal attacks or disruption by both editors is an interaction ban. There is surely more to consider. Any thoughts, suggestions, or comments?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I can think of situations where an otherwise good editor might receive a community-imposed site ban for repeated personal attacks. ~Awilley (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Abusive talk by experienced editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This comment was left on my page. I created a new page on the Israel-Gaza conflict 2018. My main focus was the fire-kites and environmental damage they cause. Many editors jumped in to delete and criticize every word. At one point I decided that enough is enough. I will not work on this page in this type of enviorment. I want you to pay attention to what Zero wrote because this is wrong and new editors shouldn't have to go though this. Its one thing to enforce the rules and another to be abusive.

"Well, you know, I looked at the article and changed my mind. It is a piece of crap and should be deleted. There is nothing in it that can be usefully merged anywhere either. As for your editing, imagine moaning about one editor who didn't know about the fires, while not even mentioning the 136 people, mostly unarmed civilians, who have been shot dead and hundreds more maimed for life on the Gazan side of the border. That is exactly the sort of extreme bias that we don't want around here. Go away." Zerotalk 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)--Jane955 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

People are dying every day in conflict while others come to Misplaced Pages to battle over hearts and minds. Expecting more than faux politeness under those circumstances is unrealistic. A quick skim of your talk page shows that you are not taking advice well. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)