User:Isarra/Civility Enforcement RFC

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: It really depends on context - same as being at a table with friends, interacting with friends or the like who are familiar with and accept a particular communication style because they already know it to be in jest can render such remarks as innocuous on-wiki as anywhere else, but generally speaking this sort of thing is neither helpful nor productive even if not inherently problematic. Even if the folks involved do all understand the context, there is no guarantee that random passersby will not come across it later and take it out of context and consider it an example of acceptable conduct for the general, and if used around anyone not certain of the meanings, let alone at, chances are it will just cause problems.

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


 * Reply: Profanity doesn't necessarily mean anything. When directed at specific user(s) it's generally not very nice, but telling someone fuck you is certainly not the worst thing someone can do, especially if it's an isolated incident. More meaningful remarks, even if worded politely, can be far worse if they cut into a user's sense of worth or connection to the project, and things like constant hounding and other persistent behaviours cause real issue despite standing out far less. Considering this, profanity itself would appear to be a non-issue; any problems with it should depend entirely on specific use and context same as most anything else.

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: All caps and the like isn't necessarily polite, but quite frankly it also seems a non-issue - either it actually makes sense in context, or generally anyone who does that mostly just succeeds in making themself look like an asshole, and meantime any outright disruptive formatting can regardless be removed as needed on a case-by-case basis. Restrictions on the like are entirely unnecessary.

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: Yes. We're all here working on this here crazy wonkos project, and it falls to all of us to do what we can to help make it actually succeed - and that includes maintaining a civil and pleasant environment. Expecting random people to come in and split something up may be a bit much, but those who can do that and succeed ought always be appreciated regardless of who or what they are, and in the meantime generally endeavouring to not make things worse and not feed drama does not seem like it should be too much to ask.

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: What is appropriate depends entirely on the situation - is there a history? Is it an ongoing issue? What is the scope? What would even work? What side effects will there be? Anything can be appropriate, but won't necessarily be appropriate to everything - two folks constantly yelling at each other everywhere who are otherwise lovely would probably just need an interaction ban, and someone obsessing over a topic to the point of discussion sounds like a good candidate for a topic ban, so on... sometimes folks will need to be blocked for a meantime, and sometimes an outright ban is required, either because previously attempted sanctions didn't work or the scope of the issue is too broad to even try anything else or what have you, but it all depends on what's going on, and in what context, and with who all involved, and how much cake everyone has eaten the given day.

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


 * Reply: Duh.

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


 * Reply: What is severity? If doing nothing is apt to result in some persistent issue, either a continuation of the incident or further disruption elsewise, then doing something is required, but otherwise what would be the point? A short chat to ensure that it won't happen again can be enough to reasonably close the matter, and if not, well, such a chat could also help to determine if there will be a continuing issue, and if some sort of sanction would indeed be in order then and there.

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: Generally it helps to talk to a person before doing anything, nevermind how many incidents there may have been already. If multiple repeated incidents are ongoing in rapid succession, a block may be in order to stop it, but even then a chat would be in order on the user's talkpage...
 * That said, I think I don't know what an 'offense' is.

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: If the civility itself is disruptive, that is an issue irregardless of who is doing it and what all else they may do for the project. Such is, however, something that may come into play in terms of how to sanction the user - if said user does excellent content and has significant trouble with commenting on ANI, then a topic ban from ANI would probably make more sense than an outright ban, whereas someone who only has such trouble with ANI without any other apparent redeeming value perhaps may as well be banned outright at that point.

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: 'Violations of the civility policy' and the like seems a perfectly good reason for a block so long as there is a more specific explanation, or a link, or what have you provided elsewhere, such as on the user's talkpage, pointing to whatever it was that was uncivil and perhaps giving some idea why it was indeed disruptive. Folks do need to have an idea of what specifically was uncivil, but how that is given shouldn't be too much of an issue. Or something.

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: Depends on the situation. If it's a user being outright disruptive with clear instances of incivility to point to, there may be very little reason to discuss the matter, whereas some are more ambiguous - long-term patterns are much harder to identify, let alone point to, and thus discussion to establish if it is indeed an issue may be in order...

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: RFCs tend to be rather large, but while an RFC might be appropriate in some cases, unless we're going for an all-out ban, it seems like such would just make things worse in most cases, overemphasising the entire matter. There is also the option of going for a more general RFC/U, however, but those are potentially easily ignored - either they work or they don't work, and if they don't work, then you have a huge mess. And huge messes are what ARBCOM is for.

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: There are personal attacks and there is discussing the candidate. The standards should not be relaxed, but the way of looking at the matter perhaps may need to differ - 'discussing the content, not the contributor' is a good rule of thumb in article talk, but on an RfA we are specifically there to discuss the contributor. Negative things come up and will be pointed out, certainly, but to do so is not inherently a personal attack, and it is entirely possible to make the point that someone is simply not qualified for adminship without being uncivil about it. It's all in the presentation, but unfortunately I cannot think of a good way to explain it aside from saying folks should be nice about it and understand the position the user is in and such, and that good wording and stuff can make potentially uncivil comments perfectly reasonable: 'Child with no comprehension of the deletion policy' vs 'Not as experienced as I would expect an admin to be, and incidents such as [1], [2], [3] suggest that the user lacks familiarity with AfD' or some such.

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?


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


 * Reply: Being unduly harsh to a user's ideas isn't nice in general. Never mind that it's not necessarily directly a personal attack, the idea is still something the user took the time to put down in their name, and thus putting it down does put down the user as well. Politeness and consideration are in order.
 * This in particular applies to comments like 1 and 2, whereas comments like 3 simply are more direct personal attacks discussing the user itself.
 * Comments 4, 5, and 6 depend more on context, since with 5 and 6, sometimes that really is the case and pointing it out can help close the matter. Sometimes.

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: 4


 * Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user
 * rating: 5


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating: 5


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating: 3


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 2


 * It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 5


 * You are clearly here to support your nationalist point of view, Wikipedia would be better off without you.
 * rating: 5


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating: 4


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating 4


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * rating: 5


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating: 5


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


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating: 4


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating 4


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: 4


 * A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.
 * rating: 5


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * rating: 5


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * rating: 4


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 4


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: 5


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * rating: 5

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating: 4


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating: 4


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating: 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: 5


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating: 5

Possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating: 4


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 5


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 5


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: 5


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * rating: 5

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: 4


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with or RPA
 * rating: 3


 * Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using hat or other such formatting
 * rating: 3


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with "redacted twattery, don't post here again" with posting users signature still attached
 * rating: 5


 * Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg
 * rating: 5

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: Ideally if someone else happens across the thing, a quiet word from them to knock off the accusations and get a wider input should be more than enough. The situation suggests both are reasonable enough contributors simply frustrated with the situation, so a third or such opinion would probably suffice to at least get something settled for the time being.

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 so 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: At that point, an uninvolved admin revoking talkpage access and telling the other folks to sod off; that ain't appropriate (except worded more politely) would be more than warranted, as clearly the talkpage access isn't being used for anything good. If the general unpleasantness persists, protection and/or further blocks may be in order depending on the where and how.

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: A temporary block would be excellent in that case; should have been done sooner. Just need to keep the blocks consistent, or the training won't hold.

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: A warning from an uninvolved user on user B's talkpage would be a first thing to try, and if that in conjunction with the very clear edit summary used by user A doesn't suffice, an interaction ban may be in order.

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: Such off-wiki behaviour, especially should it extend to direct communication with other users, most certainly is relevant on-wiki. It doesn't matter how they interact with others in the wikitext itself; inappropriate emails as well as general known activity alike reflect on their interactions on-wiki and are simply not conducive to a collegial editing environment, as it is only apt to make other editors uncomfortable working with them and may even potentially go so far as to drive others away from the project entirely knowing such is tolerated and sanctioned.
 * As such, behaviour of this sort should unfailingly result in a ban from the project, though the standard offer would apply.

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: Ban everyone.

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

I suppose I should mention at this point that I've never actually read the civility policy, or at least, I don't recall having read it. Then again I don't really recall having read any of the rules, policies, manuals, or guidelines around here...