Wikibooks talk:Be civil/Archive

This policy is rather simplistic, but at the same time it is easily understandable, broadly interpretable, and incredibly forgiving. I don't think we need to get much more specific then this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this policy
This policy has been designed to replace the text of several other policies:


 * No offensive usernames
 * No personal attacks
 * No legal threats
 * Assume good faith
 * Profanity
 * Please do not bite the newcomers

Acceptance of this policy does not necessarily constitute a vote to reject any of these other policies. Because there is no contradiction between these policies, it would be perfectly acceptable to enforce this policy in addition to these other policies. Each policy proposal will be judged individually. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to Enforce
I would like to move to enforce the current text of this policy. Under Decision making, If there are no dissenting opinions by Sunday sept 17th, I would like to move this one to enforced. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Johnny wonders...: -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Do we really need this policy? I personally haven't seen much in the way of uncivil behavior on wikibooks :).
 * 2) Is there any reason we can't be civil instead? (No difference really, just more ear-pleasing IMO.)
 * 3) Can this really substitute for the above? No legal threats is a foundation thing. No personal attacks really is one of those things that needs to be clearly spelled out (because the kind of people who make personal attacks are likely the kind of people who are going to say "well, he wasn't nice to me, so why can't I call an ---hole an ---hole (how the f--- did we end up with a profanity rule??? :)). AGF and BITE are good things to be able to refer to when needed (i.e., " Johnny, try not to bite the newbies, would ya?"), etc.
 * 4) Is making a deadline a good idea? If it's by consensus, then there shouldn't be much reason to cal for a vote. (Though in this case, I'd say it should just be immediately made into a guideline, since (Policy violation &rarr;) only a big jerk would object to this rule (&larr; Policy violation), ya know :)? IOW, I like the "policy of the week" idea in general, but I don't think a deadline's a great idea, except when it is, like in this case.


 * Excellent comments, all.
 * Do we really need this policy? Well, maybe we don't. However, whether we need it or not, this policy is proposed, and it has been here, undecided upon for some time now. At the very least, this policy deserves a decision one way or the other, and we shouldn't just leave unfinished business sitting around. If you don't think we need this policy, (and hopefully other people will agree with you), then we can move this to rejected, and never have to worry about it again.
 * The specific wording, so long as the meaning is the same, is irrelevant to me.
 * Can this subsitute for the other policies i listed? Maybe it doesnt, although I like to think that if interpreted broadly enough, it probably can. Keep in mind that the "No legal threats" policy that i listed above has already been rejected, so I don't think it's a "foundation thing". At least, we don't have a standing version of that policy here on wikibooks. Not biting the newcomers could definately be construde as "being nice" to the newcomers. I pointed out above that acceptance of this policy doesn't necessarily constitute a rejection of any of the others.
 * I instituted this deadline as per my post on staff lounge: I am going to focus my attention on one policy matter per week. If the issue can be decided (and I hope it can be), then we will have our decision without wasting much time. If the issue cannot be decided, it will stay proposed, and I will simply shift my attention to the next proposal in the line. We have alot of unfinished business and undecided proposals sitting around here and there that deserve (a) our full attention and (b) to be decided within a reasonable amount of time. Worst case scenario: We don't make any decisions on any of these policies within the next few weeks, and then we are just back where we started. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

name change
"Is there any reason we can't be civil instead? (No difference really, just more ear-pleasing IMO.)"


 * Like Johnny, I prefer the term civil - otherwise I think it's fine. --Singkong2005 07:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i changed the text of the policy to say "civil" instead of "nice". I am not going to rename the page yet, until a decision is reached. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I realize that this is a proposed guideline, not a proposed policy. That distinction may affect some votes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There haven't really been enough comments on this one to make it into a guideline quite yet. I am going to leave this one "proposed" for now, and shift my attention to the next "policy of the week". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I prefer "nice" over "civil". Where I live, I hear people say "be nice" fairly frequently, but I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say "be civil".
 * How about "Be friendly" ? Or does "Be friendly" need to be an entirely different policy? --DavidCary 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think civil has a more "realistic" ring to it. "Be friendly" sort of reminds me of my (very short lived) stint at a fast-food restautant as a teenager. (Same thing with "be nice"... reminds me too much of the customer service mantra of "hava-nice-day"). We're a community of intellectual volunteers, and we should feel free to disagree vehemently with ideas we disagree with (even to the point of reverting someone's presumably well-thought out contribution), but even when we're tearing each others ideas apart (which isn't nice, and would only be considered friendly when it's among pretty good friends), we can still be civil. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep some of the old policies
I generally don't like rules we don't need, so Johnny's point number one above struck a tone. It is, however, quite slim and would be great to have in need. It does, furthermore, replace a number of pretty big ones which I like ... except for Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newcomers. Neither falls excplicitly under civil behaviour (you can be civil while criminally suspicious, and civility doesn't ask editors to be as caring of newcomers as I find WB:BITE to do) though I'd love to see the former trimmed down. --Swift 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline vs. Policy
I'd like this to be a policy rather than a guideline. I don't see any scenario at all where one is justified in being uncivil! --Swift 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, that does make a good amount of sense to me. There are no situations where a person should be mean (or not nice, or uncivil) to another person. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Name Changed, Enforce?
I would like to propose that we make this page an official guideline. I don't think there is support to make it into a policy, although I can't see the harm in doing so. Enforcing this guideline does not represent an endorsement, nor a condemnation of any other policy proposal. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... really? Has there been any opposition to making it a policy? --Swift 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No particular opposition that I have seen. This mostly represents a final call for people to express opposition before I make this an official guideline. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Consider this an expression of opposition: I'd like it to be a policy. --Swift 16:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support -- as policy. If people are violating this, they should be blocked for a day or two to cool off. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there appears to be support to make this into a policy, and I have seen no dissenting opinions on it whatsoever. I even advertised this on staff lounge, and nobody came in to dissent. I am going to make this one official. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
I just did a formatting edit, splitting a couple of paragraphs and sentences up for (what I consider) readability. I also changed the bold Be civil to an italic Be civil. I find the latter less of a shouting emphasis. --Swift 06:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)