User:Jc37/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:


 * When we communicate, we should recognise that the goal is to communicate to our "audience" (whoever we're communicating with). This is a collaborative environment after all, so communication should be to facilitate that collaboration, not self-gratification, and not to drive people apart. Communication should be phrased to help understanding and collaboration, not hinder it.


 * As noted in the example, when editing Wikipedia, we're not sitting in a bar, drinking beer, having such a conversation. We're editing an encyclopedia. While such discussion may be considered allowable on user talk pages amongst friendly associates, I don't think that this would be helpful, productive, or constructive outside of userspace.

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


 * Reply:


 * The use of profanity, like any form of communication here (as I note above), should follow that general rule as well. If you're swearing because it makes you feel good, or to attack others, or even merely swearing for the sake of swearing, you should consider stopping. However, it can indeed be used to effect for emphasis to help communicate. Again, the intent should be to help communication, not hinder it.

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: Used as needed. Editors who only converse using all caps should be politely advised as to how their text is being perceived.

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:We the community. This includes all of the above.

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:It depends. (This is further expanded upon in the questions below.)

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


 * Reply: Yes.

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


 * Reply:Sanctioning for a single instance should be very rare, and I would presume that it would have some sort of history or context to the situation.

Instances of incivility
a.) Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offense or several? b.) 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:


 * a.)It depends. No two discussions are the same. And discussions can go on for weeks (or longer).
 * b.)Depends on context.

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: No. If someone should be sanctioned, then they should be sanctioned. That said, I would hope that there would be attempts at constructive discussion with the editor about community concerns long before ever reaching 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: In an effort to reduce outcry or drama? no. That should have little bearing in the choice of whether to sanction. This, of course, presumes that the outcry is a vocal few, which are not representative of the community-at-large. (In the same vein as: Local consensus should not overturn wider community consensus.)

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:Required? No. Encouraged? Yes.

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:Required? No. Encouraged? Yes.

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:No. Criticisms (if any) should be of the editor's choices/actions/behaviour. They should not be "to the person (ad hominem) attacks". An edit containing a personal attack should be entirely removed. The editor is welcome to replace the comments with ones which do not attack the person.

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: #3 (weakly). But probably not enough on its own to be sanctionable. But asking the person to rephrase or to strike would seem to be appropriate.

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


 * Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user
 * rating:3


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating:4 (should avoid verb of being in this case)


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating:2


 * 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:2


 * You are clearly here to support your nationalist point of view, Wikipedia would be better off without you.
 * rating:2


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating:1


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating: 2 (hopefully hyperbole)


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * rating:1


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating:5 (the last word should be avoided in this type of usage)


 * The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
 * rating:4


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating:1


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating:1


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating:2


 * A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.
 * rating:4 (second half - also depends on usage of the word "editor")


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * rating:4


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * rating:2


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating:2


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating:3


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * rating:3

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating:1


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating:1


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating:3 (godwin's law comes immediately to mind)


 * 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: 2


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating:3 (presuming hyperbole)

Possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating:1


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating:2


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating:2


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating:2


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * rating:2

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:2


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with or RPA
 * rating:2


 * Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using hat or other such formatting
 * rating:2


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


 * Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg
 * rating:3

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.


 * Note: I am skipping the scenarios, as they are kinda arbitrary, and I get the impression that at least a couple are watered-down examples of events which really may have occurred, and I don't think it's necessary to re-hash the past in this way.

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