User:Drmies/draft

Note: generalizing statements are made here, not all of which can be verified with diffs, reference to RfC/Us, proclamations on Jimbo's talk page, et cetera. Please don't be a comma fucker--we're in an initial stage here.

The essence of our civility policy is that we comment on edits, not on editors. Content, not contributor. But what constitutes an unacceptable attack for some is no more than a strong term for others. In addition, there is a tendency among editors and blocking administrators to do little more than compare an editor's utterances against a checklist of unacceptable terms ("jerk" is OK, "cunt" or "insufferable little prick" are not). The problem with such an attitude is twofold: first of all, there are obvious differences in usage and acceptability in the global community. More importantly, though, the attitude seems indicative also of a tendency to see "civility" as restricted to "name calling". One of the purposes of this draft is to argue that there are other, more disruptive patterns of incivility that get snowed under by the focus on naughty words. Its purpose is not to argue that naughty words aren't naughty.

Note: by "blockable" I mean administrators are likely to block very quickly, sometimes even on sight, for the comment. Essentially, of course, all comments are blockable--mild insults, if repeated continuously, will inevitably end up with a block.


 * "Fuck off", or some variety thereof, is not generally deemed a personal attack, or at least not a blockable one, and semantically this stands to reason: there is no statement made about the editor's counterpart. "Fuck off asshole" is different, obviously. Whether there is a difference between "fuck off asshole" and "fuck off [mother]fucking asshole" is up for grabs.


 * "Cunt" has been deemed blockable. The counterargument, that the word is perfectly acceptable in some contexts, has not impressed a majority of editors. Consensus seems to be that "cunt" and "dick" are not on the same level; the one is deemed blockable, the other not, though it certainly is a personal attack as we define it.


 * "Israeli" (or any other nationality/ethnicity/gendering) is a personal attack, since the suggestion is that the editor is incapable of neutral editing because of their nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. Such terminology violates WP:AGF and should be deemed blockable, if maintained or used habitually.


 * "You're just a friend/enemy of editor x" is a personal attack, since it suggests that the editor is incapable of neutral editing because of their (perceived) allegiance. Such accusations are a clear violation of WP:AGF and should be deemed blockable. This goes for "cabal" accusations as well. An exception should probably be made for the habitual "abusive admin cabal" claim, in all its varieties, since the community in general has a tendency to disregard such comments. Besides, the phrase probably has a therapeutic value.

Different blocks for different folks?
Breaches of civility occur all too often, and they come in a wide variety. Unproblematic are rants; such editors are typically blocked quickly and without much of a fuss. The POV editor who spews their anti-gay/semitic/black/white/etc insults is also unproblematic. Difficulties arise when well-known editors use language deemed unacceptable by some, and by no means all, administrators. Eric Corbett is not the only language, though he's a lightning rod. Lfdder is a recent example, less well-known given their topic area. The crux of the matter, in my opinion, is this: should incivility from such an editor be met with a block? Or, should it be met with a block immediately, on the assumption that they've been warned or blocked enough that they should know the limits of acceptability? In my opinion, the answer is no, for two main reasons. a. This type of civility block is typically issued after the use of cusswords, and this is problematic for reasons outlined above. b. Such blocks typically fail to take into consideration the context in which the cusswords were uttered, and in doing so frequently deny the existence or blockability of other kinds of personal attacks, disruption, incivility.

In addition, there is frequent talk of "escalating blocks", a notion which appears to be taken as standard operating procedure. Whether this concept is useful in the context of civility blocks is very unlikely; blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but to prevent further disruption. It seems unreasonable to expect that a three-month block for incivility serves any purpose at all, given that the behavior for such incivility blocks is usually in the context of heated debate. We all know that we don't do cool-down blocks, and we all know that we do: a short block issued to a heated editor in a heated debate prevents further disruption. A long block issued to such an editor is probably nothing more than an insult, and therefore useless. Remember, blocks are not supposed to be punitive.

We need to consider also that civility breaches are very unlike other violations. For example, POV editors (in the field of ethnicity, nationalism, etc) are disruptive in a very different way, if only because the measure of their disruption is easily assessed by comparing statements in article space to what the sources say. (Their behavior outside of article space may well be a matter of civility, but that's beside the point.) Such edits are typically not made out of anger but out of conviction; they follow a pattern in article space that can be proven to exist, to be highly disruptive, and to be utterly detrimental to the project--the case of Qworty is instructive, and the damage to the project's image is substantial.

Perhaps the difference lies precisely there: where are the violations made? Can we assess what their effect is? Any damage done by an editor ranting on their own talk page in no way compares to the damage done on a project or article talk page, let alone in article space. (And note how differently we judge that already: own talk page, leniency; talk pages, not so much; article space, pure vandalism, instantly blockable.) I do not see any reason for setting different goal posts, and allowing things on a user's own talk page that are not allowed in an AfD discussion or an article talk page--we do this already.