 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Civility. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This discussion was among some of the participants on the WP talk:Civility page in early April 2008. It has been extracted from the talk page as it is unrelated to discussion about the policy. It is preserved as a demonstration of various aspects of civility and its opposite.
Martinphi, I hope you realize the irony in the fact that you used this edit summary on the WP:Civility talk page. Nobody, yourself included, is under any impression that my suggestion that you follow talkpage formatting guidelines implied that I was going to become confused if you didn't. Stop with the goading. Antelantalk 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- And no one told you to assume that the new heading had anything to do with what you put on my talk page. You could, correctly, have assumed it was a response to your last post, viz:
- "Is that meant to be an argument against discussing policy changes on the relevant talkpage first?"
- Seems by putting my post on community under your heading "A reminder to get consensus before editing:" I caused confusion, for which you have my apology. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I said edit summary not section heading. Antelantalk 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you're confused, Antelan. I know what you said, and my edit summary was a response to your confusion, which I attempted to fix by putting in a new heading. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is the goading that I'm asking you to stop. This is three times now that you're calling me confused. For the second time, I'm telling you that I'm not confused. Nowhere did I suggest that I was confused, and instead I offered you a more helpful way of threading comments. Please stop now. Follow? Antelantalk 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, not really. The confusion was that you a) thought that my discussion of community was really about not discussing edits, and b) that my edit summary about confusion was a response to your edit to my talk page, instead of a response to your last post on this page. If I am wrong about you being confused, then you, again, have my apology. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No, incredibly, you are wrong for the fourth and fifth times about my thoughts. It is a basic tenet of civility that you state what you think, not what I think, because you clearly do not know what I think. Stop. Now. Antelantalk 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- This: "It is a basic tenet of civility that you state what you think, not what I think, because you clearly do not know what I think." ...is awesome. What do you call an essay that just says that? Thank you, Antelan. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe WP:MINDREADER? WP:LOCUSOFCONTROL? :) Antelantalk 03:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Antelan, it was my thought that your inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith were the result of confusion. My mistake.
- GTB, if someone says they think X, it is not uncivil to say that they think X. If they don't, then they can correct you. Contortions such as "I think you think based on what you say" are very seldome necessary.
- GTBacchus thinks civility is important. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Martin, you're right of course, that there's no problem stating another's thoughts when everyone is clearly on the same page about who holds what position. As soon as that comes into question though, it becomes unwise to tell others what they think. If I say, "no, I don't think that civility is important, why are you mischaracterizing my position?", then you... might be rather surprised, but it would not be helpful for you to insist that you know what I believe better than I do. It would be better at that point to request clarification.
Does it make more sense that way? I feel that's how I see it so often in context. People often restate another editor's position in ways that the other editor would never agree to state it; that seldom helps advance the discussion. I think we do much better when we ask other people what they think rather than telling them, unless it's been made quite clear, but different people will think that different things are "clear". If it's clear that it's clear, then it's clear... clear?
I'm already outlining in my head a couple of paragraphs to go at Wikipedia:Restating the thoughts of others or something. These things are no good without snappy shortcuts, though; nobody remembers them. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Martin, you're right of course, that there's no problem stating another's thoughts when everyone is clearly on the same page about who holds what position. As soon as that comes into question though, it becomes unwise to tell others what they think. If I say, "no, I don't think that civility is important, why are you mischaracterizing my position?", then you... might be rather surprised, but it would not be helpful for you to insist that you know what I believe better than I do. It would be better at that point to request clarification.
- GTBacchus thinks civility is important. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If I accept this apology, I accept that I made "inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith." Clearly this apology is unacceptable, and instead constitutes goading, which I have already asked you to stop. Antelantalk 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Um.... really? I don't think he's goading you here. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it now. That is a pretty crummy apology, actually. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If I accept this apology, I accept that I made "inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith." Clearly this apology is unacceptable, and instead constitutes goading, which I have already asked you to stop. Antelantalk 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't an apology in general, only for stating your thoughts. The only thing I feel perhaps I did wrong was mention confusion in an edit summary, but it wasn't really a jibe against you. See, even if my edit summary was such a bad thing, (and "confusion" was pretty obviously factual even if perhaps it seemed insulting to you), when I explained you seemed to decide to take it as goading. Then, you said you weren't confused, when you seemed to have clearly stated something which was not factual- that I was responding to your post on my talk page, which I was not (and I explained that). Well, I'll not respond any more here, because it seems trying to explain things only makes you write back as if you are angry. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, duh, Martinphi. Look at what you wrote: "I'm sorry, Antelan, it was my thought that your inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith were the result of confusion." If you're apologizing sincerely, don't surround it with other crap, like implicit accusations that he was assuming bad faith (as well as "inaccurate factual assumptions"). You can't read his mind, you don't know what he was assuming, and stating what you think he was assuming, as if you know, is a very unhelpful thing to do. Your shortcut below says it all. Don't put assumptions in his mind.
Seriously, if you're going to apologize like that, don't apologize. His reaction really isn't surprising, is it? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I said it wasn't really an apology. But what can I say and maintain my civility here? To me, the confusion was obvious. And did you know that Antelan has done his very best to get me banned from WP in one -maybe two I forget- ArbComs? He supports the SPOV group wherever I edit. He's never edited this article before either. He asked if my post on community was really all about not wanting to discuss edits here -assuming bad faith. Then he started complaining about how I indent, and put a great big post about it on my talk page. He "corrected" my indentation on my post above. Maybe I indent wrong, but he's the only one who ever complained, and also he tried to get the ArbCom to sanction me for "misuse of edit summaries" (another minor flaw, if true). Then, it looked as if he assumed that my summary about "confusion" was about his post on my talk page because he knew that he was being provocative. Yeah, OK, I should have ignored him. I didn't take the highest road. To take the lesson here, though, civility really is about a poisoned atmosphere. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, duh, Martinphi. Look at what you wrote: "I'm sorry, Antelan, it was my thought that your inaccurate factual assumptions and assumption of bad faith were the result of confusion." If you're apologizing sincerely, don't surround it with other crap, like implicit accusations that he was assuming bad faith (as well as "inaccurate factual assumptions"). You can't read his mind, you don't know what he was assuming, and stating what you think he was assuming, as if you know, is a very unhelpful thing to do. Your shortcut below says it all. Don't put assumptions in his mind.
- It wasn't an apology in general, only for stating your thoughts. The only thing I feel perhaps I did wrong was mention confusion in an edit summary, but it wasn't really a jibe against you. See, even if my edit summary was such a bad thing, (and "confusion" was pretty obviously factual even if perhaps it seemed insulting to you), when I explained you seemed to decide to take it as goading. Then, you said you weren't confused, when you seemed to have clearly stated something which was not factual- that I was responding to your post on my talk page, which I was not (and I explained that). Well, I'll not respond any more here, because it seems trying to explain things only makes you write back as if you are angry. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I didn't call anything he said "crap," lol. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- You know, it really boils down to this: is that how you would talk to someone whom you truly respect and esteem? Would you talk to your father, your grandfather, your grandmother, your boss, your mentor, your hero, your God.... would you talk to them that way? Then why talk to anyone that way? I fall short of this standard
regularlyconstantly, but we all know it's the only standard that means anything, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)amended, who am I kidding? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- You know, it really boils down to this: is that how you would talk to someone whom you truly respect and esteem? Would you talk to your father, your grandfather, your grandmother, your boss, your mentor, your hero, your God.... would you talk to them that way? Then why talk to anyone that way? I fall short of this standard
- Right. Very well put, as usual. What do we do about those who have shown us nothing but meanness in the past, making assumption of good faith logically impossible, and vitiating true civility by making respect impossible? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
GTB, yes, I agree, it's much better not to say what others think. I did think the misunderstanding, and that one existed, were obvious here. Here is a good shortcut: WP:DPWIMM Don't Put Words In My Mouth. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is a good shortcut. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to recommend (if you're really going to create the essay) "Don't put words in others' mouths". "Don't put words in my mouth" is a retort, and if people link to it in the middle of a conversation, I suspect it'd just inflame things further.
- However, I've encountered this problem in the past, and it's more than just putting words in people's mouths; it's making assumptions about what their thoughts or motives are. I think it's a subcase of Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, and advice about it would probably fit well on that page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably, yet having essays like that is really handy. Sometimes one says exactly what you want to say in exactly the way you want to say it. Having another one with something like the Antelan quote above sure can't hurt (: Or, I don't think it would hurt in all cases. A certain level of bluntness doesn't poison the atmosphere, but is just normal. It varies for people, but WP can't expect a totally gentle environment. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)