User:Georgewilliamherbert/CivilityCaseStatement

Note: this is intended for the RfAR on civility, but is currently 950 words (>500) and needs trimming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Prior problems in this area
I am including by reference the November 2011 RfAR "Unblocks and Enabling".

Second mover advantage unresolved
It's been a longstanding problem within administrative actions that second movers have a strong advantage in administrative actions due to the policy on wheel warring. This was argued in depth on the Unblocks and Enabling RfAR, and remains a problem here in this series of incidents.

Noticeboard discussion and administrator courtesy
This was also a major issue in Unblocks and Enabling; in this case, it seems on first impression that the admins that acted did in fact discuss and seek noticeboard consensuses. I am not sure that consensus was called properly in all cases but the situation in that area seems better.

Civility, Personal Attacks, and whose standards to use
There are several major unresolved quandries in civility on Wikipedia. One is what value to place on the pillar WP:CIV in the first place. Another, less well articulated, is how to interpret when a comment was an attack or not.

Standards in society
In the United States, in for example sexual harassment in a workplace and in most general interpersonal harassment law, harassment is defined based on perceived abuse by the recipient, not just arbitrary standards. In many other places and societies, there is an effort made to set some external standard and enforce it in a more consistent manner.

Wikipedia has poorly-articulated factions who subscribe to both of these viewpoints, and they collide often and without having had any lasting solution imposed. This is ultimately highly corrosive, and requires some better articulated and framed discussion. This case saw a very good example of this, and it should be addressed here.

Bad words, rudeness, and personal attacks
There is a spectrum of behavior ranging from mere use of profanity or potentially abusive words which are clearly not directed at another Wikipedian or Wikipedians, through people being impolite to each other (potentially including use of profanity or abusive words) that is objectionable but not a focused outright attack, and ends with clear outright personal attacks (with or without profanity or abusive words).

It is possible to launch a personal attack (including some which could be and in some cases have been actioned within Wikipedia) without resorting in any way to profanity or abusive words, though that is relatively rare.

It has generally been true (despite common claims to the contrary) that mere use of "curse words" was not treated as incivility on Wikipedia, a position that has general support (including my personal opinion).

Combining inconsistent standards and curse words
I think it's clear that this case exposes a clear case of combining curse words and mid-spectrum behavior, that serves as a specific example of a combinatorial problem. Persons who utilize the perceived-abuse harassment standard tend to see the presence of curse words as functionally enhancing the behavioral category of a comment or conversation towards the outright personal attack end of the spectrum. Persons who utilize the more external standard tend to focus less on the type of words and more on the actual message.

Division in the community regarding corrosive environment
There is also a significant and unresolved division as to whether mild abuse and curse words form an environment that is driving editors away or not. The "yes" faction clearly won the about-3-years-ago civility enforcement RFC discussion. Since then, the "no" faction has surged of late with an assertive "prove it" attitude, which has not been adequately answered.

Implications
Aspects of this are not entirely amenable to an Arbcom decision, but it would educate and help form the shape of a decision to consider these issues, and conversely Arbcom's response and decision here should help direct and shape a followup within the community to attempt to at least better frame and discuss these issues.

Ultimately, we are forming two camps whose continued coexistence seems increasingly mutually exclusive; mediation between them is still possible, but this case shows that they are at least on some hot button issues on the verge of open warfare. I believe that a discussion which structures and articulates the underlying assumptions, lets both sides understand the other position and accept that others can validly hold that position, and attempt to deescalate the dispute is a good step to take here. Escalating from random sniping to large-scale shelling and airstrikes seems the next alternative if not.

Factionalism and Consensus
A key problem with the Malleus case (and others over time) is that two vocal polarized parties on any matter essentially form a denial of service attack on the ability of a wider group to find consensus. This is dangerous for a number of reasons. For one, it leaves both fractions able to feel like "winners" (in perceived support) and simultaneously "losers" (in ultimate resolution) in conflict, because the external opinion is obscured; this forms a destructive feedback loop between the factions.

It is extremely hard for uninvolved admins to get involved in these situations. One has to be a long-serving ANI participant to know the factions, friendships, and ideological tendencies of the dozens or hundreds of usual suspects. A newcomer, who legitimately sees a problem happen, then has to navigate a particularly tricky minefield of feedback after any involvement. Most of the actual faction opinions need to be interpreted in light of their preexisting opinions. And yet most of the people with the experience to do so have joined one of the factions.

Arbcom has been extremely reluctant to intervene in ugly sticky situations; I believe that this was a fundamental flaw. I understand that reluctance, but it misses the point that Arbcom's core role is to deal with situations where normal consensus is broken or failing. If Arbcom is not making those decisions, it at least needs to ameliorate the conditions that lead to breakdown of the communities ability to be heard.

Prior problems in this area
Including by reference: November 2011 RfAR "Unblocks and Enabling".

Second mover advantage unresolved
This was argued in depth on the Unblocks and Enabling RfAR, and remains a problem here.

Noticeboard discussion and administrator courtesy
Also a major issue in Unblocks and Enabling. Here it seems on first impression that discussion and consensus happened. Not everyone agrees on consensus results, however.

Civility, Personal Attacks, and whose standards to use
In the United States, in for example sexual harassment in a workplace, harassment is defined based on perceived abuse by the recipient, not just arbitrary standards. In many other places and societies, there is an effort made to set some external standard and enforce it in a more consistent manner.

Wikipedia has poorly-articulated factions who subscribe to both of these viewpoints, and they collide often and without having had any lasting solution imposed. This is ultimately highly corrosive, and requires some better articulated and framed discussion. This case saw a very good example of this, and it should be addressed here.

Bad words, rudeness, and personal attacks
It's clearly important to separate personal attacks / rudeness / criticism spectrum from “bad words”. They are separate axies. There is general consensus that mere use of a term is not uncivil on WP, but it's also widely seen by others as an enhancement to otherwise rude or abusive comments.

Combining inconsistent standards and curse words
I think it's clear that this case exposes a clear case of combining curse words and low to mid-spectrum abuse behavior. Those who utilize the perceived-abuse harassment standard tend to see the presence of curse words as functionally enhancing the behavioral category of a comment or conversation towards the outright personal attack end of the spectrum. Those who utilize the more external standard tend to focus less on the type of words and more on the actual message.

Division in the community regarding corrosive environment
There is also a significant and unresolved division as to whether mild abuse and curse words form an environment that is driving editors away or not. The "yes" faction clearly won the about-3-years-ago civility enforcement RFC discussion. Since then, the "no" faction has surged of late with an assertive "prove it" attitude, which has not been adequately answered.

Implications
Aspects of this are not entirely amenable to an Arbcom decision, but it would educate and help form the shape of a decision to consider these issues, and conversely Arbcom's response and decision here should help direct and shape a followup within the community to attempt to at least better frame and discuss these issues.

Ultimately, we are forming two camps whose continued coexistence seems increasingly mutually exclusive; mediation between them is still possible, but this case shows that they are at least on some hot button issues on the verge of open warfare. I believe that a discussion which structures and articulates the underlying assumptions, lets both sides understand the other position and accept that others can validly hold that position, and attempt to deescalate the dispute is a good step to take here. Escalating from random sniping to large-scale shelling and airstrikes seems the next alternative if not.

Factionalism and Consensus
A key problem with the Malleus case (and others over time) is that two vocal polarized parties on any matter essentially form a denial of service attack on the ability of a wider group to find consensus. This is dangerous for a number of reasons. For one, it leaves both fractions able to feel like "winners" (in perceived support) and simultaneously "losers" (in ultimate resolution) in conflict, because the external opinion is obscured; this forms a destructive feedback loop between the factions.

It is extremely hard for uninvolved admins to get involved in these situations. One has to be a long-serving ANI participant to know the factions, friendships, and ideological tendencies of the dozens or hundreds of usual suspects. A newcomer, who legitimately sees a problem happen, then has to navigate a particularly tricky minefield of feedback after any involvement. Most of the actual faction opinions need to be interpreted in light of their preexisting opinions. And yet most of the people with the experience to do so have joined one of the factions.

Arbcom has been extremely reluctant to intervene in ugly sticky situations; I believe that this was a fundamental flaw. I understand that reluctance, but it misses the point that Arbcom's core role is to deal with situations where normal consensus is broken or failing. If Arbcom is not making those decisions, it at least needs to ameliorate the conditions that lead to breakdown of the communities ability to be heard.