This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
This redirect is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun
I know I saw an essay called something like "Don't gang up on other editors and beat them up" which was quite good but now I can't find it. Does anyone know the name and should it be here? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a more disciplined approach is to form a gauntlet so that the subject only receives a flogging from two editors at a time. Getting mauled by the mob is so uncouth. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protected
I've just fully protected this because of the revert war over the inclusion of an essay. Which essays to include should be determined by consensus here, please don't edit war. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gravedancing
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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]
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. --Nouniquenames06:04, 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]
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]
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. --Nouniquenames12:25, 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]
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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Behavior is clearly a part of civility. Would it be useful to put the Do and Don't sections under a behavior heading? Or maybe just get rid of the Dos and Don'ts and instead have a link to a more general "behavior" guideline? - Balph Eubank✉19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that "civility" is rather a subcategory of "behaviour". Things like POV-pushing, edit warring and such are behavioural but not necessarily civility-related; I can't think of any examples that are civility-related but not behavioural. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request on 20 October 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I assume what you're trying to say is similar to WP:BUTTOUT; it's hard to know for sure, as the English is virtually incomprehensible. I don't think that essay belongs on Wikipedia at all, let alone in this template. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken in this case. I saw your edit warring in Recent changes, and noticed that you'd already been blocked once this month for edit warring on the same template. Please don't make the same mistake again: it's quite unnecessary. Thank you. Darth Sitges (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI. Put up or shut up. I said: "...if you're foolish enough to insert it again, you'll be reverted quickly by multiple editors". My prediction came true, and I didn't have to lift a finger. I did not say anything -ANYTHING- about edit-warring, canvassing, sock-puppeting, or meat-puppeting. (Redacted) Don't think for one minute that I'm going to sit idle if you continue. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the very recent full protection of this template due to edit warring, we should really discuss any additions or removals here first. It's quite likely that some of these links should be removed, but we should discuss it first. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template is now fully-protected indefinitely.
What a bunch of crap. The "discussion" goes nowhere and cliques are WP:OWNing this and reverting to their preferred version. Case in point: people have been deleting things from this before I came along and nobody "discussed" that. Different rules for different people. - Balph Eubank✉18:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, that's why the article is protected, because warring is disruptive and not acceptable. The less desirable alternative would have been to block the parties involved across the board.
If you have some changes you want to make, then propose them here, and if no one objects, I or another admin can make the edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of bizarro logic is this? Are people truly at the point where they invent non sequiturs out of thin air and present them as foregone conclusions? - Balph Eubank✉15:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
How is it incivil to use a pre-typed message? If it's incivil to the regulars, it's probably at least as bad (if not worse) to the new people, and we should get rid of them entirely. Otherwise, there is not necessarily an issue with templating the regulars, and I would say that we should at least allow the essay for balance. --Nouniquenames12:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Request "Just drop it" and "No angry mastodons" be moved from the "Don'ts" to the
"Do"s. Each is a positive "Do" advice essay vs. "Don't" essay. Also, will give better balance to each subsection.
I've moved "Just drop it"; I haven't moved "No angry mastodons" because it seems to be a negative rather than a positive essay, although I've left the request open to see whether a second opinion might differ. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree - "Just drop it" is clearly a positive, but "No angry mastodons" is a bit of a halfway house. The title and the first paragraph are a negative, but the rest of the essay is definitely a positive. I suspect different editors will come to different conclusions, and so we would need to have a wider discussion to generate a consensus to move it. I've marked the request as answered until such a consensus is reached. Best — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)21:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last week I replaced all project-space instances (31 transclusions) of {{Humorous essays}} with {{Wikipedia essays|humour}}, without feedback, so I'm hoping the other 3 will go just as smoothly. Let us know there, soonish, if you have any comments/concerns. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
