Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 15 November 2011

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: 21 days

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: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 (the last time they said anything nice to each other), 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 editor's 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 ridiculous.

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: 21 days

Cursing at bots?

Now we all know it's bad to be uncivil to other users, but what about bots? If you call, say ClueBot, a d-bag, is that uncivil? He's technically an editor, but he doesn't have the ability to get offended or respond. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well bots have programmer/operators that could get offended. But incivility is uncool regardless of whether the "target" is offended or not, because it's a violation of the WP community norms. I don' t know that frustration cursing at a bot would itself be uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but usually you would cuss on your own page or in an edit summary or possibly talk. It's unlikely the operator or programmer would know unless you contact them or they happen to be editing there. =p Yep, the idea was cursing out of frustration. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Impeach

Sorry, is this the place to impeach uncivility or there is a special administrator? I ask because of this: To impeach vandalism there is a special page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.75.48 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alertsis probably a good place to start. Active Banana ( 18:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this civility???

:Ahh don't give me that bullshit. I get so sick of single purpose editors telling me this shit. No where in your extensive edit history have you reported a problem nor sought dispute resolution. Now take your complaints to the proper venue before you really piss me off and I say something you regret. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
???? JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User RFC

I don't think we want to go into a lot of detail for RFC criteria as these are spelled out on the RFC page. Gerardw (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Vulgar jokes

I've seen several instances recently where disputes have arisen due to people posting vulgar, offensive, and/or sexist jokes on article talk pages. Although our demographics skew heavily towards young heterosexual males, article talk pages are not locker rooms and such behavior is certainly not "civil". More importantly, such behavior can create a very unwelcoming environment for women (as well as people from other cultures/religions/backgrounds) and discourage their participation. (To understand why, please read through Why sexualized environments are criticised.) As we are supposed to treat each other as colleagues on Misplaced Pages, asking for a minimum level of respect and professionalism doesn't seem unreasonable in these cases. Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you Kaldari for bringing this up. I recently saw the talk page edits for the Pregnancy article.. I was shocked by the joke that was placed on the page (a medical joke about a woman getting sodomized) and didn't find it funny that the editor seemed to be using it as a clever way to wrap up a heated and intense conversation about photographs in the article. I couldn't believe that someone actually posted it. For me, Misplaced Pages is my volunteer work place. Behavior like that would never be tolerated in most workplaces (sexual harassment and sexual jokes? illegal in my workplace), and it's hard to know that my opinions are mocked in vulgar and/or hurtful jokes. I am not perfect, I have a temper and I get frustrated, but, I also believe that it's not hard to "be nice" and have "good manners" on Misplaced Pages. People wonder why we struggle to retain editors :( SarahStierch (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur that offensive jokes don't belong on talk pages. What actions are you suggesting? Gerardw (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the "sexual innuendo" item under "Identifying incivility" could be expanded to "sexual innuendo or vulgar jokes". They are similar behaviors with similar effects, in my opinion. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Made the change. However, I suspect that by itself it won't change anything unless the community pushes back against the vulgar jokes when and where they are made. Silence is consent. Gerardw (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They seem to me to be quite different things. How would you define a "vulgar joke"? Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus: I would define Vulgar jokes more or less as defined here.

@Kaldari and all: I also agree with the general idea here, but share Gerard's question about what specific action would be best. I think in general, it is rather meaningless to have a policy requiring civility, if comments deemed uncivil cannot be redacted from discussion pages. I have had difficulties with this in the past, not specifically around vulgar jokes, but most prominently in RfAs. If we mean what we say about civility, we should have wording in the policy, and accept practices, of removing uncivil comments. -Pete (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)First step should be to ask the editor posting the comment to remove it, and that can be done under current policy. Gerardw (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Distasteful ]. Is there a need for jokes on talk pages? I don't think they contribute to making better articles and humor is frequently very culturally sensitive. Gerardw (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who's going to be the judge, and which culture will be considered the standard? You only have to look at the differences between British and American television to see that very different standards are applied across the world. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Begs the question -- is there a need or benefit to jokes on talk pages? If not, the standard is if it's offensive to any reasonable editor, it doesn't belong. Gerardw (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you even question whether social oil is of benefit. Let's remind ourselves as well that offence is one of those things that can't be given, it can only be taken. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I love George Carlin and Richard Pryor :( But, I also don't crack their jokes when I'm in a professional environment. Here is a website chock full of them (this was the quality of humor that was brought up on the Pregnancy article. Nothing high brow like Carlin or Pryor achieved...) "Crude Sex Jokes" SarahStierch (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• So you're being paid to edit here? Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• ?? Are you being sarcastic? Per Kaldari: "As we are supposed to treat each other as colleagues on Misplaced Pages, asking for a minimum level of respect and professionalism doesn't seem unreasonable in these cases." I shared that link to provide examples of what vulgar/crude jokes are for those that needed a "cited source" SarahStierch (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm simply trying to remind you that this is not a professional environment. In a professional environment you would know the people you were addressing. They wouldn't be walking around wearing masks, and thus you would be able to learn what they did or didn't find acceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And you failed to remind me, because, oddly enough, I know a large portion of these folks offline and many of them don't wear masks. I might not know every jokester, but, I do know a jerk or a rude person when I see them, and usually the users who make these offensive jokes that serve up an unhealthy environment often fall into one of those two categories. SarahStierch (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you have failed to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "professional" is very useful, even if used metaphorically. We are trying to do something serious here -- build an encyclopedia in a civil, collaborative manner. Malleus, if you would like to propose a better term to capture that concept, please do; but if not, let's just stick with "professional." Nobody is under the illusion that this is our paying job. -Pete (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you may redefine the word "professional" in any way you choose, but I prefer to stick with the dictionary definition. The two key concepts of "professional" are pay and competence, nothing to do with collaboration or civility. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

From Wiktionary: "Of, pertaining to, or in accordance with the (usually high) standards of a profession." (emphasis added.) Again, if there is a term you prefer, please just suggest it -- I can't imagine anyone would have a problem with adopting more precise terminology to help us through this discussion. -Pete (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As much as I dislike vulgar jokes myself, Wikipedian is not yet a profession, except perhaps to a small number or PR people and self-promoters, and even for them, it's probably just part time. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Because so many different cultures share space on Misplaced Pages English, we need to refrain from making jokes that could be offensive, misogynistic, or racist. Talk pages need to be welcoming of all people who want to discuss content. Vulgar jokes are offputting to many people for numerous reasons. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If these "vulgar" or hateful jokes were about African Americans or Jews, for example, and people made them freely here and there, they could be banned from editing, at least on relevant topics. One person last spring was banned from editing articles about Jews not because they made nasty jokes, but because they either quoted multiple reliable sources who made generalizations about Jews that editors considered politically incorrect and/or "antisemitic", or they quoted a lot of people who said nasty things about Jews allegedly in the guise of criticizing the people who said these things. Perhaps others have been banned for similar reasons on religious/racial/ethnic grounds. If sufficient evidence of such a pattern IS grounds for banning people on a topic, than it should apply equally to at least a one day block for a dirty joke about women, with escalating blocks if the behavior continues. (Also note that under WP:ARBPIA people can be blocked and eventually banned from editing on the Israel Palestine topic if they once and/or repeatedly accuse others of being antisemitic, depending on the circumstances, showing that there is some sensitivity on both sides of the issue.) CarolMooreDC 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 The idea of a ban for a day is a pretty powerful and really great idea, honestly. I'm also glad you made the point about race. SarahStierch (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are we singling out "dirty jokes" about women, rather than "dirty jokes" about men? Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Because that was the example, as seen in the Pregnancy article. Again, any "dirty joke" is unacceptable regardless of gender specifics for a public forum such as Misplaced Pages. SarahStierch (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The policy this edit violates is WP:RD2:

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs.

I'd love to see your definition of "ordinary" incivility. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gross means of exaggerated quality. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about "gross", I was asking about "ordinary". Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading the discussion that led to that joke being told, I disagree it was grossly uncivil. The joke was given as analogy with editors' requests that some pictures were objectionable. So a joke about pictures in medical context vs. lay context was not a bad analogy. A simpler way to put it would have been "in the eye of the beholder", but there was nothing grossly uncivil about using that joke to illustrate that objections to pictures in those terms speak of one's biases. Removing that analogy for RD2 would have been an abuse of administrative privileges though. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion will never end as there are irreconcilable views involved—however the matter does not need to be resolved. I do not think that the obvious should be added to WP:CIVIL, and there is no need to say that vulgar jokes are uncivil, and there is certainly no need to define vulgar. I agree with those who found the joke at Talk:Pregnancy inappropriate—just remove the unhelpful comment (i.e. remove the joke, as was done). If an edit war breaks out, the matter should be escalated to some noticeboard where the community would have to decide on a case-by-case basis what commentary should be removed. No wording can be added to WP:CIVIL that would help identify exactly when a joke is or is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with your procedural comment, the important thing is that those who are most likely to be offended (women) are not as likely to aggressively pursue a comment to a forum. Even I who am known as a pretty aggressive editor didn't take people to forums for the first couple years and only have gotten really good at it over last 18 months or so. Maybe if we have and widely publicize a HOW TO FIGHT SEXIST VULGARITY essay that teaches women the joys and techniques of fighting vulgar sexism through appropriate complaints to appropriate noticeboards that would help. Lots of women fighting back is the only thing that will change the culture. CarolMooreDC 04:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: This is indeed the approach I have taken in the past. However, in every case it has required lengthy discussions and tediously building consensus in order to overrule the vocal minority who seem to believe that there is no harm in such jokes and feel it is their duty to defend against "censorship". In the case of the Rubyfruit Jungle talk page, it took 4 years, 10 editors, discussions on two different forums, and two edit wars to remove a joke posted by an anonymous IP about how vaginas smell like fish. What an epic waste of time and effort! The whole reason we have policies is so that the same arguments don't have to be hashed out time and time again. On the issue of definitions, I don't think there is any need for us to define "vulgar jokes". It is a fairly universal concept (even if the standards may vary somewhat) and I think it is understandable enough to be useful in situations like the ones mentioned above. Kaldari (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: I agree that editors need to resist junk. On an unrelated matter, I used to patrol WP:MfD to assist the removal of inappropriate user space NOTWEBHOST problems (haven't had time for that lately). One recurring theme there was "what harm does it do?". My answer (which never convinced the questioner) was that tolerating stuff which does not assist the encyclopedia will lead to good editors (i.e. those who agree with me!) being overwhelmed by the social network generation, and there is a real risk that eventually policies would be watered down to turn articles into coatracks.

However, I think a better title for the proposed essay would be needed. In much the same way that the discussion above will never resolve what harm does it do? in relation to jokes, a specific essay on fighting sexist vulgarity would only attract the NOTCENSORED crowd who would think their human right to say what they like is being offended. Instead, I would suggest something more generic: unhelpful commentary should be removed from talk pages. Of course that needs a lot of explanation, but WP:TPG is a start. I would argue that vulgar jokes should be removed not because they might offend someone, but because the point is probably unhelpful, and is probably too confusing for someone trying to follow a discussion on an improvement to the encyclopedia. I'm sure occasional exceptions will arise, but no guideline can define when a joke would be helpful, so an essay should encourage editors to oppose material that does not assist the encyclopedia, and should explain the procedures (never edit war; how to escalate; choose which battles are worth pursuing). @Kaldari: I'll read your comment and try to respond a little later. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I had a quick look at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle. The problem there was that an editor renowned for their unique judgment opposed the attempts to remove the joke on the basis that the nonsense had been posted five years previously (btw, that editor is currently blocked for a week after following their judgment in other topics, and their next block is likely to be indefinite). Unfortunately, the argument that there is no reason to fiddle with five-year old comments has merit, and that's the problem with trying to base policy on hard-to-define issues like no vulgar jokes—counter arguments will always be available. If I were the first to respond to such a joke I would remove it with edit summary "remove per WP:TPG", but it's not so easy when other editors have already started discussion, or when someone indistinguishable from a troll objects. While I don't like to burden WP:ANI with trivia, I think that after a couple of rounds of remove/add/discuss, I would take it to ANI and appeal for an admin to invoke WP:IAR to nuke the unhelpful discussion (archiving is always an option). People do not like instruction creep, and particularly given the definition problems, I cannot see that attempting to add no vulgar jokes is going to give a good result. While I agree that no definition is needed, others will point out that what is vulgar to one group is not to another. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• An user is being warned in an ArbCom case about making sexualized jokes and comments. See the evidence. Spelling out the problem in policy, as well as it being good for the editing environment, is a service to users so that they are forewarned that they could end up in hot water. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ok, Bob, tell me the truth now, are you hoping to get a date from Ms Oda Mari?" is pretty far from reminding people about personal biases by recounting an extant joke about an individual who sees a penis for every rectangle, told in order to illustrate the "in the eye of the beholder" problem. ArbCom didn't even sanction the editor who made the "get a date" comment. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I support spelling out in policy that vulgar jokes are among the things that are not acceptable here, and I also support ensuring that they are not accepted here (e.g. by immediate removal, and blocking of persistent offenders). Same applies generally to examples of incivility. No reason to continue to tolerate this kind of thing when we're trying to attract more and "better" editors. Doesn't matter that we can't define vulgarity precisely - we don't have any need for jokes at all, so the fact that at least one colleague was offended should be enough to convince the poster that it wasn't appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur the jokes are not acceptable and policy should reflect that. One colleague offended standard is too low, as editors would attempt to use that to game the system when in conflict with other editors. Gerardw (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

OK but I mean genuinely offended, obviously making spurious claims of offendedness (or of anything) would itself be disruptive.--Kotniski (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, given what a waste of time going through the procedures are to remove one stupid comment, one does start to look to the authoritarian approach: give a couple people the right to remove the most obnoxious comments and block anyone who puts them back. (Or maybe some anon IP will take up the job of finding all the nasty jokes and coming up with even nastier ones of the same ilk that would offend the manhood of the joker so much he'd compromise and remove both. RobinHood meets Zorro, feminist style. A girl can dream.) CarolMooreDC 13:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Administrators have the right now using WP:RD2. It does not take an oversighter, let along the Arbitration Committee. Misplaced Pages:Civility is one of the Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. I have not removed this example as we have discussed it, quite productively and people need to be able to view it. Context is important; dirty jokes have a place, but probably not on the talk page of "pregnancy". User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

More constructive, though perhaps more controversial: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Feminism could have a permanent listing of vulgar jokes and encourage feminists to comment to the page or the maker until it was removed. Hmmm.... CarolMooreDC 13:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, just quietly remove them, don't discuss them, don't allow them to become the source of drama - let it become the norm (easier said than done, I know) that editors don't restore comments that have been removed on reasonable grounds of offensiveness, and if they do they can expect to be blocked fairly rapidly.--Kotniski (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I prefer not to side with the speech police and my own talk page is open to ribaldry, hostile sexual jokes are indefensible. This does not place me in disagreement with Malleus above, however: keeping a sense of humor is good "social oil". But regarding the unbelievable obstinacy at Talk:Rubyfruit Jungle, this was a vulgar and offensive remark without context in any discussion; it was mere vandalism, and Kaldari's application of the policy was entirely apt. I don't like the thought of banning humor, nor requiring a robotic tone; in dealing with cultural or individual differences or sensitivities, in real life one says "I'm offended by that" and expects the behavior to stop. A person who persists in or defends such behavior can no longer claim to be greasing the social wheels; this is by definition not civil. I don't see why applying WP:RD2 should be controversial; just delete the crap. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I favor clear policies that focus efforts on building the encyclopedia, so would welcome a consensus to reinstate the edit by Gerardw which inserted the underlined text in "sexual innuendo or vulgar jokes" under "Other uncivil behaviors". However, I suspect that this page is of concern to those with a particular interest in civility and I'm pretty sure that some of the wider community would not accept an argument based on "at least one colleague was offended" (we have lots of articles which offend editors: one trivial example is astrology which, depending on who is currently in control, offends either its opponents or its proponents). If I were supporting the removal of a joke, rather than looking for someone who was offended, I would prefer arguments based on "not helpful for the encyclopedia/community", or "may encourage further inappropriate usage of talk pages". Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think many of us agree - it' also "not helpful for the encyclopiedic/community," as some of us are stating above (above above this..). It's not professional, it's not a healthy environment, and I promise you if you showed that joke on the talk page to a user who is interested in reading about pregnancy (a generally "serious" topic - no one reads the Pregnancy article to find Carol Burnett jokes about it) they'd most likely find it offensive. I was offended and it's environments like that made me not want to contribute more frequently until the past year. I had a hard time seeing people get verbally attacked and its an often sexualized environment (which I couldn't figure out because this is an encyclopedia - the only excuse was "this is the internet") that makes some people uncomfortable. This isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica, it's Misplaced Pages, and if someone wants to make stupid tasteless sexist/racist/vulgar/etc. jokes, go there, or perhaps a private mailing list for them and their buddies. You can't deny that people get offended by jokes like that, and if they translated it, I'm sure many people would also be offended regardless of language/culture. Something has to be done to make a statement and show that immature, hurtful behavior isn't welcome on Misplaced Pages or we're going to sit around for years having these conversations. Something needs to change from within if we ever intend on continuing to be taken seriously. On that note, I'm sure Public Policy programs and doctors would love to see jokes like that when considering their students working with Misplaced Pages. Let's do this, it wouldn't take long and it seems to have support of everyone but two people here (I believe). SarahStierch (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oh for pity's sake. The comment on the Rubyfruit Jungle talk page could have been removed by anyone at any time because it does not meet talk page guidelines (specifically, it has no relation to the subject of the article). Don't add things to this page that are already covered by other policies and guidelines. One of the main reasons that this policy is essentially unenforceable is that it is a coatrack, and almost everything that's here is covered somewhere else. Blocking for "civility" violations has rarely had any positive effect except when it is a permanent removal from the project; nobody has ever become "more civil" as a result of a short block, and there are strong correlations between increased embitterment and hostility following such blocks. "Vulgar jokes" - a phrase that means radically different things to different people - can easily be handled in other ways, particularly by removal. Risker (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The joke at Rubyfruit Jungle was removed, multiple times by multiple people, but each time it was restored with the explanation that WP:TPOC prohibited such deletion. A similar course occurred with the pregnancy article. In both cases, the poster (or someone else) claimed that the joke was related to the subject of the article or other talk page discussion and thus could not be removed. The only recourse in these situations is either argue that the joke is not civil or take the rather drastic step of deleting the revision under Misplaced Pages:RD2 (which is sure to evoke controversy). It would be nice if someone could point to this page, say that such jokes aren't civil and firmly request the poster to remove it. It seems like the most drama-free possible solution in my opinion. Other solutions have been tried and have proven ineffective. I agree that instruction creep is evil, but every once in a while it is necessary to put something in writing so that people can be shown, "yes, this is an established community norm". My experiences with this issue lead me to believe that this is exactly such a case. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

See now, part of my problem with this notion is that I don't think it has anything at all to do with civility; it's bad talk page hygiene, but I am not persuaded that stupid things on talk pages (whether or not they're jokes, rude, or anything else) are civility problems. It appears that the user who keeps putting this particular comment back in is one who is already in a fair amount of hot water, and I believe that this issue should be pointed out on his talk page and the ANI report about him, with a proposal that he be topic banned from that page. Another part of the problem is that pointing to this page will make no difference whatsoever; as I've already pointed out, because it's such a coatrack, it's unenforceable, and I have never seen an effective use of this policy in enforcing any kind of behaviour, let alone something like this. Do the root cause analysis of the reason that that particular page is being edited in this way, and I believe you'll find that civility has little to do with it, nor does the content itself - it is the act of annoying people that is producing the desired effect. ("Haha, they're going to change a policy because of me!") To me, that is not a vulgar joke - mostly because it isn't a joke. It's a troll. Risker (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be guidance somewhere (probably WP:TPG) for what editors should do in a situation like the Rubyfruit joke. Your suggestion of raising the matter on the user's talk and then at ANI for a topic ban only applies when one editor who is known for trouble is retaining bad material. What should other editors do when one trouble-free editor (or a couple of such editors) think a tasteless comment is so funny/harmless that it should be retained? WP:WQA then WP:ANI? Normally WQA would be a waste of time (and may feed a troubled editor), but perhaps a culture of quickly agreeing on how WP:TPG should be interpreted in a particular case may arise at WQA, with a quick escalation to ANI when the WQA result is not accepted. Then, we would need a culture at ANI of quickly responding to nonsense. Or are you suggesting that junk on talk pages is not such a problem that a response is needed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPG would need to be changed. The current wording:

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

doesn't support removing jokes. I'd support updating the guideline to include offensive jokes which do not contribute to the discussion. Gerardw (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that specifically mentioning "offensive jokes" is going to attract unwelcome attention, although I would be glad to be shown wrong on that. Ultimately it's not the fact that someone is offended that is the problem, it is the degree to which off-topic commentary is tolerated. The thrust of TPG should be to avoid NOTFORUM violations. What is a violation can be contentious and TPG might say that disputed removals should be escalated to WQA where the community can (quickly, I hope) resolve whether a particular talk page comment or thread should be removed on the basis that it is counter to building a community that will build the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that someone is offended, rather than whether some WP:XYZ has been "violated". A mildly off-topic remark that doesn't have the capacity to upset anyone would probably not be removed, and such remarks in moderation can be good for the community spirit. But off-topic offensive remarks (jokes, whatever) need to go, preferably quickly and quietly, to prevent them from doing the twin damage of (a) distracting from on-topic discussion and (b) putting people off contributing to WP.--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that whole above statement needs to be looked at with a fresh set of eyes (I've never read it until now). Anything in that statement can bring unwanted attention - that is why we have a community of people who monitor things to remove that unwanted attention and deal with it. Perhaps having the "unwanted attention" can up cleanse the environment a bit, as well. People are sarcastic (internet fail!), snappy and rude enough on Misplaced Pages, and I just think that means they are jerks in the real world, but, and sadly those types are the vocal minority in some specific situations leading some people to not want to participate. It needs to be something that the average user can feel empowered to use to provide a healthy environment and to know that it is *ok* to be offended and remove that material. You have to remember - most people don't know what WQA's, TPG's, etc (I don't, actually) - we need to have accessible policies so that every user can find them, check the boxes off and go about handling it in a simple and easy manner - deletion or having access to a list of volunteers who can help patrol. Just some ideas - but I'm an advocate for "non-Wikispeak" in policy. SarahStierch (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue I am raising here is not about off-topic content. While vulgar jokes are almost always off-topic, they represent a more fundamental problem for the project, which is definitely tied to the issue of civility. The heart of the matter is that vulgar jokes create an unwelcoming sexualized environment that drive away certain contributors (especially women). This hurts our efforts to build a better encyclopedia and thus should not be casually accepted. Yes, the Rubyfruit Jungle example is not a good example of a civility violation (its closer to blatant trolling). I was using it as an example of the fact that simply deleting the joke generally doesn't work. In fact, in cases where such jokes are made by established editors, I usually don't take any action at all and just remain silent since I don't have anything in policy to cite and I don't want to have to spend my whole day explaining why such jokes hurt the project. All I'm asking for is something in a guideline or policy (any guideline or policy) that specifically discourages vulgar degrading jokes. I don't need it to be enforceable, I just need something to point to so that I have a leg to stand on in such situations. Just knowing that it's mentioned in a policy will make me more likely to proactively address this type of behavior, which I think is the first step to improving things. Even if I lose the debate regarding a particular joke, at least the poster will be less likely to continue posting vulgar jokes if they know they are likely to be challenged. Please be assured that I am not proposing this change casually. I have dealt with this issue for many years (due primarily to my involvement in women-related articles), and have come to the frustrating conclusion that the current policies do not adequately support my efforts to keep talk-page dialog civil and welcoming. I don't think the change I'm suggesting is especially crufty or coat-racky, in fact I think it is actually an important point for us to clarify as a community, especially if we hope to make any progress retaining a higher percentage of women editors. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Woman editor here, please don't play that card; there are plenty of men who find vulgar language disturbing too. Vulgar language is lacking in taste and boorish, coarse and common. It's grounds to roll eyes (and think to one's self "what are you, 12?"), not to block people. There's a huge leap between vulgar and offensive (the latter of which I would classify as "offending most people who read it"). The example on which this proposal is based is clearly trolling, and its reinsertion also trolling. It's not a vulgar joke, because it isn't a joke. I'm not seeing anyone coming up with any other examples that were not addressed by other policies and guidelines.

As I write this, another longterm editor has proposed the "facepalm" template for deletion, because some people use it in a sarcastic or ironic (rather than self-deprecating) way. I could throw in there the "like" button and the "wikilove" templates, because they're often used sarcastically and ironically, too. Almost every page on this project will contain something that someone finds offensive or rude or vulgar or disturbing in some way. (Remember, we still have skirmishes about wikiproject templates on a regular basis.) Trolling comments that are mischaracterized as vulgar jokes is probably not even close to the top 10. Risker (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really glad you said that. I find the implication that it's only male editors likely to post vulgar jokes, and only female editors likely to be upset by them, to be somewhat offensive in itself. We're all people, regardless of our gender, and we all have feelings. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the other thing that crosses my mind is that there is little hesitation on the part of administrators to use revision deletion to remove these very kinds of comments from other pages (noticeboards in particular), so it strikes me that this issue is already covered. I don't think this is even close to a significant reason that women are leaving/not editing the project: instant CSD from new page patrol, heavy use of officious templates associated with automated tools, and instablocking/threatening of potential COI accounts are all much more serious issues. The templates in particular strike me as threatening in a lot of ways, and I'm pretty sure if I'd wound up with one of them on my talk page within the first dozen edits, I'd have been gone. So we have plenty of ways to drive people away that are all well within policy, long before we worry about "fish" comments on talk pages. Risker (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about templates. The problem, or at least part of it, is that they look official, and therefore intimidating. I am still steaming mad about having an ArbCom enforcement template dumped on my talk page a week or so ago, so they do little to cool the atmosphere. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned women in particular is because 100% of the cases I have seen involve jokes that are degrading to women. Yes, it is possible to tell vulgar jokes that are degrading to men, I just haven't seen them on Misplaced Pages. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you think they're only degrading to women, Kaldari. Trolling is deliberately intended to create strong reactions in everyone and anyone, and I think the examples given here were quite successful in doing just that. Risker (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of the jokes are specifically about women. For example, how buying jewelry is the best way to get a women to orgasm. How is that degrading to anyone other than women? Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(Kind of outdent, actually responding to something mid-thread) I just removed that whole talkpage section about the Rubyfruit "joke", as it wasn't related to article improvement, and hasn't had the "joke" in there for months, and it didn't make any sense to have the discussion but delete the reason for the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

I'm female and I tell filthy jokes. I find them hilarious. I'd rather work with someone with a sense of humor than someone without. I'm more offended by 19 Kids and Counting than I am by humorous comparisons of vaginas to fish. Tell those Fundies to put on some shorts for God's sake.

NewYorkBrad said during a NYC meeting I attended a year ago that early in his Wikicareer he saw someone on Misplaced Pages downgrade an article he was working on from Mid to Low importance. He got his feelings hurt with that. Bottom line: there's no way to tell what's going to hurt someone's feelings. If you're going to be on the same venue that hosts 4chan--the Internet--you need to get a thicker skin. Blocking people for telling off-color jokes, or removing something you find offensive on a talk page where everyone else finds it awesome will itself become a joke. If women are trying to find a place to work where it's all chai latte and soothing Enya all the time, this ain't it. It's not likely to become that kind of place either. --Moni3 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So our standard for civility is the same as 4chan? We're just "the internet"? If that is the case, why do we have a civility policy? I guess if people want to make jokes about raping women and children, I should just get a sense of humor and forget about it. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what you really need is a sense of proportion. At least until it becomes possible to rape someone (male or female) via a computer screen. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

e/c I said our standard of civility is 4chan? Remarkable how I don't remember saying that. Communication on the Internet is very different than real life communication. Misplaced Pages is on the Internet. So is 4chan. Misplaced Pages topics include many 4chan topics, even basic ones like fuck. Vandalism comes in many forms. How regular users aren't inured to the language used in vandalism I don't know.

And I don't know why we have a civility policy. I think it gets in the way of true communication. And this is the first time anyone has mentioned rape or raping anything or anyone. (ctrl+F to check) This is a strange bend of the discussion. First it's about the smell of vaginas and now that I posted my opinion that I don't care, it's about raping? Why wasn't that mentioned at ANI or the person warned and blocked for that? Is this the true crux of the problem or did you just get frustrated? --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What I've never understood, and never will, is why we have a civility policy and a no personal attacks policy. In what way does one differ from the other? Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, there is a discussion on one of the WMF public mailing lists where a longtime user mentioned an interaction he had observed/been involved in (I believe at another project), where several users discussed how they would go about getting a video of a rape, for the explicit purpose of posting such a video into the Rape article. Now, *that* worries me. Nobody's mentioned any "jokes" about rape, and I'd have no problems at all sanctioning an editor for making such a comment/joke (heck, I've voted to sanction someone for suggesting that a male and female editor were dating when it was used to devalue someone's comments), but it has nothing to do with the civility policy. Risker (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I keep coming back to the many women I've worked with and work with here on Misplaced Pages, including you Moni3, easily as many as the men I've worked with, and I honestly don't see any difference in their tolerance for jokes, vulgar or otherwise, or the likelihood that they'll turn out to be fragile little things likely to crack if they hear a rude word. Remember the Donner Party Moni? What that demonstrated pretty well is women are the tougher sex, not the weaker. And I've long cherished what some might consider a vulgar comment made to me by one female administrator: "You are a dick of porn star proportions". Was I upset? Not in the slightest. How can you be upset when you're doubled up with laughter. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This edit summary was directed at me. Made me lol. Bad edit, but good edit summary. --Moni3 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually on reflection I was a bit upset, as it really ought to have been "porn-star proportions"; I really don't like sloppy English. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is absolutely disheartening to me. If you guys feel that jokes with punchlines like "My mom's fucking the turkey" and "A woman's anus after being sodemized" are perfectly acceptable for Misplaced Pages, then I guess I don't belong here. For some reason I thought Misplaced Pages was different than the rest of the internet and actual took civility seriously. Apparently, I'm wrong. Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

+1 I feel the same way. :( SarahStierch (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

+1 They contribute nothing to the project. – SJ + 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm unreasonable, but I would totally say that thing about the turkey. The sodomy thing, less. But that's someone's compulsion to shock. Sodomy itself is not offensive but rape is implied in that comment if one tries hard enough. Clearly, however, the editor who made the joke about the sodomy must have experience with it. I'd wager on the receiving end. Oh, shit. Receiving end. Did you catch? Nevermind.

So what are you trying to accomplish, Kaldari? I mean, you can't be trying to ban all humor that might be construed as offensive somewhere someplace. That would be impossible and my block log would be a mile long. The inherent truth in comments that are very degrading to women is that they are made by males, probably, who have themselves been degraded and who are trying desperately to shift the focus to those they feel should shoulder that cultural responsibility. They've done their job when you get degraded, humiliated, or otherwise offended. Their job can't be done and they have to face that women should not have to accept the responsibility for being lower on the cultural totem pole when you remind them of their own flawed history of being degraded themselves. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to look the other way in 90% of questionable jokes on Misplaced Pages. The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is establishing a way to successfully fight against the 10% of dirty jokes on Misplaced Pages that really are degrading and offensive (and occasionally misogynist). If you can tell me a way that I can do that without edit warring, I'm perfectly willing to listen. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've responded to you on my talk page, Kaldari: disruptive and/or trolling remarks, which is what you're getting at here (vulgarity is too low level) should be reason to use your admin tools. Revision delete them. Sanction the offenders, and don't be afraid to use your block button (I'd say go straight to indef until you have agreement that this will not recur). In fairness to Moni3, yep, if you were to make some of those comments, I'd be trouting you as well. Degrading remarks are degrading to all who come in contact with them; men shouldn't get the idea that the odour clings less to them than to women. Risker (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that this sort of provokes people of all genders. I think current policy may suffice - though Kaldari's wording suggestion also seems fine to me - but we do need to discourage people who think that others who are offended by things "should just get over it". If a single person tells you you wrote something offensive, and it's not important to improving the project, the polite thing is to retract it. (If you think it is important to the point you were trying to make, you should be able to politely explain that.) – SJ + 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Risker: I get your point about being less timid and just removing offensive content and blocking people who are being disruptive, but the wording at WP:TPOC makes it difficult to feel empowered in these cases. It would be nice if there was a counter-balance somewhere to address these sort of situations. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Disruption is prohibited, and that is all we need to say. This recent move to make policy more and more prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) with blanket bans on things is something I do not like in the least. I am sure there is a possible situation where a vulgar joke could go over well, but its a users responsibility to be competent with it. I do find the reason for this thread kind of week; a single historically problematic user on page that gets zero page views per day more often then not. If the arbitration committee was running around making vulgar vagina comments all the time, I might be convinced that a conversation needs to happen, but right now this smacks of a certain clique of editors searching out material to get upset about to justify the holiness of their instruction creep. extransit (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So what action do you advocate when an editor comes across an offensive joke? Gerardw (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does everyone think this thread is about Rubyfruit Jungle? That was just an example I gave of how tedious removing such content can be. Several other examples have been given in this discussion, and the most recent case at pregnancy is a very high traffic talk page. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment - one of my biggest problems with the people opposing those of us who support being more sensitive to users; some seem to think this is specifically about editors (i.e. the representative group of people here). This isn't just about someone like me being offended, or another highly active editor - for me this comes down to potential editors, new editors, and non-editors; the librarians that use Misplaced Pages to look for quality references about a subject, a school teacher researching in class material, a student doing research (at any age), our mothers for that matter. The culture of Misplaced Pages is dramatically different than what it was 6-10 years ago, at least in English speaking. We have to consider what effect "vulgar jokes" might be on potential editors, new editors, or users. And I believe that if educators, GLAM professionals, Campus Ambassador professors, and the like, stumbled across a highly sexualized, or racist, or sexist, (etc.) joke on a talk page, they would scratch their heads and perhaps they might write it off as a one time thing - but, perhaps not. They might write OTRS, they might attempt to remove the content themselves - but, while some of you are admins (some of us are not), people might not feel empowered enough - and we see it with OTRS requests. The fact that it has had to happen, this conversation, is something people should be taking care with - it's a sensitive topic, and not something that should be blown off or trolled or broken down into some "pull the stick out of your ass you bores" series of comments. I voted about the image on the Pregnancy article, and when I went to see the outcome, I was shocked by the joke. As someone who yes, opposed the main image on the article, I was offended, and felt terrible about just sharing my opinion when that joke was the "punchline" in the outcome. I felt that the joke was intentional to make people who opposed the use of the current main image feel like crap. That's not right. Again, professionalism isn't something "cliquey" to ask for, it's called common sense. And stating that people aren't being "competent" is a rather frustrating for me - especially when making vulgar jokes falls into this essays incompetence area: "Immaturity: Some folks just can't act like reasonable adults." And competence is defined as able or suitable for a certain role. How can people feel competent when they're being offended, or pissed off, or saddened by the environment of Misplaced Pages? For example: we see it in OTRS emails from readers about vandalism. Examining how we can carefully, and with empathy, take care of problems like this will be one way for us to not only create a more welcoming environment, but, allow us to avoid any slipper slope scenarios in the future. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not be a bunch of bullies or jerks. How about someone create a section on Wikiquote for vulgar jokes instead? SarahStierch (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason we're not meeting eye-to-eye here is that I believe very strongly that the purpose of the project is development of content, and that we already have the tools to address almost every single situation referred to in this discussion, but people don't have the courage to actually use them. If any policy/guideline needs to be beefed up, it is the talk page guidelines, which should clearly state that the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of the article and that material that does not fall within that scope can and will be removed. In fact, it pretty much says that now, and the tools are there to do it. That some people would rather spend hours and days debating the value of such 'contributions' is a problem in and of itself. Yank that stuff out. If someone insists on returning it, find an admin to yank it out again and possibly even revision delete it. Don't keep discussing it, keep removing it; these are trolls, not civility issues, and should be treated as such. "But it's funny" is never a reason to keep something on the talk page of an article. Take care of the truly offensive stuff (Kaldari gave a few examples) quickly and decisively, and the boundary lines start to shift. Risker (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

omg, thank you thank you for saying what I've been thinking and saying for some time (only better than I've been saying it, as a general rule.) Often I remove personal attacks and other useless hostile posturing from talk pages, I get someone, sometimes several someones, crying out that I'm censoring them or preventing them from expressing themselves etc. or in some other way doing something Terribly Wrong. This happened only this week, in fact, although for some borderline snide comments rather than for crystal clear personal attacks. I point to TPG and say, were you talking about the article? No? Then that didn't need to be on the talk page. It is so nice to have someone else say this; I have no issue with people wandering slightly off topic, it happens to everyone, but the semi-constant hostility and battleground mentality here is not conducive to attracting quality editors. And "jokes" which disparage anyone are completely unacceptable; or should be in any kind of civilized venue. I'm going to frame that quote, Risker. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What would really help, I think, is outlining/creating some clear and effective procedure for regular editors to deal with this issue. I mean, as it stands when someone posts something stupidly demeaning, trying to remove it is like falling into quicksand: anything one does will simply start an argument (because someone who posts something like that in the first place is unlikely to be responsive to civility requests), and one is effectively stuck with the material on the page while arguing against self-righteous diatribes about freedom of speech and how everyone should have a thicker skin so that the original poster can post bad jokes without feeling guilty. Maybe if we added something like the following:

Statements in talk pages which are considered offensive should be immediately {{hat}}ted and a discussion opened in wikiquette. Such statements should remain archived until a consensus is reached about their appropriateness.

In other words, hide the material immediately and let the original poster argue for its reinstatement off-page if s/he thinks it's worthwhile (rather than leaving the material entrenched on the page while people argue for its exclusion). In most cases they won't bother, and where they do the community can weight the merits of the case without disrupting the talk page. --Ludwigs2 17:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree on both counts -- offensive off topic content should be removed. And WQA is not an enforcement venue. The wording of the current WP:TPG (as I quoted above) don't support the interpretation that it's legit to remove offensive comments which are not personal attacks. Does Risker's position here have a tentative consensus? If so, we can start a discussion at TPG to get the wording changed. Gerardw (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gerard, you misunderstand. WQA is in fact one of the most appropriate places to discuss poor editor behavior (such as posting offensive material or inappropriate jokes) - that is precisely what WQA was created for. The very first line on the page says "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation.""' The only difference I am suggesting is that purportedly uncivil material should be removed first and the discussion should focus on whether it should be restored; purportedly uncivil material should not be left on the page to fester while people argue over. that seems fairly sensible, no? --Ludwigs2 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

TPG formerly had verbiage to support removal of off-topic posts. I don't know when it was removed. That said, if we are to change the verbiage, we must take care not to go too far in the other direction, or we'll have the problem of people removing valid comments due to a word taken wrongly. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 21:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording at WP:TPG does not seem to support removing offensive or disruptive content. I'm not sure why Risker believes this is the case. In particular: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission... Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection... Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is". @Risker: Would you support strengthening the wording at WP:TPG to make it more clear that removing disruptive offensive comments is often an appropriate course of action? Kaldari (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Risker (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry it took so long to answer, little technical glitches tonight...

(ec) Possibly because WP:TPO contains the instructions: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." Which was formerly "Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything." and prior to that existed with no caveats, because it wasn't that darn controversial. Only those who wanted to keep their right to insult and offend complained much. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I did it, but I found the discussion on Talk:Pregnancy and the post in question last night. I didn't even relate it to this discussion. I have no idea how I wound up there, but I saw the post that was made there and thought it was completely bizarre that someone thought that post had any productive purpose. It was very clear to me that the guy who posted it probably has some compromised judgment (this site does tend to attract folks who are rude for fun then blame it on Asperger's syndrome, among other issues). His comments did not strike me as representative of a wide swath of sexist commentary that I've seen across many pages, but instead the (really kind of) dumb decision to post something that should have been removed based on WP:NOTAFORUM alone. And it was, again, completely bizarre.

I also saw that he was defending his post by claiming WP:CIV doesn't cover this. Hah. Ok. I would have removed the post based on the fact that it added zero to any article talk page discussion and was an obvious attempt to troll the hell out of the editors in that discussion.

It's my experience that CIV is overused by editors who have no point in content discussions and participate only to use Misplaced Pages as a merry-go-round. When truly invested editors get involved and get frustrated because other editors won't engage on any meaningful level, WP:CIV is the guideline used too many times in place of sources and logical argument. What I'm hesitant to support here is a reason for no-purpose editors to refactor my comments on my own talk page or of those of editors I know can communicate freely enough in adult language. That's unwarranted. It's my personal experience that more editors are interested in keeping the conversation meaningless but nice rather than prompting each other to engage so that content can be improved. I agree with Risker that processes are already in place to handle the commentary that was posted at WP:Pregnancy. His reply was lame. The answer isn't to make CIV more stringent. Kaldari was not the only editor who objected to the editor's comments. He found himself friendless pretty quickly from what I could see. ANI loves to deal with this kind of stuff. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to point out what seems obvious to me: everyone is focused on immediacy, and immediacy is the enemy of reasonable discussion. Moni, I understand that you do not want some 'no purpose editor' removing good comments any more than one of those 'no purpose editors' wants you to remove those vicious little jokes. The real difference is that - given time for reflection - the community will support you and reject them in both of the cases. You are trying to argue for some wording that will allow people to immediately distinguish a good post from a bad post; it can't be done, and by insisting on it you are playing into the trolls' hands. There's nothing a troll likes better than a rule that calls for an immediate classification, because such rules allow endless possibilities for extending the dispute by arguing about the classification itself (Note that the editor on talk:pregnancy did exactly that, making several efforts to redefine his 'joke' so it would fall into the 'technically allowable' classification).

On the other hand, if you are willing to put up with the risk of being refactored for the short term, you actually make that risk smaller: someone who starts refactoring good comments by claiming they are bad is going to raise the ire of the community: after people have had a change to reflect on it, all your good posts will be restored and the troll will find his block log growing.

We want a rule that's going to err in favor of reasonable conversation, not in favor of the trollishness. that's wikipedia's biggest problem, you realize: the trolls know that they can push the boundaries of common sense and civility a long way, because the project chooses to err in incivility's favor. To my mind, if a few good comments are archived along with the bad for w few days - until the community realizes a mistake was made, and fixes it - that is a small price to pay for making sure the bad comments get taken off the page in short order. As long as people like you going to insist that your beneficial comments cannot be removed even for a second, the trolls are going to insist on the same thing about their bad comments, and we are all effectively neutered in trying to deal with them. Please appreciate the bigger picture, where the value of one person's comment at a particular time and place does not outweigh the interest of the community as a whole in reasonable, productive discussion. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your reply here indicates the folly of the civility policy and certainly any part of it that would allow an editor such as yourself leeway in refactoring other editors' comments. You don't appear to understand my point at all. Why would I want you to reword what I've said if there's no indication that you understand what I've said? It would be appropriate for me to refactor your entire post there to read "Moni3 is as hot as she is wise." That way, everyone can agree. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A subset of editors who feel perfectly free to use racialized or sexualized language within their own group need to realize that the talk pages here are not within their own group, but places where all the world must feel open to to participate. When an educational or encyclopedic purpose is served by including unpleasant language or material, that is justified; for the purposes of internal discussion, the standard should be what is tolerated by everyone. When I see a British comedy, I know what sort of language I am likely to find & if i do not like it I do not watch it; in a mixed group of people I expect that everyone will avoid making others uncomfortable. The excuse that "we say this all the time" has been used in the past to justify language expressing all sorts of hatred. "it's just a joke" is fine within a group where everyone accepts it as a joke, but to impose it on coworkers who do not talk in that manner is offensive. I seriously ask the people who defend the use of such language here: do they mean to be offensive? Even if they think people should not be offended, don't they realize that they actually are, and that it prevents others from working here at all? Anyone who uses sexualized language without realizing it's offensive is ignorant and must be educated just like anyone who uses racially loaded language; anyone who uses it despite that realization is either trying to be offensive--which amounts to vandalism, or is too indifferent to the feelings of others to work in a cooperative enterprise. It's time to change the guideline. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

+1 SarahStierch (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

+2 KillerChihuahuaAdvice 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

+3 --Crusio (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm general agreement with the DDG's feeling on this, except not every discussion that involves sex is "sexualized language". Relating the joke about the guy who saw a penis for every rectangle is not that egregious in my view, and certainly not RD2 material, especially in the context in which it was told—people finding an image objectionable. Granted, it would have been more straightforward to just point to projective test. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

+5 Have proposed Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Removal Gerardw (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Piling on endorsement of this statement by DGG. causa sui (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "NewYorkBrad said during a NYC meeting I attended a year ago that early in his Wikicareer he saw someone on Misplaced Pages downgrade an article he was working on from Mid to Low importance. He got his feelings hurt with that. Bottom line: there's no way to tell what's going to hurt someone's feelings." Recently someone added to the WP:NPA policy that saying a passage is "poorly written" may be a personal attack against the editor who wrote it. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And the rating of the Chemical Revolution as of lower importance in the history of science than the Second voyage of HMS Beagle surely would hurt someone's feelings. . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about hurting people's feelings, it's about being blatantly disrespectful and disruptive. Misplaced Pages needs some guideline somewhere that says such behavior is not appropriate in our community. Right now, it looks like there is no chance of getting any wording changed at WP:TPG to make it easier to remove such posts. The current RFC there has no support whatsoever. This reinforces my view that Risker's assessment of the community's understanding of WP:TPG may be somewhat off-base. That being the case, I think it is still worth stating that such behavior can contribute to an uncivil environment (which seems pretty obvious). Please note that we are not saying that vulgar jokes are always uncivil or that vulgar jokes are banned from Misplaced Pages. The "Identifying incivility" section gives lots of caveats (5 in fact), and is about as cautiously worded as an EULA. I really don't see why it should be at all controversial to say that vulgar jokes can (not do) contribute to an uncivil environment. This would seem to be the case by any definition of "civility". Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

Warning: Rude-ish content ahead.... (Not directed at any individual poster, I'm afraid, just adding to the fun. IMNSHO Misplaced Pages should just allow admins to operate as moderators with regard to the talk pages, just like most Web forums looking for intelligent input do nowadays (by intelligent input, I mean beyond irrelevant scatological jokes that are being dropped into Talk pages etc. for the sake of mere shock value. We all know the stereotype of the tuff-talkin' scarwee Net freak who turns out to be a kid typing away from Mom's basement. That's all I can think of when I see Users purporting to be educated, enlightened, autodidacts, I don't know what, and then the next thing you know out pops a "witticism" involving, perhaps smegma or maybe a more anglo-saxon term. Whatev. News Web forums have moderators, large forums for political, economic, environmental, science, literary, etc. topics have them, don't see why this place doesn't have them yet. If you don't want Mods acting as your Net nanny, then perhaps it's time to put on your big-boy/big-girl underroos, quit acting like kids out to shock your parentz, and other people won't see a need for it. The policy cited way above sez: "This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations." I'm thinking "'ordinary' incivility" is too subjective for this sentence to really be useful, the discretion to use the RD2 should be left to the subjective judgement of the admin, period. <---Hey, someone just used a tangentially dirty word, tee hee! Seriously, the "humour" level on Misplaced Pages at times would have Lenny Bruce rolling in his grave. OttawaAC (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Civility Police need to lighten up

WP's "Civility Police" are trying to impose rules that represent the writing of a minority even in USA - perhaps only in New England and California. This interview shows a Irish financier summary and the current financial crisis. Of course I don't want to see this often in WP, although it may pop out occasionally, e.g. when illustration the behaviour of 3rd parties. However, expressions like "dolt" and "lie" and various terms about others' morals are just parts of normal life. The "Civility Police" also need to check cases when WP:Civility is used as a weapon, for example in some cases the aggressor gets off while the victim is penalised - e.g. the "get your retaliation first" was in soccer in the 1970s and it took a year for referees to wise up. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. This is a community that relies on collaboration, not survival of the rudest. Of course people should not expect someone's head on a plate just because an isolated and unspectacular example of abuse has occurred, but neither should they expect to be called a fool or a liar on every talk page. Wherever the civility line is drawn, there will be numerous examples of comments which cross that line. So the current policy (must be civil) is best, with the unwritten rule that a certain amount of incivility is tolerated when reasonably due, and not unduly harmful, and not unduly repeated. Since this is not a bureaucracy, the community is not bound by rules so "get your retaliation first" should not be a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people are fools and liars. Parrot of Doom 07:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and they need to be removed. However, individual editors should not decide that User:Example is a fool and tell them so repeatedly. Instead, the dreary dispute resolution processes needs to be followed. I would be quite happy to see RfC/U scrapped as totally useless, but condoning individuals who identify fools and call them on it is not a sustainable model. It's better to get other editors at some noticeboard and together they can use civil language to tell the problem editor effectively that they lack competence. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How does this model not infantalize everyone involved? You don't give credit to editors who can identify a dumbass on sight, nor give them license to adjust the unduly confident self-esteem of a troublesome editor. You treat behavioral traits that are not helpful to Misplaced Pages as if they require intervention, where everyone in the circle says "I statements" and passes along the candle so they can speak next. My obvious question is: how is it better to use civil language? What--or who--specifically, does it help to use civil language in such a case? --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Moni3, but will be direct. Is WP trying to build an encyclopedia or become just another social web site. If WP's project is to build an encyclopedia, IMO:

• Reliability and therefore quality are paramount. That means that WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are by far the most important principles. --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• WP should help new editors to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. At present, one obstacle is builing citations. This is clerical work, but User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors#Building_citations tools can make the job much easier, consistent and more reliability, and can be explained simply. I suggest such advice would be more helpful and encouraging that the current reams of principles and standards which give too much "thou shalt not" and very few positive points. --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Some editors will of course cause problems. Vandals, Misplaced Pages:Randy in Boise and POV pushers should be controlled very stricly, with a must tougher blocking policy. Some of the problem edits will mature in their up time. I suggest the real are cases for social services, not for WP. --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• The Civility Police's Ivy League does not represent the majority of USA Americants, let alone users of other English users - see examples here. I don't advocate uncontrolled obscenity for it's own cause (quotes, e.g. are different), but the Civility Police must realise that there are there other English linguist codes. --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are many different codes of English that exist in the world. There are some people I know in real life who in private would use language that would probably get a block here. But the wiki is not a private monocultural medium, it is a public and multicultural one. If our objective was to create a discussion site for male metropolitan technoscenti then a civility policy would be neither viable nor desirable; But that isn't our aim, instead we are trying to write an encyclopaedia for the world. I've taken part in some of our events at the British Museum and the V&A, do you seriously think we would be getting cooperation from those sorts of organisations if we had spoken to them as if we were a bunch of drunken lads on a stag do? ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually think groups on Misplaced Pages might approach museums or universities with an invitation ringing like "Hey, motherfuckers, come contribute to our goddamn encyclopedia! Fuckshite."?? Do you think language in academic departments dealing with academic disagreements has all parties thanking each other for their patience when it's entirely clear they all think the other is misguided or simply stupid? So, there's abuse, like spewing racial epithets at another editors when race clearly has no meaning on editing Misplaced Pages, or just whacked out notions of communication, like the post on WT:Pregnancy that is the topic of the above conversation, but high-functioning editors are being censored by editors whose only position of authority seems to be knowing what language is used to be nice. I get these editors on my talk page whom I've never interacted with before and their motivations simply puzzle me. Am I supposed to listen to you? Or someone else? I barely recognize arbitrators to have authority. Maybe two of them. Yeah, ok...none of them. It's becoming clear to me that the majority of admins and editors see Misplaced Pages NOT as a place to build an encyclopedia, but one where people get along. Their apparent reward is the warm feeling generated by sharing, placing the accuracy of content at a much lower priority. It stifles true conversation and honest understanding. And it makes me think the editors whose mantra is civility above all else are simple-minded and duplicitous. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've thought that for some considerable time (that editors whose mantra is civility above all else are simple-minded and duplicitous), and as my block log shows, had I said what you just said I would by now be blocked. I just wish the civility police had the honesty to say something like "we are determined to get rid of Malleus Fatuorum, no matter what the cost to the encyclopedia"; I could at least understand that position. And as for WereSpielChequers' nonsense, well, least said soonest mended. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a very superficial and rudimentary idea of "civility" here, which is focused almost entirely on punishing people for profane outbursts. In reality, it's uncivil to stonewall a discussion, or to misrepresent other editors, or to drive others away with endlessly circular but superficially polite walls of text, or to be inconsiderate of other editors' time and effort by consistently refusing to try to understand this site's basic content and sourcing policies. It's uncivil to come to an article that someone's worked hard on, drop a bunch of tags, and leave without helping fix the problems. It's uncivil to insist that an article be "kept and improved", but then to fail to actually try to improve it. Those are all uncivil behaviors, and honestly, if we started taking them more seriously, we'd probably see fewer profane outbursts. MastCell  19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Treating other people with respect, even if you disagree with them, isn't hard. If you can't do that, you should find another project to contribute to. Viciously attacking people and then complaining about being persecuted by the "civility police" is a bit hypocritical, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What's hypocritical is blocking editors for using a word you don't approve of, and then claiming that it was a "vicious" attack. As you are wont to do. Treating with respect means not treating editors like naughty children, no matter what the WMF may believe. Or not initiating ArbCom cases under false pretences as User:Georgewilliamherbert did recently. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few editors I don't respect here. Not because of who they are or what they look like or something meaningless like that, but because they consistently refuse to do the barest essential work of adding sourced content and referencing reliable sources when they disagree with what's in an article. It's not me that needs to get another hobby. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus: I don't care what words you use as long as you are aren't attacking other editors. Criticize the content, not the people. That shouldn't be difficult for someone of your intelligence. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Criticize what now? An editor who refuses to access sources and still complains, templates articles for improvement because he doesn't understand the issues of constructing an article? One who goes on a blank-article-and-redirect-loop tear without accessing sources and notifying relevant wikiprojects? Even after you spend hours or days attempting to educate them about the ways things are done? "Your content is substandard." What now? How about "Your actions and edits are thoughtless and you need to start considering someone other than yourself right about now. Stop messing things up. Your judgment sucks." Your suggestion of criticizing the content is meaningless. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's remind ourselves of the substance of Kaldari's complaint against me, for instance: an editor who very clearly labels himself as a non-native and incompetent speaker of English arguing on a matter of English grammar. "Ignorant arse" seems to me to be an accurate description, not an "attack". Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Before this is lost in the latest cage match, I'd like to point to MastCell's examples above as behaviors that make me feel I'm not being treated with respect. At staff meetings for any publication I've worked for IRL, an exasperated "that's idiotic" is understood as a mere exclamation. With DE in the mode of '"endlessly circular but superficially polite walls of text," discussion becomes a test of stamina, and it's eventually impossible to distinguish between behavior and content issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying "that's idiotic" is fine. Repeatedly insulting people with comments like "I think you're an arsehole and a waste of space" or "That's rich, coming from the most pompously self-important windbag it's ever been my misfortune to encounter" or "Misplaced Pages really does need more prissy arseholes like him" isn't fine. I don't imagine any of those comments would fly at your workplace, yet here we rarely even blink an eye at such incivility. Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You have much to learn Kaldari. The usual argument from the wikipolice is that saying "that's idiotic" is equivalent to calling someone an idiot. I can't be bothered right now to look for the diffs, but I suppose will have to if you persist with your naivety. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The comparison of Misplaced Pages to a workplace is ineffectual. My workplace doesn't have employees undoing what I do and making me seem incompetent. My workplace does not hire people to have them do complex tasks the day they're hired. My workplace has a clear mission, a hierarchy of power, channels that are mostly effective in hearing my complaints when I feel like I'm being treated unfairly, and a boss who makes final decisions. This is not a workplace and it's not set up for any kind of efficiency. --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

One imagines that environment is very unfamiliar to some here. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in a couple of my workplaces, I did have people undoing what I did and making me seem less competent. The difference was they could be fired. My objection to the civility policy has always been its subjectivity. Any time I've tried to make a case against behavior I consider hellish, I've essentially been told to shut up and take it. And I don't quite agree that this isn't like a workplace; it's a place where people try to get stuff done through collaborative efforts. Misplaced Pages does have a clear mission, a hierarchy of power (an admin can block me, I can't block anybody), and channels for airing complaints (probably too many of them). What we lack is a boss to make final decisions, and instead rely on the inefficiency of consensus. But some workplaces are set up for productivity or innovation rather than efficiency as such, anyway. And those kind of workplaces usually have a higher tolerance for unorthodox behavior—as long as the stuff gets done. That's why I find MastCell's examples worthwhile, because those behaviors get in the way of getting stuff done. I have a high tolerance for obscenity and invective, but I recognize that others don't. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with MastCell, Cynwolfe and Moni3. I'm not bothered by swearing or the so-called incivility I see around here. What I consider to be rude is the water-torture of low-level "I know better than you although I've never cracked a source on the subject" mentality that's rude and happens all too frequently. It happened to me very recently and almost made me give up here. But not a single swear word was uttered - simply that work I'd done was swiftly undone without a source to back it up. That's just plain rude. And please please don't give us the crap that the so-called incivility needs to stop because of the women on the project. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, that's exactly what I had to go through with the editor who started this thread. When Philcha started editing spider articles, he didn't know much about the subject and kept reverting my corrections (even though I've published several peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject - real world peer-reviewed, not Misplaced Pages peer-reviewed). It was extremely frustrating, but somehow I didn't feel the need to call him an "ignorant arse" or any other names. I explained my sources and debated their merits against less reliable sources. In the end, the articles were improved and no one had to get AN/I involved. Luckily Philcha is much more knowledgeable on arachnology these days and is making good contributions. By the logic of the anti-civility-brigade I should have just chased him off the project and been proud to defend my fiefdom. Kaldari (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you beat me there. You're published and can link to published pages - so that makes me, what? Just a[REDACTED] editor who wastes time. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be published to successfully defend your contributions. These days Philcha is correcting my mistakes :) But I get your point. Featured articles, especially popular ones, are extremely difficult to maintain the quality of. I don't know what the solution to that problem is (but I don't think it's throwing out the civility policy). Kaldari (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the real point is that Philcha is an intelligent editor who is amenable to discussion, whereas as other editors like ... really are ignorant arses. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But to the extent that you need (in individual cases) to make that observation explicitly, you can do so in a way that avoids inflammatory language, and indeed more objectively and precisely describes the problematic behaviour requiring attention. As one who is not an ignorant arse, you certainly have that ability, and can make use of it. (You benefit because the focus stays on the problematic behaviour and not on your own word-choices; Misplaced Pages benefits because the problem can be more easily addressed; and we all benefit because the atmosphere is more pleasant.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Few in Misplaced Pages's bureaucracy care about long-term problems like disruptive admins who continue to act like arses, or pov-pushing editors who never use rude words. Addressing such problematic behaviour is so time-consuming and so disheartening for people who primarily build content (my output has reduced massively due to issues like this), that they just stop bothering. It's often easier and more constructive just to tell someone to fuckoff than it is to deal with the problem "civilly" and "collaboratively".

You civility warriors need to recognise that long-term disruptive behaviour is a far more serious problem than a few rude words. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. So why not set about solving that serious problem, rather than engaging in behaviour that will certainly not solve it (someone's not going to f*** off just because you tell him to; but he will use your use of those words to shift the focus away from his own disruptive behaviour).--Kotniski (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The solutions I'd propose would be frowned upon and laughed at by the legions of people here too interested in maintaining a structure that rewards nepotism and punishes honesty. For a start though, I'd insist that anyone applying for admin status should first have at least one FA to their name, and by that I mean a reasonably-sized FA that they wrote alone, or a large FA that they co-authored. And they'd have to have experience reviewing articles at GAC. Parrot of Doom 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I take the silence that greeted this as a recognition of its basic soundness, though perhaps off-topic. For an acute example of an effort to derail a content dispute with a civility distraction, see this extreme example, where saying a statement is "demonstrably false" is interpreted as "calling me a liar"—a complete inability to distinguish between impugning someone's character, and considering a piece of information he provided to be false. No one would take this seriously, but it points to how the civ policy has become an easy gun to reach for. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. While editing experience is good, some of us just what to write without getting into the whole FA thing. And editors attempt to misuse essentially every policy -- that's not a reason to get rid of policies. Gerardw (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is off-topic here, but I don't think it's unreasonable that an admin be required to participate in at least one FA project. Not for the status, but as a way of becoming more familiar with what should be the most rigorous standards of content development. I've seen at least one admin candidate I thought was excellent who had minimal content-building experience, but I don't think it would've hurt to have the candidate even during the RfA (since the question of content experience was raised) participate in one of the FA processes that were open at the time. Anyway, the point about misusing a policy (in this case civility) is not that it should be abolished. It's that we should be clear what the policy is not meant to do. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

{outdent} I'm not getting your point. Are you suggesting a wording change? Do you fell there are more attempts to abuse wp:civility, than, for example wp:iar?Gerardw (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was a long thread! I got here by following a link. I'm a female editor, too, and though I think respect and civility is vitally important among editors (maybe because I'm female), I dislike the term "Civility Police". A bit more background: I come from a horsey environment, and have worked for decades in places where the air can get quite incredibly blue, quite incredibly quickly. I also have adult children (who can at times swear like troopers), and school-age grandchildren (who I'm sure also can, but haven't yet done so in my presence). Swearing about things is, however, a whole heap different from deliberately being uncivil to someone. There's an immense difference between saying "This is fucking crazy!" or "my life is shit!" and saying "You're a moronic retard" or "You're a pompous, self-righteous hypocrite!" I think the vast majority of editors don;t actually have any real problem in knowing where the borderline is. Having said all that - there is a point in that female editors may very well find the apparent aggression in some areas off-putting, and just not want to join in. There's obviously a great deal of overlap between genders in many, many areas - but, on the whole, I think it's safe to say that "yer average female" will feel less welcome in a testosterone-heavy fighting environment than "yer average male" would. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

After days of digesting this discussion, it has occurred to me that we need to stop reaching out to average editors, male or female. Both sides of this discussion are reacting to what they perceive as behavior of the lowest common denominator: content editors on others who do no work and make it difficult to maintain and improve articles, and editors who dislike foul language, prioritizing civil discourse despite what the disagreements might be. Simply put, the way the civility policy is worded now, it helps no one. Blocking longstanding editors for civility violations infantalizes editors and inflames arguments. And the tendentious atmosphere, not just one Misplaced Pages, but all over the internet, dissuades people from participating despite Misplaced Pages being fairly genial compared to many popular venues. So the impossible needs to occur: ratchet up the expectations around here so it's not so preposterous to expect editors sauntering by to do some work before shooting of their ignorant fingers when they pollute articles with crap. And raise the expectations that civil discourse will actually accomplish something, we'll all feel like our sides have been heard, and we have faith that the system will work to maintain and improve the content in articles. That's what the civility policy should include. Creative solutions to reword it to reflect that should be listed below. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It should always be possible for intelligent people to disagree agreeably. And I really do feel that more experienced, longstanding editors should be setting a good example, not getting away with it. It's not as if productivity and politeness are mutually exclusive. Anyway, that's it from me (I'm off now to deal with Real Life Issues. Ho hum.). Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's idealistic, perhaps unreasonably, the intelligent people should be expected to disagree amicably at all times. But for practical purposes, should anything be accomplished in this discussion, or in turning the trends on this site, it's that the interested parties acknowledge the elements in this conflict are valid: the civility policy is abused and in its current format is not only ineffectual but harmful, and the systems in place on Misplaced Pages need to simultaneously promote civil discourse and the protection and improvement of content. Not one over the other. I see no editor in this discussion pushing for wanton swearing for no purpose or abusing other editors for sport. What bothers me is that the valid concerns of editors who are frequently frustrated by the open-editing system in place combined with do-little civility blocks, or pointless finger-wagging that harm content and quash enthusiasm for the project are not being heard here. There is a genuine problem with the way this policy is written and the way it is being applied. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this conversation for days too - comments above directed at me and linking to a particular editor's publications left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I decided to slink away. First I'm happy to see that the women are expressing what we all know to be true: we're no strangers to bad language. We are human. We are not shrinking violets, and that attitude has to stop. I'm also keeping an eye on the separate thread within a thread above - I think that admins, or those who are in charge of policing (if that's the right word) the civility policy, should start spending some serious time in the writing trenches which gives a sense of who the enemy is. The enemy isn't the casual vandal easily taken care of with rollback, the enemy isn't the experienced editor; the enemy is the uninformed drive-by, plop-a-comment-on-the-talkpage editor who will not crack open a source. But can suck away all patience. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea that civility is a gender issue is a canard. It's a cultural issue. I've worked in both extremes. Unfortunately WP does not seem to be converging on a consensus as to the degree of blue language which is appropriate/tolerable. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just been reminded that some of the greast poets in Britain compose saucy works. Robert Burns published Merry Muses of merry of Caledonia, including Poor people have nothing but mow (sex; original in broad Scots dialect). Violet Jacob (1867-1946) wrote Tam i' the Kirk, where the phrasing is more discreet but the meaning is clear. In the Metaphysical poets, John Donne composed Song (ends, "Yet she / Will be / False, ere I coome, to two or three") and The Sun Rising ("Shine here to us, and thou art verywhere; / This bed thy center is, these walls thy sphere"); and

Yes, the notion that intelligent people can and should always disagree amiably just doesn't gel. "Martin Amis vs. Terry Eagleton" comes to mind. Incivility certainly can be an issue of sexism, however, for the same reason that we don't tolerate racist or homophobic remarks. But it requires us to see the difference between calling an editor a "dumb bitch" and using obscene language in front of the Vestal Virgins. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

All this misses the point. Civility isn't about using genteel language, it's about treating other editors with respect and decorum. In your face hostility can certainly come from anyone, but it typically comes from people with fragile egos. Interesting that some editors, particularly women, react so vehemently to the obvious suggestion that there's a gender issue in there somewhere. Whether you call it a gender issue or not, no-holds-barred verbal combat for who controls the public discourse does tend to marginalize people who aren't into that sort of interaction. To take up Truthkeeper88's point, who the enemy is probably depends on the subject area and one's level of patience. In my Misplaced Pages career the greatest frustration have been deliberate troublemakers with agendas, those who know a lot less than they think they know, and some who play mental games or simply behave in an off-kilter way. Their trouble-making often gets personal and malicious, and that's one place where civility policy comes into play: it's not permitted to antagonize other editors for one's own ends. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument that civility is about banning dirty words is a red herring promulgated by those who believe they have earned the right to attack other editors without consequence. As is the argument that they are only attacking inexperienced clueless editors. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent experiences with you have taught me that you don't have the first idea what you're talking about, so your opinion can be safely ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As can that of the "Four Pillar Party" who have nothing better to do but whine about other people trying to edit the articles they own. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Better to edit than to pontificate on matters about which you are entirely ignorant. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How about we just all take a breather and enjoy what we originally came here to do: build one heck of an encyclopedia

I'm going to be bold here and say this in good faith. I have to admit - a number of you participating in this conversation make me nervous due to confrontational natures and a passion for argumentation. But, I can't keep watching this conversation run in circles, like usual. This is just another failed series of conversations about civility and bad manners, even though I know some of us appreciate the effort. How about everyone just go back to their corners and work for the betterment of the encyclopedia and all stop being disrespectful. Or if you really have a problem with someone, how about you take it else where (I mean really Malleus and Kaldari? It's like a bad on-Wiki reality show, nothing personal.) and see if you can "get over it" or stop hanging out on the same pages.

It seems whenever this "topic" is brought up it delves into passive aggressive comments and "high brow" shots at one another. I think most of us have learned there are no other options, this isn't giving up, it's just another way to stay healthy for the sake of one's sanity. When I find someone I dislike on Wiki or offline Wiki, I either "deal with the problem" and if that doesn't work, I stay away from the problem. Either be bold and take initiative or just ignore those who are causing the problems. And if something escalates, step way and call for someone else to take a fresh look. A number of you here seem to dislike each other or constantly have poor experiences with each other, and that isn't helping any "Civility issues". And I really doubt anyone here is going to be changing this policy anytime soon since no one will ever agree on proposed changes. It seems most of these conversations end up being lost causes. Is it too much to ask that everyone just go back to improving Misplaced Pages? These conversations often appear like everyone on all sides trying to justify their behaviors, so come on. (My motto goes "If I won't say it in real life to your face, I won't say it online to you." And anyone who knows me offline, knows I'll say a lot to someone's face.) I mean this with absolute good faith (seriously!).

And if people feel that change is possible, then I call for a meeting at Wikimania 2012. People really seem ready to sling it and discuss civility on Wiki. I'd love to see this conversation move to offline and see what really can be done to improve civility on Misplaced Pages. I appreciate all the positive contributions everyone here makes, and I mean that with sincerity. SarahStierch (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC) (Who is dreading people freaking out on her in a bad way just for posting this!)

I'm constantly amazed that anyone would believe I wouldn't say to your face what I say here on Misplaced Pages; you bet your ass I would. Time for Misplaced Pages to reflect the real world, not an impractical Californian dream. And if you want to see what really improves Misplaced Pages then just do what I do, and fuck the rest. Kaldari and I don't hang out together on any pages, as he's a policeman and I'm a writer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't get changes here at meetings. We rarely get changes by policy discussions. We get changes by dealing with individual situations, one at a time. ~

But otherwise I agree with what Sarah said -- the only way to end a personal conflict is to separate the two parties. Any sensible person will do so voluntarily. For the others, we do need sanctions. Sanctions will never be taken seriously unless we actually apply them. Myself, there a few people here whose actions of Misplaced Pages I seriously dislike; I avoid them. I recognize it's a problem when they don't avoid me (though I can't think of anyone doing that at present), and that's what interaction bans are for. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG! I do agree that perhaps "in person" meetings aren't always the way to solve anything when it comes to the wild world of Wiki, but, people seem so frustrated, I think it'd be fascinating to see people vent offline and meet each other. I bet people would actually sort of...like each other, god forbid! :) Perhaps that's the mediator in me...regardless, I do agree that just stepping away and "avoiding" conflict is our only way to save ourselves the trouble and stress. It's like being in an unhealthy relationship - the best thing you can do is free yourself of a that partner and do what makes you happy (aka dump them!). It's really not rocket science. And if for Malleus that means to "fuck the rest," then so be it ;-) SarahStierch (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, to be honest I thought it was a constructive discussion in a meandering, stop-and-start sort of way. Clearly Moni3 and Cynwolf had some good suggestions to bring to the table, as others have, and it seems wrong to for it stop. Unfortunately face-to-face meetings aren't really feasible for most of us, which is why we're here online, and not spending a lot of time in meetings. Anyway, I would say to your one point that we're here to build an encyclopedia two things: one, many of the frustrations result from exactly that. Those of use who do spend most of our time here writing are often pulled away from writing to address talkpage issues which often are incivil by their nature of demanding changes without consulting sources; two, please have a look at the contribs of the participants - you'll probably find that an encyclopedia is being built, word by word, paragraph by paragraph, page by page. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course I agree with Truthkeeper because she's such a classy dame and all, but to put a fine point on this, in-person meetings, unless we're all going to gather at my house, are out of the question. Seriously, who has money to travel to Wikimania? Don't answer because it will depress me.

The edits in the past 24 hours--well, all over this page--indicate that parties involved are not discussing the same issues. These problems aren't going away by folks going back to their corners when the corners are articles that some editors have spent a lot of time, effort, and sometimes money building.

To reiterate:

• The Civility policy is ineffective in stopping arguments and decreasing tensions. It does the opposite.
• To accomplish anything in this discussion, both sides will have to acknowledge that the other side has a point. Arguments and foul language dissuade readers from becoming involved in Misplaced Pages. Civility blocks are abused and ineffective. Misplaced Pages does not exist to bolster low self-esteems by allowing editors who don't know what they're doing to muck things up. Nor does it exist to tear down the self-esteems of anyone.
• Admins can do much more by wading into a disagreement and understanding the problems involved than simply blocking anyone who uses foul language. There's a reason the admin process is so brutal and incisive sometimes: the community wants to know that admins aren't hotheads who make knee-jerk decisions without understanding what they're doing. Civility blocks are exactly that: cool down blocks that cool nothing down and just irritate an already bad environment. I'm concerned that admins block for civility because they are either unable to understand the issues at play or simply unwilling. Too lazy? It's a valid concern.
• There have to be alternatives. Protect the talk page for an hour. Order the editors who are at each other's throats to take it to your talk page and try to figure out what the problem is. It seems to me as if this entire discussion, in which I'm involved so I'm including myself here, is limited to Urg! Civility Good! Civility Bad! There are areas in between and I can't be the only creative genius on this site, can I?

So at this point, it seems a site-wide RfC is in order, natch. To resolve the following questions:

• What's the purpose of the Civility policy?
• Define what civil discourse is among English-speaking editors. There appears to be a great cultural divide over this. Determine, with examples, what uncivil discourse is.
• Is civil discourse a higher priority (or should it be?) than the maintenance and improvement of content?
• What other actions can admins take than blocking editors who appear to be engaged in a war of words? Be creative.

These are the questions that I think are important to answer. Other editors may have other questions to add.

It's not going to go away without figuring this stuff out. Solemn promise. --Moni3 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the Civility policy?

To provide an environment which maximizes the productivity of the WP editing community. To include the number of editors, the quantity of their contributions, and the quality of their contributions.

Is civil discourse a higher priority (or should it be?) than the maintenance and improvement of content?

Of course not. But neither is maintenance and improvement of content an excuse to be incivil. Gerardw (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Define what civil discourse is among English-speaking editors. There appears to be a great cultural divide over this. Determine, with examples, what uncivil discourse is.

Gerardw (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on Moni3's questions:

• What's the purpose of the Civility policy?
  • To establish the minimum level of cordiality that is necessary to keep people focused on content rather than each other.
• Define what civil discourse is among English-speaking editors. There appears to be a great cultural divide over this. Determine, with examples, what uncivil discourse is.
  • I don't buy the argument that there is a cultural divide. Civility is not an especially complicated idea. Repeatedly insulting another editor isn't civil regardless of what type of language you use.
• Is civil discourse a higher priority (or should it be?) than the maintenance and improvement of content?
  • They are not competing priorities. There is no case in which one must discard civility in order to maintain and improve content.
• What other actions can admins take than blocking editors who appear to be engaged in a war of words?
  • I've tried lots of different techniques: offering friendly advice to seek mediation, giving warnings, and even just deleting the attacks. The advice and warnings are typically ignored, and deletions just get reverted. If anyone has other ideas, I'm all ears. According to other admins I've consulted, I'm just supposed to ignore incivility or personal attacks from established editors. Not only is this unfair to new users, it is also corrosive to the editing environment over the long term (and thus does affect the quality of the content).
    

Kaldari (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're full of shit. Just a pity you don't know when and where to dump it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Related RfC

There is an interesting situation developed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Badger Drink, I suggest folks interested in civility read it (including the talk page) and have a look at the immediate antecedent, which was the Steven Zhang RfA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)