* is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
    * is ... ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,

What are the well defined definitions of abuse, harass, stalk, or misrepresent?  Is that just being a person that dissents?  Often times on many blogs, there will be a variety of people that dissent, some more strongly than others, some with better reasoned and argued statements than others.  Often times, depending on the blogger and the environment, all of these people will be derided as "trolls", dehumanized, and their arguments dismissed, and even their comments altered or deleted.

Will all posts with ad-hominem to be deleted?  Or is it okay to just delete ones offensive to the blogger?

We ain't all so good talkers or riters, and sum uv us (bloggers and commenters) are taking time away from school or work leaving little time for refinement.

I see this code of ethics mainly as a way to permit bloggers to delete anything they don't like and help them create a better echo chamber for themselves.

I do think the answer to ugly free speech is more free speech, and I value the ability to see people out themselves....

The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place.

I mean, they wouldn't put it there if it wasn't Important, right?  And they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true, right?

And what about a code for folks who use the public airwaves and/or run purported news shows?

Name-calling and personal attacks by commenters against other commenters are deleted when I become aware of them.

Trolls aren't allowed and chatterers are limited in their number of comments.

Racist and hateful remarks are deleted.

The bottom line is this is my blog and I consider it like my living room and I insist the discussion be civil.  I am not the Government and I am under no obligation to allow free speech that offends me or that in my opinion lowers the level of discourse on the site.

You also snark that he should "clean his own house" but ignore the fact that Wikipedia has institued many rules and policies to combat abuses. Might that experience give him a unique view as to the usefulness and practicalities of net civility?

It's ironic that mere discussion of a proposal for civility leads you to make these rude attacks.

For the record, I don't see much need for rules of net civility. Sites are welcome to create and enforce their own rules of participation and inter-site communications can take place at the discretion of the participants. Creating "rules" for internet participation seems like a method for allowing some group of people to judge others' manner of communication.

While some may see the blogosphere and the behavior of its participants as a new phenomenon, it isn't difficult to find an appropriate predecessor model. That model is found on the streets of any metropolitan area and it is called traffic and the prevalence of road rudeness...or in its extreme...road rage.

Granted, personal attacks and snark on the internet are not likely to lead to fatalities, but if computers had wheels, it certainly would.

Read more on the relationship between blog civility and Easter Bonnets...here:

Wales likewise has a mission of social change through the people's encyclopedia...
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
The sum of all human knowledge?  Remember when Wikipedia claimed to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica.... it took EB six months to accumulate the data to answer the charge... Wikipedia lost.
The limits of human knowledge to be found on Wikipedia are the limits of its anonymous contributors.. these are known as "edit wars"... months of editing in and out pornography, flames, garbage, personal attacks....
Slanderously inaccurate biographies, private information, outing??  What's the limit?

My conclusion: beware of those who come to "do good"