Template talk:Civility

It seems clear that at this time consensus does not support linking the essay in the template. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gravedancing, as well as false accusations of same, are clearly civility issues. Merridew doesn't like this essay because it calls a clear distinction between what is gravedancing and what is not gravedancing, and wants it hidden. I feel it's a legit issue that people ought to consider before they either edit the userpage of a blocked editor or before they accuse someone else who has edited user pages of blocked editors of gravedancing. Otherwise, the term is just a meaningless political club to attack people making good faith contributions. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

aren't rfc blurbs supposed to be neutral ¿¿¿ and frame an issue to be commented on ¿¿¿ like mebbe you want your pet-rant included in this template ¿¿¿ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it was nikki that deemed it inappropriate, and I agreed. “legit gravedancing” is not something to be encouraged, nor is it good faith; it's battleground and toxic. /mirror/. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of the straw man argument. Once again, the essay explains what gravedancing is and isn't. What this all comes down to is you don't like the essay it because it reduces the power of people like you who enjoy using the term "gravedancing" as a general weapon to save face after you've been caught socking and blocked yet again. The essay explains EXACTLY the problems associated with this, and itself refutes your further claims to the contrary. Defining gravedancing versus not gravedancing is hardly "battleground" or "toxic", however your insistence on controlling what is otherwise a meaningless attack term is quite "battleground" and "toxic". And if Nikki has an opinion, let her share it herself rather than you trying to co-opt her to support your own straw man arguments. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When someone mentions a "straw man", there's a good chance they've just been called on some bullshit. When they blue-link to it, it's almost certain. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete rubbish. I thought you were "done here"? Guess you got your second wind in attacking me. Are you going to notify your claimed army of meatpuppets to join in too?- Balph Eubank ✉ 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am, however, amused by your view of its powah ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page pertinent to civility. Oh, the irony! ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro keeping this essay listed. --Trofobi (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to have listed here. Frietjes (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not particularly relevant to civility. Nobody Ent 04:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support having the link. It absolutely relates to civility. --Nouniquenames 16:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain that? It's related to behaviour, certainly, but personally I'm not seeing a clear civility angle – and if we included every behaviour-related essay here, this template would be massive. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly try. Despite the best efforts of the community as a whole, things do get out of hand. Occasionally someone oversteps enough that a ban or block is put into place. Grave dancing may then occur as a sort of "victory celebration," even though Wikipedia isn't a contest. In my little neck of the woods, that sort of "celebration" is considered unsportsmanlike. It happens, but that doesn't make it right. On the other hand, if I Prod or CSD something, I may not always check to see if the editor I am about to notify is blocked or banned. I'm not gravedancing (in my opinion), regardless of what someone may accuse. To a new editor, that may not be inherently obvious. --Nouniquenames 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would like to expand the essay, feel free. These are both good examples from Nouniquenames. Real gravedancing as well as false accusations of gravedancing are definitely uncivil. The latter is evidenced by the person (apparrently on their way to another community ban) who basically said this whole essay was written by me to "justify gravedancing". This particular use of that term isn't objective, but is a politically-motivated smear and a way to use sweeping generalizations to attack people you don't like and to save face or redirect people away from your own misbehaviors when you've been blocked for them. All civility and incivility is basically behavioral anyway. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's nothing remotely civil about encouraging gravedancing, which is precisely what that pathetic-excuse-for-an-essay attempts to do. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE ESSAY DOES NOT ENCOURAGE GRAVEDANCING. That is the argument made by people who do not want gravedancing defined because then they can throw that term around willy nilly as they see fit. In other words, engage in personal attacks without substance in order to save face. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're either delusional or a troll. --Joefromrandb (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks. Thanks for proving that your argument is based on nothing. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Should I have written it in ALL CAPS for you? Stop trolling and edit articles! --Joefromrandb (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology. Can you explain how the essay encourages gravedancing? - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous comment. If you think I was actually apologizing to you, you're delusional. If you knew I wasn't, but decided to act like it anyway, you're trolling. --Joefromrandb (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous question. And take a minute to read WP:DICK while you're at it. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been amusing, but I have articles to improve. The template is full-protected for a while yet, and if you're foolish enough to start inserting it again after the protection is over you'll be reverted quickly by multiple editors. Enjoy your puerile trolling elsewhere. --Joefromrandb (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're having fun. Your "Oppose" vote is of no value. I've asked you to explain how the essay encourages gravedancing and you've responded with nothing but ad hominems and other insults. That's the usual response of people who don't like their favorite slush terms defined and put into objective language. It makes it a lot harder to form revert mobs when your friends need help saving face. By the way, promising to edit war, not to mention CANVASS for additional edit warriors, just further undermines your credibility. - Balph Eubank ✉ 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to explain your position without using personal attacks. Those can get you blocked, you know. Your argument is not inherently obvious. Please see above where, when asked to clarify my position, I did so in a civil manner while assuming good faith. --Nouniquenames 12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It makes sense to me, although the middle part that defines gravedancing could be longer and more descriptive. It's no more or less a behavioral issue vs civility issue than some of the others listed under "Don't". The Garbage Skow (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The RfC about an essay, doesn't link to an essay. Adorable. So: The essay in question is Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing, which the main-author and RfC-proposer wishes to add using this suggested piping. - I oppose adding it to this template, as it seems to be simply more ammunition for increasing incivility (based on the example of editors above, and the terribly-worded RfC opening). <eom> —Quiddity (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is largely what I was attempting to say, and you've done a better job of articulating it. The piped link is the most disingenuious thing being attempted; the reader sees: "Don't gravedance or accuse others of gravedancing", while the essay says: "Gravedancing is just fine, and if someone calls you on it, simply link to this essay". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Can we please have a moratorium on the use of the horrible neologism "gravedancing"? There's enough ugly Wikipedia-specific jargon as it is. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Having now read the essay in question I oppose having it added to this template, per Quiddity. Having examined the edit history of this template I will add that anyone adding it back to the template before this RfC has concluded will get a block for battling. Should the RfC close in favor of re-adding it, then obviously that can go ahead. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]