User:William M. Connolley/For me/On civility
 | This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (talk | contribs) 14 years ago. (Update timer) |
General
Wikipedia has a policy on civility, WP:CIVIL. It is often ignored, and this is to the detriment of wikipedia.
Am I incivil?
People seem to have that impression.
Misc
Examples of incivility by me. Please add to the "proposed" section, with diffs. I'll refactor as appropriate when the discussion concludes.
Proposed
- Referring to prominent climate skeptics and other wikipedia editors as "septics," which, since it relates to sewage, gives the impression of incivility. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Accepted
- None yet.
Rejected
- [1] raised by ATren. Repsonse: I called the thread a waste of time, which it was (end of this exchange and link to unredacted version [2]).
Misc arbcomm-y stuff
A page so offensive it was nominated for deleteion. Twice [3]. And which so annoys some people who really ought to know better that they just can't drop it [4]. How can I possibly defend myself? Exactly as I defended myself there: Per arbcomm decision, editors are allowed to insult blocking admins, and I believe that extends to desyopping too; though in this case since it is backed up by diff this is more robust commentary than insult. I have yet to hear a coherent response to this. My own attitude to the arbcomms decision is that it is a poor one; but until they revoke it we are stuck with it. You might possibly argue that the current arbcomm bears no responsibility for previous decisions; but this is weak; and in any case the recent decision invoked the previous one.