Meta talk:Civility

Add topic
Active discussions

How about *Rurality*?Edit

Isn't *Urbanity* a highly descriptive term for the vain presumptuousness of those not finding enough prescriptions in simple manners, totally de rigeur?

For the most holy it does not suffice to feel bound by ToU and associated prescriptions, they are in desperate need to search for new, hopefully bigger stones, which fly in one direction only, away from the hypocrits.

Hey, you rascal, you, your thoughts violate urbanity! Purgy (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I actually don't think it's totally unreasonable for people to behave like normal, respectful human beings while interacting on the internet. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: I am unable to locate the scope of your "No!". Certainly, I never ever intended to, and, imho, I also did not, express any slightest doubt on the reasonability for people to behave like normal, respectful human beings while interacting on the internet, which I consider to be part of the ToU already, and so I consider it to be detrimental to expand on it in further, imho quite dubious, terms.
To be more explicit about my concerns, I myself consider using the term *Urbanity* for the desired behaviour as inappropriatly discriminating *rural* regions, especially for non-native speakers in English, and, secondly, I myself strongly oppose to establishing rules above rules, flanked by subsidiary rules and backed by still more rules, especially if they are vague to the extent demonstrated by the current content of this article with a questioned for genesis (see below). I'd rather leave any conversation, than battle with the paper shufflers, versed in defeating or advocating (I did not say gaming!) any appeals, even those to or against common sense, by referring to highly complex, but finally undecideable, or even contradictory (in the logic sense!) axiomatic systems defining behaviour de rigeur, established by all those, who feel within them the potential to be harassed by words written by others, i.e. to be a victim in reading. (Obviously, I do not talk about threatening words and others, excluded by ToU, already.)
Personally, I am more with the early Wittgenstein and his preferring to be silent about things, whereof we cannot speak clearly. I strongly prefer ToU, expressed in as few words as possible, as a set of -in my strong believe- sufficiently restricting rules for civil manners. I'd like to deny the possibility for arbitrary pressure groups to define themselves rules, applicable to any idea opposing their specific interests, and enact these even on a part of a wiki.
To be honest, I have been drawn to this article by you mentioning it somewhere to embed in or expand upon. Most civil and respectfully, Purgy (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Elaborated and approved by the communityEdit

The template on the front says this has been "elaborated and approved by the community". Could someone provide a link to that page?

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

+1. @MarcoAurelio:? Ijon (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
"This page documents the de facto policy on civility, etiquette, user behaviour and personal attacks on Meta-Wiki. It reflects the current standards on the community regarding this topic that all editors should follow, and the consequences for its failure to comply with it." The text you cite is from a template. —MarcoAurelio 09:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio, @Ijon The documentation for Template:Policy states "This template is for tagging Meta-Wiki's policies only." There is a Template:Proposed for proposals still in development or under discussion. —Neotarf (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, @MarcoAurelio:. I have edited the page to reflect the actual status. Nothing would please me more than for it (or something with more teeth) to become official Meta policy! Ijon (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that this page is policy independently of what a template said or not. We've been enforcing civility rules here since the inception on Meta based on what is written on the page, thus I'm not convinced that the removal of the template is a good idea when the community, via continued practice (custom) has established the criteria. —MarcoAurelio 20:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
de facto is not de jure; if it hasn't been formally approved by the community, it is an "essay", not "law". Lx 121 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Should Civility redirect to Meta:Civility?Edit

Hi, currently Civility redirects to Incivility . Would it make sense to point the redirect to Meta:Civility instead?

Related, would it be useful to have a link from Incivility to Meta:Civility? Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Qgil-WMF, two different pages exist for different reason, the other one is article that is actually essays just like every article on meta, the other one is policy.--AldnonymousBicara? 10:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Per Aldnonymous. We cannot mix essays with policies. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not questioning any of the two pages. Let me describe the problem: I knew this page existed, I searched for "Civility" and I was automatically redirected to "Incivility", where there is no link to Meta:Civility. My question is simply whether users searching for "Civility" should be redirected to Meta:Civility. If this suggestion is not convincing, then maybe remove the redirect in Civility and have a disambiguation page linking to Meta:Civility and Incivility instead? I mean, it seems strange that users looking for "Civility" in Meta wouldn't find this policy page easily, but an essay instead. Not everyone will deduce that because this is a policy they need to add the Meta: namespace before. Qgil-WMF (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) (This comment was modified by the original poster at Special:Permalink/19869914--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC))
Meta:Civility is linked in many of our warnings and block notices. It's for meta administration. Hence, it isn't good to put it into a disambiguation as I don't want people to be mistaken when we block / warn that we mean that essay rather than the entire policy. Typical meta users don't engage in incivil activities, hence, they rarely need to know this page and when they do, we will link it for them properly. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
After the clarification I get it. Lets @Nemo bis: the original person who redirected for his opinions. Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Polite writing style on talk pagesEdit

This policy should promote a polite writing style on the talk pages. This is part of the respect for other users. For example, this includes avoiding colloquial, flippant and rural language. In the future, also users should be discouraged to use a low-quality writing style like in online chats. – Gebu (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Civility".