User:Alanscottwalker/CERFC

General questions
These questions are intended to try to determine what you may consider the "baseline" between what should be considered "valid collegiate discourse" and what should be considered "violation of the civility policy" (incivility). Please be as specific as you can in your responses.

Written versus spoken communication
When one is physically present when speaking with another person, body language, intonation, setting, and other physical factors, can suggest the intent of words in a way that words written on a page cannot.

Collegiality
Example: if a person is having a casual conversation with friends over a table covered with beer glasses and one of them wishes to contest a point another has made they might prefect their remarks with "listen up asshole and I'll explain it to you." If they are smiling and raising a glass towards the person this remark is pointed, it can help the words to be taken in the lighthearted manner in which it was intended.

Should such interaction as noted in the example above be considered incivility in the collegiate, collaborative environment of Wikipedia? Should the talk page location matter (such as whether the discussion is on a user talk page, an article talk page, or Wikipedia project-space talk page)?


 * Reply: I'm unclear on the set-up of this question, as it seems waited to get a particular response.  Incivility is a matter of words used (and intent).  Others on this project can only judge intent by words used.  As for location of the discussion, incivility is generally off-topic, so the clearer it is the matter is off-topic (eg., the topic of an article talk page is the article), the easier it should be to judge whether the words are incivil, but User Talk pages (or any discussion page) is still not a license to be incivil.

Profanity
Should all profanity (such as the use of "bad words", "four letter words", "the Seven dirty words", etc.), be considered incivility?


 * Reply: Profanity, used to demean another User is incivil (eg. You are . . .). Profanity, used to address another User's ideas is less incivil, but also unhelpful and unnecessary, or intentionally hurtful, in consensus forming and should in practice be avoided, and can be incivil. Generalized profanity at nothing and no one (except oneself (eg, I'm a . . .)) in particular is just kinda useless but not usually incivil.  The use of profanity does raise a flag.    Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

All caps/wiki markup
There is an established convention when using technology to communicate through a typed format that WRITING IN ALL CAPS is considered "yelling" and is generally not acceptable. Individuals also sometimes use italics bolding green or other colored text or even enlarged text or other formatting code to attempt to indicate intonation, or to otherwise emphasize their comments.

Should there be limits as to when this type of formatting should be used in a discussion? Is there any type of formatting which should never be acceptable in a discussion?


 * Reply: Annoying and unhelpful but the user should just be told that.  It could become a matter of evidence of unwillingness to work with others, if continued in a sustained fashion, after that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility for enforcement
Who is responsible for maintaining a civil environment for collegiate discussion? Should it be it the responsibility of administrators, the arbitration committee, the broader Wikipedia community, or some combination of these?


 * Reply: All of the above.

Appropriate sanctions
What sanctions, if any, do you think are appropriate for incivility? Should blocking be considered an appropriate response to incivility? Should topic banning or interaction banning be considered an appropriate response?


 * Reply: The premise of constructing this group project is reasonable people can reason together.  The first step should be to reason with the incivil, and demonstrate how it shifts the discussion off-topic, or ill-effects consensus forming.  Blocks, bans may thereafter become necessary.

Context
Should the context of the situation be taken into account when considering whether to apply sanctions to the individual due to incivility?


 * Reply: Context is best illuminated by explanation by the User charged with incivility.  There is no "excuse" for being incivil, but context may sometimes offer mitigation, especially where the User makes a convincing case that incivility was not their intention, or that it was a matter of momentary poor communication.  If incivility is sometimes difficult to spot, it is that much more difficult to spot provocation.

Severity
How severe should a single incident of incivility need to be to merit some sort of sanction?


 * Reply:  Aiding and abbetting incivility goes against the Civility pillar.  The sanctions against incivility graduate from remonstrance (eg. don't do that) to more lasting measures. Misunderstandings, should be talked out. Personal attacks may warrant immediate severer sanction against -- to (hopefully) stop it in its tracks.

Instances of incivility
Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offense or several? If a user is civil most of the time, but occasionally has instances of incivility, should these incidents be excused? If so, how often should such incivility be excused?


 * Reply: Regardless of one offense or several, the User who is being incivil, should just stop. If the User cannot do it on their own, they may need assistance to stop and they should not repeat it over and over again.  (See also, prior comment on "excuse" under "Context").

Weighing incivility and contributions
Should the quality and/or number of contributions an individual makes outside of discussions have any bearing on whether an individual should be sanctioned due to incivility? Should the incidents of incivility be taken on their own as a separate concern?


 * Reply: Civility is a separable concern (see Civility Pillar).  Much of this project revolves around not just what we write but how we write it (see eg, NPOV).  Competence in multiple areas (and multiple Pillars) is required.

Outcry
In the past, when an individual has been blocked from editing due to "violating the civility policy" (incivility), there has, at times, been an outcry from others concerning the block, and sometimes the block has been overturned subsequent to that outcry.

In an effort to reduce incidences of such an outcry ("drama"), should incivility be deprecated as an appropriate reason for blocking an individual? Should admins instead be required to have a more specific reason (such as personal attacks, harassment of another user, etc.), when blocking a user for incivility?


 * Reply: Repetition of incivility creates the "drama."  To the extent that a User has demonstrated they can communicate in multiple registers, they should expect to be more severely judged upon resorting to repeated incivility.

AN/I prerequisite
Should a demonstrable consensus formed through discussion at WP:AN/I (or other appropriate forum) be required as a prerequisite to blocking an individual due to incivility? If so, should there be a minimum time frame for such discussions to remain open before the individual may be blocked?


 * Reply: Admins should already have the judgment to make short blocks, without much discussion.  Warning/discussion (not at ANI) should usually be given first except in the clear case.  Longer blocks for recidivism.  Discussion about shortening blocks can take place on the blocking admins talk page, and if not satisfied there at AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC prerequisite
A request for comment (RFC) gives the community the opportunity to discuss a behavioural concern (such as incivility) directly with the individual, with the intended goal of attempting to find a voluntary solution.

Should an RFC be required as a prerequisite for blocking a user of incivility? Should it be suggested and/or encouraged?


 * Reply: Not a (bureaucratic) requirement but any forum where people discuss there differences (civilly) should be encouraged.

Requests for adminship
Requests for adminship (RFA) is a place where an editor requests the additional tools and responsibilities of adminship. In the discussion concerning the specific request, each commenting editor is to convey whether (and why) they would (or would not) trust the requester with those tools and responsibilities. Due to this, typically the requester's actions, behaviour, and contributions are noted, evaluated, and sometimes discussed.

Due to the nature of RFA (a question of trusting an individual), should it be considered necessary for the standards concerning personal attacks be somewhat relaxed at RFA? What, if any, should be the limits to this? How personal is "too personal" at an RFA? What types of criticisms cross the line between being considered merely an evaluation of a candidate and being considered an unwarranted attack? Should comments considered to cross that line be left alone, stricken, moved to the talk page, or simply removed altogether?


 * Reply: These discussions should revolve around the edits of the User, if the user cannot be trusted there should be evidence to back that up (and at times lack of evidence that instills trust (eg. inexperience) will also be properly noted).

Attacking an idea
The Wikipedia community has a long tradition of not tolerating personal attacks. However, it may be difficult to differentiate whether an individual is commenting on a user's ideas or is commenting on the user themselves. The same is true concerning whether an individual may understand a particular idea.

How should this be determined? Should any of the following be considered a personal attack? Should any of these comments be considered the kind of incivility that we should not tolerate on Wikipedia?


 * "That idea is stupid"
 * "That is idiotic"
 * "That is yet another one of 's stupid ideas and should be ignored"
 * "You don't understand/misunderstand"
 * "You aren't listening"
 * "You don't care about the idea"


 * Reply: No. 3 is a personal attack. 1 and 2 could be incivil, if joined with more personal comments.  The last 3 may not be phrased well but are ok, in isolation.

Rate examples
In this section example comments will be presented. You are asked to evaluate each comment on the following scale:
 * 1 = Always acceptable
 * 2 = Usually acceptable
 * 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation
 * 4 = Usually not acceptable
 * 5 = Never acceptable

Proposals or content discussions

 * I assume you realize how foolish this idea sounds to the rest of us
 * rating: 3 because speaking for others is what could make this particularly incivil (in addition to the personalization), as it could offend not only the person being spoken to (a false claim of consensus) but the others, one is pretending to speak for.


 * Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user
 * rating: 4 (too personal)


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating: 2 the evidence should probabely be more specific but if it is backed up, ok.


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating: 4 Hmm? I don't really understand the statement


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 2 (it seems a non-sequitor, but more would be needed to understand that)


 * It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 3 As long as it backed up by edits it could be ok (but really focus should be on the edits and statements of the user, not the user.)


 * You are clearly here to support your nationalist point of view, Wikipedia would be better off without you.
 * rating: 4 - last part)


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating: 2 (inarticulate and not helpful)


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating 5 (too personal)


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * rating: 4 (too personal)


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating: 5 (too personal and demeaning to an identified group)


 * The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
 * rating: 5 (Just no)


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating: 2 (inarticulate, meh)


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating 2 (but then why are you commenting?)


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: 4 (this probably takes place after noone cares anymore but could re-escalate the whole thing)


 * A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.
 * rating: 5 (too personal)


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * rating 5 (too personal)


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * rating: 4 (doesn't need to be said, if true and too personal)


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 5 (too personal)


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: 5 (too personal)


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * rating: 5 (too personal)

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating: 1


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating 1


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating: 4


 * I'm sure their admin cronies will just censor me like they do to anyone who points out the hypocrisy of all WP admins, but this was a terrible block.
 * rating 4


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating: 4

Possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating: 2


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 3


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 4


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: 2


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * rating: 2

removal of comments
(Assume all removals were done by a single user and are not part of a suppression action for privacy, libel, etc)
 * Comment removed from conversation with edit summary "removed off topic trolling"
 * rating:


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with or RPA
 * rating


 * Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using hat or other such formatting
 * rating:


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with "redacted twattery, don't post here again" with posting users signature still attached
 * rating:


 * Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg
 * rating:

Enforcement scenarios
The general idea that Wikipedians should try to treat each other with a minimum of dignity and respect is widely accepted. Where we seem to have a serious problem is the enforcement or lack thereof of this ideal. This section will submit various scenarios and ask to you to suggest what an appropriate response would be. Possible options include:
 * ignoring it
 * warning the users involved
 * WP:RFC, WP:ANI, or other community discussions,
 * blocking, either indefinitely or for a set period of time
 * topic or interaction banning
 * Any other response you feel would be appropriate

Please bear in mind that what is being asked for is not what you believe would happen but what you believe should happen.

Scenario 1
Two users are in a dispute regarding the name of a particular article on a geographic region. The debate is long and convoluted, and the motivations of the two users unclear to those unfamiliar with the topic. They have not used any form of dispute resolution to resolve the content dispute. They have not edit warred in the article but the discussion on the talk page has gotten extremely long and seems to be devolving into the users accusing one another of having ethnic/nationalist motivations. One users has said "You only believe that because you were educated in the Fubarian school system which filled your head with their lies." To which the other user replies "That is exactly what I would expect from someone who live in Kerzbleckistan. Everyone knows that Fubaritol has always been part of our great empire. Only Kerzblecki  fat heads believe it isn't. "


 * Response: They should Stop (NPA).  Warn and counsel for DRN.  Temp lock the page.  Block if behavior continues, thereafter.

Scenario 2
A long term user is blocked for edit warring. The proof that they did edit war is clear and obvious. On their talk page they are hosting a discussion regarding the block but are not formally appealing it using the unblock template. The blocking admin, seeing this discussion of their actions, attempts to explain that they are not making a value judgement on the appropriateness of the edits, just doing their job by enforcing the edit warring policy. The blocked user removes the admins actual comments but leaves their signature attached to the phrase "asshattery removed". Several of the blocked users friends comment on what a dumb block it is, how the blocking admin is a disgrace, that they should be desysopped, and sp on. The blocking admin comments again, asking that they either be allowed to participate in the discussion or that their comments and all discussion of them be removed entirely, not replaced with an insult with his signature attached to it. The blocked user again removes the admin's comments and adds the same insulting phrase in their place.


 * Response: Block from page either by the admin but preferably by another admin.

Scenario 3
A user is apparently an expert in the field of eighteenth-century horse drawn carriages. Practically every word Wikipedia has on this subject was written by them. Their content contributions are generally above reproach. Unfortunately they are also extremely abrasive in interpersonal conversations. They routinely tell any user who disagrees with them to fuck off, that they were obviously educated in a barn, that their ignorance is matched only by what a douchebag they are, and so forth. They also exhibit a tendency to actually be on the correct side of an argument when they are at their most abrasive. They apparently believe that this excuses their condescension and insults. One such incident is brought up at WP:ANI. It is approximately the fifteenth time such an incident has occurred. Again, the user is making excellent content contributions and is probably right as to the facts of the actual dispute, but they have verbally abused the user who disagrees with them, insulting their intelligence and using profanity. An admin decides to block them for chronic incivility about three hours into the conversation at the noticeboard.


 * Response: good block.

Scenario 4
Users A and B are in a dispute. They have already stated their positions many times each. As previously uninvolved users begin commenting on the situation user A stops commenting on the relevant talk page. User B opens a thread on user A's user talk page relating to the dispute and challenging user A's position. User A posts a reply indicating they feel they have stated their position enough times and they do not see any purpose in continuing. User B replies, asking for more details about some aspect of the dispute. User A closes the discussion on their talk page and in both a closing comment and their edit summary they say "User B please stop posting here." User B posts again anyway. User A removes their comments and in their edit summary they write "Stay the fuck off my fucking talk page, LIKE I SAID ALREADY."


 * Response: if it is isolated - just a comment to them not to use edit summaries that way.

Scenario 5
A user is unfailingly civil in their on-wiki interactions with other users. They have never been blocked. Yet it is discovered that on an off-wiki forum dedicated to discussing Wikipedia they constantly make grossly insulting profane remarks about other WP users. Another user emails them asking about this discrepancy, and they receive an email reply through the Wikipedia email system that is equally insulting and profane. When the issue is brought up at WP:ANI the user is again perfectly polite. They openly acknowledge that they are in fact the user making the comments on the off-wiki forum, and that they sent an insulting email. They feel none of that is relevant as their on-wiki communication has been above reproach.


 * Response: Good evidence of battlefield, regardless of how civil they are.

Scenario 6
(Please bear in mind that this is a hypothetical scenario, not a description of the current situation)

The Wikipedia community is in a time of crisis. Arguments about civility are leading to more and more disruption and the project seems in danger of losing many long time contributors as a result. In desperation, the community decides to appoint one user to modify WP:CIVIL in any way they see fit in order to resolve these issues and restore order. In their wisdom they select you as that person.


 * Response: Comment on the content (comments) not the contributer, (in special cases like SPI, COI, etc. stick to the evidence, in the appropriate forum).  Develope standards for single admin imposed topic/article bans

Comments
Please use this section for any additional comments, observations, recommendations, etc.