User:Millelacs/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: I think it's fine as long as it is in a user talk page and is the fruit of an otherwise "genial" conversation. It would not be appropriate if the two editors are involved in some sort of a dispute in which harsh or fairly firm words have been used already.  As silly as it may seem, I would think it's perfectly all right if accompanied by a :) or something along those lines.

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


 * Reply: Not really. I do not use profanity in conversation with other editors, as I believe it sets an uncomfortable tone, but see nothing wrong with "damn", "hell", etc. being used.  Stronger language, including most of the "seven dirty words", is far from acceptable in collegial conversation 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: No. Using italics and bolding seems fine, as do capital letters.  They merely indicate intonation or expression.  Using incredibly enlarged text or over-emphasized wording in some way could only be inappropriate, I think, if it would distract someone to the point where it appears excessive.

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: I am uncomfortable with the idea of admins being civility police, and am equally turned off by having Arbcom be involved. Maintaining a civil environment should be the function of a particular WikiProject, with a small corps of dedicated admins receiving "certification" from that project to impose sanctions for incivility.

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: Interaction or topic banning, in my view, is highly detrimental to Wikipedia except when an editor's stubborness or inappropriate behavior are making articles in a particular area unstable or problematic for the community. I would strongly discourage using it to promote civility.  Warnings, such as a "three-strike" system for clearly defined incivil behavior, would be more appropriate; after each strike (a warning) is used up, a two-day block or something would be appropriate.  As blocks are not supposed to be construed as punishments, the block itself could be the "essence" of something along the lines of a "civility sanction".

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


 * Reply: Definitely. The harshness of the incivility and the impact it has on the recipient should be taken into account.

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


 * Reply: As I mentioned above, most incidents should go through a three-strike or warning process. However, incidents that cause extreme, expressed discomfort on the part of the recipient or contribute to an acutely negative environment in some area of the encyclopedia should merit an immediate civility sanction.

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: They should be considered one offense, as long as they pertain to the same topic or editor(s). One or two snaps on the part of a civil editor would be dealt with by a three-strike system; that would be a primary benefit of one.

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 to the first question. Every editor is an equal here in this community; no one should get a reprieve because of their thirty-nine GA's while another gets a block and has 4 C-class articles.  Caesar was injured equally by the daggers of a quality contributor and a rather mediocre one.  They should not be taken as a separate concern as a "good" editor could be mitigating that "good" with the "bad" of his incivility; rathre, they ought to be dealt with in a manner designed to eradicate or lessen the problem.

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: Incivility is an appropriate reason for a block. Specific details regarding the incivility would be helpful, but citing a different policy isn't necessary in my opinion.  Please see my above comments regarding the three-strike system and civility sanctions.

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: Like AfD's for civility? No.  Admins with "certification" from a civility WikiProject should be the arbiters of whether or not one has violated policies, based on a detailed and precise guideline.

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: It shouldn't be required. However, it would be a positive alternative to blocking, but would have to be absolutely voluntary on the part of the undergoer.

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: RfA's should be rigorous and quite intensive processes in which heavy scrutiny bears down upon the candidate. I am wary of criticisms regarding a candidate's personal traits (if they express them on their userpage or demonstrate them through editing), if they would not really affect executing admin tasks.  Here, however, I would suggest not implementing sanctions unless they're really egregious.

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: A type of intentional ignorance is demonstrated by making such a statement. All of the abovementioned should be strongly discouraged; they not only disparage contributors and proposers but seriously undermine this community's capacity to hear others' ideas out.

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: 4


 * 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: 3


 * 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: 5


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating: 3


 * 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: 5


 * 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: 5


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 4


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: 4


 * 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: 3


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating: 5


 * 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: 4

Possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating: 3


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 4


 * 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: 4

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: 5


 * 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: This isn't an incredibly serious situation, given that it hasn't caused anything more than a negative discussion involving only two editors and no edit warring. It would be wise to break off the discussion and to warn the two editors to cease this negative interaction.  I don't really think the first editor earned much more than a quick note to calm down and read up on some policies, but the second should be issued a warning regarding his violation of WP:NPA.  Further attacks on the part of that editor, or disputes initiated by either, should result in a 1-3 month interaction ban.  A topic ban would be appropriate only if they were engaged in edit-warring.

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: This would be rather serious, given that the blocked user has instigated inappropriate activity and a flurry of support for said activity. The blocked user's access to his talk page should be immediately revoked via blocking options.  Given the seriousness of their incivility, the editors who flocked to the page to assault the blocking admin should be distributed warnings or civility sanctions, with temporary blocking appropriate in the case of egregious comments regarding the admin.  I would not find it surprising if such a discussion would wind its way up to Arbcom, and either through that or at some other point the blocked user should be given a fairly lengthy extension of the block; if he shows a bit of sincerity, the conditions or length could be lessened.  That said, the blockng admin shouldn't have continued to engage with the other users after explaining his adherence to policies; he should be given some friendly advice on that matter.

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: The admin is perfectly correct in making this block. If a three-strike warning system were to be implemented, this user would have had ample time to realize that, although perfectly correct, he should have long since toned down his absurd commentary.  Even when arguing correctly and when being in the right, a Wikipedia contributor has no place insulting or disparaging his fellows when trying to prove a point.  Why stoop to such lows if you have real facts to back you up?

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: The attitude and comments of User A demonstrate an obstinacy and unwillingness to talk through a problem that will only continue to plague Wikipedia if we do not shore up our defenses of civility. User B, however, should have remained on the initial talk page with his concerns; he could have prodded User A with a polite request to respond to his commentary on the relevant page.  As such, he is probably in the wrong with his incessant comments and refusal to listen to User A's talk page requests, but User A should not be deleting comments or insulting B in the edit summary box.  User A, having been to a very slight degree justified in trying to shut down the discussion on his talk page but wrong in provoking the conversation, should be given a stern warning about his actions.  User B should be reminded not to escalate such confrontations.  If the two continue their meddlings, an interaction ban for a month or more would be very helpful; no editing blocks seem necessary in this situation.

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: It would be uncomfortable to see an apparently smiling, friendly chap turn into the Demon Discusser off-Wiki, and that they find that his actions are not violating an on-Wiki policy since he isn't doing them on-Wiki. It's disturbing to see that he would acknowledge this problem, then treat it as it were irrelevant on the site.  His actions off-Wiki in this situation harm the overall environment, as they are related to on-Wiki actions and directed at fellow contributors based on issues emanating from interactions on the encyclopedia.  This user is doing as much to harm the Wikipedia community as an incivil contributor on-Wiki, as he by doing these actions would be setting a dangerous precedent - creating a facade of friendliness on-Wiki, then showing an "unblockable", incivil meanness off.  I would suggest a recommendation for this user to review civility policies, be reminded that his off-Wiki actions are solely related to on-Wiki conduct and are thus violating them, and then a block for this user.

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

Comments
I noticed something some sections above, where it's mentioned that Wikipedians are normally expected to treat one another with a "minimum degree of dignity and respect". I am guessing that this is a mistake, and that it is supposed to say maximum, unless it was meant humorously or something. I'll mention this on a relevant talk page as well. dci &#124;  TALK   20:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)