User:Boson/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)?

If all present are aware of the situation and know that no offence is intended or will be taken, it should not count as incivility. If challenged, any offence taken at apparently offensive language is the writer's responsibility. Conversely, if anyone takes offence at a statement that does not appear abusive, it is that person's responsibility to demonstrate how a reasonable person would regard it as abusive in the context in which it was made.
 * Reply:

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

No. "Profanity" is not necessarily uncivil. There should be no serious objection, for instance, to a non-ironic "That was fucking brilliant" or "Sorry! I was being an arsehole." On the other hand, expletives are usually understood to intensify and emotionalize a statement; and use of taboo words, by showing a readiness to breach social norms, may be used deliberately to intimidate; so use of profanity may aggravate any incivility and may make it clear that an otherwise ambiguous statement was in fact intended as verbal aggression. If an editor uses profanity in a potentially aggressive context, the burden of proof should be on them to show that a reasonable person would not regard the comment as uncivil. Calling another editor "fucking stupid" or a "stupid cunt" should be regarded as more offensive than merely calling them stupid. "This conversation is terminated." is not the same as "Fuck off, arsehole!". If profanity is not apparently directed at an editor or a group that includes another participant, it should not normally warrant any sanctions, unless it is obviously used with disruptive intent. It is not uncivil to discourage others from using profanity. Any guidelines on this should probably use a different word, since it has religious associations and is less used in this sense in British English.
 * Reply:

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?

Occasional use of formatting (e.g. italics) for emphasis, where appropriate, should be encouraged. Use of bold type for emphasis should be accepted on talk pages. Frequent use of ALL CAPS should generally be discouraged, and it is appropriate for anyone to ask another editor to desist. Unless an editor persists in spite of repeated warnings, there is no real problem.
 * Reply:

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?

All editors are responsible for their own actions and may remind others to comply with guidelines. Administrators are responsible for enforcing compliance with the norms set by the community, including civility guidelines. Administrators who repeatedly subvert efforts to enforce policy should be warned and then sanctioned. Arbitration Committee should have the task of ensuring that administrators comply with policy. As in real-world situations, everyone should be encouraged to step in immediately wherever another editor (especially a new editor) is being bullied. Escalation to ANI etc. should not normally be necessary, but if the bully reacts with verbal abuse, the issue should be rapidly escalated (without fear of accusations of baiting being taken seriously. On the other hand, immediate reporting of intimidation at appropriate venues should not be stigmatized.
 * Reply:

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?

Usually, a warning should be sufficient. If serious incivility persists, short blocks may be appropriate. Obdurate editors who wilfully persist in grave violations of policy should be met with slowly escalating sanctions until they comply with policy. In the long term that may, in very rare cases, mean an indefinite block.
 * Reply:

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

Yes. For instance, if incivility results from persistent trolling or refusal to engage constructively on the part of another editor, this should be taken into account. Some people try the patience of a saint. On the other hand, if a reasonable person would conclude from the context that the offender is using verbal aggression to intimidate another editor or make the environment so unpleasant that editors with differing opinions leave the discussion, this should be treated as serious aggravation. If one editor uses clearly offensive language (not merely criticism), it is not normally tolerable to sanction another editor (even an administrator) for using similar language back. For instance, if one editor tells another editor "Fuck off you clueless bastard!" then the reply "It is you who is clueless!" should not be sanctioned, unless incivilities persist after the user is advised to desist. Other editors should be entitled, even encouraged to call the abusive editor to task. Escalation to RfC, ANI, etc. should not be the first reaction.
 * Reply:

An editor's plausibly demonstrated verbal and emotional competence in handling conflict situations may also be taken into account. For instance, some editors may not be native speakers of English and have difficulty expressing themselves subtly in such contexts, even when their command of English is excellent in the context of a scientific article. If a user plausibly self-identifies as suffering from a disorder that affects social interaction, some allowances may be made. Adolescent British males should also be given time to acclimatize.

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

Very, very few single incidents of incivility should result in any form of sanction, other than a warning. Exceptions include racist or other hate speech that would probably be illegal in many jurisdictions, implied threats, etc. However, intimidation or serious abuse should be dealt with robustly after an editor's first warning by an administrator.
 * Reply:

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?

In most cases, multiple instances of incivility in one discussion should be treated as one offence, but the severity of the offence should also be judged on how persistent it is. Once warned by an administrator or another experienced editor, the clock starts ticking afresh.
 * Reply:

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?

As written policy, probably not, since it would open up the process to too much wikilawyering. In practice, I would expect incivility to be seen in the light of what proportion it makes up of an editor's total contribution. However, experienced editors and administrators should be expected to know the rules and therefore be held to a higher standard. Editors who are obviously trying to be constructive but have not been around long enough to really know the rules should be cut more slack. In a few cases, allowance may be made for personal problems of individual editors, but only where there is a consensus to do so and the editor concerned indicates a willingness to address the issue. It may, for instance, be obvious that an otherwise constructive editor lacks the maturity or emotional intelligence to behave appropriately in all circumstances. On the other hand, mentioning such a fact, even where blindingly obvious, might also be interpreted (or deliberately misinterpreted) as incivility; so it is difficult to make it official.
 * Reply:

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?

No. However it should only be given as a reason for persistent, gross, disruptive, or abusive incivility; there may be a few cases where legalistic minds would not classify certain seriously disruptive behaviour as personal attacks or harassment. It is better to provide remedies against gross incivility than to debase the currency by defining "personal attack" to include things that are not really attacks or not clearly personal.
 * Reply:

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?

No, but common sense should be used. It can create more drama and polarization than is warranted. For instance if, in acrimonious disputes, you habitually call other editors "cunts" you get an immediate block each time. There may be a later discussion about the length of the block.
 * Reply:

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?

No. See last question.
 * Reply:

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?

Personal attacks should not be permitted. However, the wording of WP:NPA does look as if it could be interpreted to mean that no discussion of others behaviour and competence are allowed, even where they are eminently relevant. The wording should be changed. If no inferences about people's competence and propensity to disrupt were allowed, that would mean that blocks would have to be interpreted as punishments for past actions.
 * Reply:

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"

It depends on context. It also depends on how justified such a comment is and how a reasonable person would interpret such a statement. The problem is that such issues of judgement are open to wikilawyering. When dealing with an obvious troll. "You aren't listening." may be appropriate. If someone adds a statement that the Earth is flat or Kennedy was killed by aliens from Mars, it would not be right to sanction someone for writing "That is idiotic". If someone has made sensible contributions to an article or discussion and obviously understands the topic, then such a statement would normally be uncivil. It is a matter of whether a reasonable person would think that someone's contribution is, for instance, clearly "idiotic". This calls for judgement; so administrators do need the ability to interpret such statements and the willingness to correctly interpret and enforce the community's decisions on civility. Those who are not willing or able to do that should not (be permitted to) make such judgement calls. If administrators cannot be trusted to exercise their judgement and not overstep their authority when interpreting community policy, a checklist will not help. There is no bright line, but no bright line should be necessary.
 * Reply:

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: 2. Usually acceptable, in the sense that it should not incur sanctions in most contexts, unless repeated as part of a pattern of abusive and intimidating behaviour.


 * Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user
 * rating: 4. Usually not acceptable.


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable.


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating: 3. Depends on the context, but I can't imagine there are many cases where a permissible username would justify such a comment.


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 2. Usually acceptable. The writer is providing the necessary feedback on how the other editor's behaviour is interpreted and bending over backwards to give the other editor the benefit of the doubt and allow them to explain why appearances may be deceptive, while avoiding abusive language.


 * It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 3. Depends on context. Acceptable only if a reasonable person would regard it as obvious. "Acceptable" does not mean that such statements are recommended.


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


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable. It really does depend on whether a reasonable person would regard the proposal as egregiously stupid, but in my experience (not necessarily on Wikipedia) this sort of statement is usually made when someone disagrees strongly with a proposal but does not have any valid arguments against it and therefore resorts to blustering and intimidation, deflecting the discussion away from the arguments and toward the person making the proposal. Unless such statements are made frequently as part of a pattern of behaviour that drives editors with differing opinions away, it is best ignored; so sanctions, even warnings, would be inappropriate in most cases.


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable. Although it does not use the second person or give a user's name, permitting wikilawyers to argue otherwise, it is a clear personal attack against a known  contributor. There may be very exceptional cases where any reasonable person would agree that the person making the proposal has cognitive or psychological problems. There may also be odd cases where it is clearly meant humorously.


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable. See discussion above.


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable. Since a proposal cannot be retarded, it is clearly a personal attack in most contexts.


 * The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
 * rating: 5. Always unacceptable (except for conceivable exceptions that would be covered by WP:IAR).


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable, but could be justified.


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating 4. Usually acceptable, though not recommended. Also depends on whether reasons are given.


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: 2. Usually acceptable though not recommended. Accurately describes many discussions on Wikipedia. Use of expletives is not uncivil per se, even when used to express frustration.


 * A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.
 * rating: 4. Always unacceptable - except where WP:IAR applies.


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * rating: 5. Always unacceptable (except where WP:IAR applies.


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * rating: 3, depends on context


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 3. Depends on context.


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable but best acted on (by filing a sockpuppet investigation).

If a sockpuppet investigation is really not justified, the STFU comment was probably earned.


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable. The addition of expletives aggravates the obviously abusive comment. It appears unlikely that this is not deliberate abuse.

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating: 2. Usually acceptable if taken as a statement of opinion (rather than established fact) . Unwise but acceptable criticism unless clearly untrue.


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

2. Usually acceptable (in the sense that no sanctions are appropriate) unless part of a pattern (e.g. of deflecting arguments by abuse). It really does depend on the context and how questionable the sysop action was. If the statement is made by an administrator  in an effort to intimidate, that would be actionable. It is not a matter of the statement itself but the subversion of community decisions by a person entrusted with enforcing them


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable but best ignored unless part of a pattern.


 * 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

3. Best ignored.


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable but best ignored unless part of a pattern.

Possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating: 2. Usually acceptable if there is justification.


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


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 3. Depends on context.


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: 3. Depends on context but usually unacceptable.


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * rating: 4. Usually unacceptable unless obvious trolling.

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: 3. Acceptable, if clearly true. Unacceptable if abused to remove something that is a valid contribution to the conversation.


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

3. Depends on context.


 * Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using hat or other such formatting
 * rating: 3. Depends on context. More latitude at some locations (e.g. user talk pages).


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with "redacted twattery, don't post here again" with posting users signature still attached
 * rating: 5. Always unacceptable (except for IAR)


 * Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg
 * rating: 3. Depends on context. Acceptable only when clearly true, e.g. when a user persistently adds comments to article talk pages ranging from quantum chromodynamics  to Swiss politics to the effect that the discussion demonstrates that Wikipedians are all retarded and need to get a life.

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: RfC or dispute resolution.

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.

An uninvolved admin should remove the abuse and warn the user to desist. The uninvolved admin should also assess whether the friends' comments amount to mobbing and if necessary issue further warnings. This does not appear to be the case here, but it would depend on the exact nature of the comments. It may be necessary to protect the talk page.
 * Response

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.

Once started, the discussion at ANI should run to termination; so it might be proper to revert the block (though I'm not familiar with the rules on this). If the blocking admin was aware of the ANI discussion, the block was inappropriate (but not seriously so) unless the editor in question had continued his conduct after being reported to ANI.
 * Response

A close friend of the hypothetical expert user should probably advise them to take up yoga, attend anger management classes, or seek other professional help. Alternatively, they should consider a career as a theatre critic.

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."

No action required unless B persists.
 * Response

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.

The abusive user should be advised that their conduct is not conducive to a collaborative environment and told not to send abusive e-mails via Wikipedia. Further consideration might be appropriate if the abusive user had special privileges.
 * Response

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.

I would more clearly separate WP:CIVIL into several parts:
 * Response
 * 1) Recommended behaviour
 * 2) Behaviour which is not permitted and may be countered with warnings; such behaviour may rule out complaints by the offender against others and may be taken into account when considering special privileges etc.
 * 3) Egregious incivility that may result in blocks. The definition would be similar to WP:NPA (which I would reword to more closely focus on true personal attacks). This section would be very limited in scope but its enforcement would be expected of admins, and ultimately Arbcom. It would include racial insults, threats, abuse, defamation, and persistent denigration or intimidation of other editors.

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

One problem with the questionnaire is that much depends on context. The respondent has the choice of giving long, complicated answers (at the risk of seeming like a twat and the cost of considerable effort) or giving short answers that are largely meaningless.

The community should document concisely what we mean by incivility and make it clear whether we want civility policy enforced. If so, Arbcom should be given a clear mandate to act against admins who subvert that. This appears to me to be what Arbcom is asking for.

Administrators must recognise that they are here to enforce community norms, not their own. However, administrators need to exercise their judgment and should be allowed to do that. One problem is that, apparently, a number of experienced editors, including administrators do not trust the judgement of (all)  the administrators we have (or at least a few of them). That can be dealt with, but not by an attempt to define bright lines.

For questions of interpretation, we probably need the concept of how a reasonable, mature person would understand an utterance (in the context it was made).