Wikipedia talk:Civility

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)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alertsis probably a good place to start. Active Banana (^bananaphone 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 Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [[8]]. 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 Wikipedia, 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)

Because so many different cultures share space on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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 [some silly page] 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)
• 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. Wikipedia:Civility is one of the Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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.[9] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is on the Internet. So is 4chan. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, then I guess I don't belong here. For some reason I thought Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is establishing a way to successfully fight against the 10% of dirty jokes on Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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)