User:Collect/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: "Jocular incivility" has no place in an environment where it could be misconstrued by others, on any talk page or user page. If a snide or snarky reference to an editor would be considered uncivil if it were on the front page of The New York Times, it remains uncivil on ''any' publicly viewable page.

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


 * Reply: If an outside observer would view it as uncivil in nature, then it ought to be considered uncivil on Wikipedia.

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: Bolding etc. for emphasis is standard typographic usage, and has been for a great many years.  Indeed, use of italics and differing typefaces has been used for centuries now, and it is not up to us to redifine typography.  The use of "ALL CAPS" moreover has been consdered "shouting" online only since the availability of lc in teletype transmission,  telegraph usage did not cosider all caps to be anything other than normal.  The same technology which allowed lc posting also allowed use of coloured text etc. so that consideration does not reasonably apply as a civility issue.  See  inter alia.   Note also that italics are frequently used to indicate foreign words.

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:  As the Wikipedia definition and enforcement of any "civility rules" has been remarkably uneven,  this question is impossible to answer.  What is needed is a set of definitions which can be reasonably construed as applying to all editors unifrmly, and not with exemptions for "good editors" and extremely strong enforcement for "bad editors."

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: Let the punishment fit the crime (The Mikado). We see indefinite blocks for calling an admin a name, and we see a person with hundreds of expletives getting not even an admonition.  Unless and until the definitions are repaired, sanctions are the least of Wikipedia's problems.

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


 * Reply: See the prior answer.  We do not have uniform standards and definitions even, yet.

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


 * Reply: Same answer.

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: Any defintions and standard would likely say "repeated acts are worse than a single act" but that is about all one can say.

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: See the comment about "uniformity" for any definition.

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: Saying that a policy 'no longer counts is one of the weakest reasons known to man for ignoring gross violations of any such policy.

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: Establishing whether a violation occurred by a !vote is an "interesting concept."  The problem is far more deeply-rooted than such a "solution" will provide.

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: Again - that depends on how any well-defined standard is worded. If the standard is so worded and crafted, and the offense sufficiently clear, then taking a month (or three) to address it is inane.

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: I had an editor attack me as "mentally ill" and "insane" - but he was never even given a slap on the wrist until he became a sock master.  I have seen editors given long blocks for using a snide remark about an admin.  Many times, I have asked editors to redact blatant attacks (and, yes, lies about what I wrote immediately above -- including ascriptions of quotes to me which I never wrote, etc.)  I have seen editors continue making snide and snarky references to me for years, and be at the forefront of the "civility parade" (lacking even the Emperor's New Clothes, AFAICT)  RfA is one of the worst venues for snide and snarky comments and misrepresentations of any editor, and should be abolished as it now exists.   I would suggest that a committee of (say) 15 impartial admins submit the names of the new admins, chosen by that committee, to the community to maintain the current level of active administrators.

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: Many times "marginal attacks" are accepted as "applying to the post content and not to the person."  Any new definitions whould have to address where the line really exists - the use of "insane", "nutty", "idiotic", "moronic" is likely to run afounl of a rational standard, while "you are wrong on this" is likely not to fall on the bad side, IMO.

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 (it depends on exactly how any standard to be uniformly applied is worded)


 * Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user
 * rating: 4 - less iffy.


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating: 5 and per any likely definitions


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating: 3 - I have seen usernames which indeed do cross a reasonable like ("gnarphsucks" is likely a poor name for a person editing on "George Gnarph", for example)


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * rating: ? If the person is self-described as a "Fooian nationalist" and is pushing the Fooian POV on a page, that would be one issue. The example given here does not meet that requirement and is likely to be an improper comment, but I have no idea whether it breaches "civility" in itself.  More commonly one finds "Fooreborn" or the like, and such a person may, indeed, find it hard to edit in a newutral manner.  I hapen to think that WP:PIECE shows others what is good practice in editing.


 * It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.
 * rating: same answer


 * You are clearly here to support your nationalist point of view, Wikipedia would be better off without you.
 * rating: 4 - the problem is the send sentence which clearly is past where any likely envelope would end.


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating: This addresses content - where "moronic" would likely be past the pale, "stupid" is used over 50,000 times (per "search results") on talk ans user talk pages.  Give it a 3 depending on whther we wish to look at so many examples.


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating: 5 - clear incivility


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * rating: see above


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating:


 * The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
 * rating: 5 again


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating: 2 or 3 - address the proposal clearly, albeit with an inpolitic shoice of words. Over 30,000 results.


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating: Likely not uncivil at all -- and often found in normal discussions.  Phrase as such is found thousands of times.


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: F-word usage?  That is where the controversy lies -   is a splendid example of some users who rely on that word.   The fact is that using expletives has to be addressed in a uniform manner at some point - and it is not currently handled in any uniform manner at all.


 * A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.
 * rating: Makes a snide comment about an editor - I figure a 4.


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * rating: 5 - no matter how the definition and standards are made uniform.   Though some admins seem not to nitice such as a problem at all.


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * rating: We have TL,DR currently - which is the same thing.  My preference? Warn the person that the ice is thin.  Community uniform standards? Quien sabe?


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: Impolite? Yes. Sanctionable under any uniuform standards> Unlikely.


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: STFU should be excised from the Wikipedia vocabulary, to be sure.   Likely not past the pale for a uniform standard.


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * rating: See comments on the "F-word" above

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating: Likely a legitimate comment - especially if the person can provide any diffs at all about that admin.


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating: Not close to any likely line - else dozens of RfAs are replete with violations.


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating: Use of "nazi" or "fascist" or any other "coloured word or phrase" I consider likely to be past the pale - a 5.


 * 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: Normal gripe, FGS!   On the level of "You drive like a New York cabbie!"  perhaos, but no one should expect this to be barred on a uniform basis.


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating: Normal gripe - and if the block is reversed, it likely had a basis.  Not a matter for a civility rule, I suspect.

Possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating: I go back to before USENET even.  Ban people for using the word "troll"?  Not.


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


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


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: Gets up to a 3, I suppose.


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * rating: Depends entirely on the circumstance - if an admin blocks the editor, I would trust the admin felt the "trollishness" had been shown.

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: See the policies and guidelines about redaction of talk pages.  Users have substantial control over their own UT pages, for example.  On an article talk page, almost anyone may object to a redaction, and the removal should be undone most of the time.  not close to the line.


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with or RPA
 * rating: Commonly done and proper, noting the prior answer.


 * Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using hat or other such formatting
 * rating: Same answer - and anyone can unhat a thing like that in any case.


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with "redacted twattery, don't post here again" with posting users signature still attached
 * rating: Reaches "F-word" levels - depends on exactly how a uniform policy is worded.


 * Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg
 * rating: Up to an RfC for removal of that, I suppose.

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: FGS - my answer is obvious!  Is it a violation of a uniformly enforced standard or not?

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: In general a blocking admin should not allow himself (or herself) to be drawn into this sort of affair.   Do you now an admin this foolish?

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: See the comments abut the "F-word" and note that uniform enforcement is the proper way to go.

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:  Common enough - and where a person has been disinvited to post on a talk page, and repeatedly continues to do so, any rule would likely find A has grounds for the expletives.

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:  Wikipedia can not police the Internet, and in one recent case a cmplaint was found to be a "Joe Job" - better for Wikipedia to stick to what is directly connected to Wikipedia and the WMF, and not try to be the Interpol of the Internet.

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: If they did, they would have to read my essays pertaining thereto, and understand my belief that any rule must be worded to apply uniformly.

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

I suspect this will lead to an essay.