User:Missvain/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 depends on the word being used. Sarcasm and chummy joking is one thing - but, remember, in a public space like Wikipedia, one can ostracize others by making inside jokes or being chummy with specific people. A bar with your friends is one thing - it's a private public experience. But, everything on Wikipedia is public. Everyone involved in a situation like this most likely has good faith intentions, but, depending on the words used ("asshole" might not be that offensive, when "bitch" or "cunt" or the N word pushes it to offensive) it could be observed as incivil. Frankly, inside jokes like this should stay where it belongs - in private. SarahStierch (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Reply: I don't really see the reason or need for using profanity on Wikipedia unless it's part of article development (i.e. a quote used in an article, the expansion of articles about profane words, etc.). Again, I don't think every use of a "bad word" is incivil, but, depending on who reads it - and again this is a public space - it could be considered incivil or misconstrued as such. And while we can't be responsible for how others react, we can prevent bad reactions by not using profane or vulgar words. SarahStierch (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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, I don't think so. If someone is yelling and being a jerk, then it should be evident - I don't think controlling formatting should matter. Sometimes you do have to use it to make a point (italics, bolding), but the screaming thing is pretty old school bad online behavior. I think just politely correcting or asking someone to not do it is fine. SarahStierch (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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 think every individual should take this into consideration. We have to all monitor our behavior like we monitor Wikipedia articles. However, it's even more so the role of admins, arbcom, etc to do it - we are leaders and models in the community, we should behave in a proper way, and make sure others do, too. SarahStierch (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: I think people should be warned, I'm also completely supportive of having offensive or incivil content be deleted from pages (it's in the history, that's good enough). I do think, if someone misbehaves enough, they should be blocked. Top banning is also a good idea, and interaction, sure, but does that really do enough? SarahStierch (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Reply:

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


 * Reply: It's best to nip incivil behavior in the bud - don't let it escalate. Warning, then block. SarahStierch (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: I'd like to say that it should matter - we all have bad days. But, it's also probably - for the sake of all of this - to treat everyone equal. SarahStierch (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Absolutely not. Someone can be a perfectly good employee or volunteer at an organization, but if they are assaulting or being rude to customers or their co-workers, they will most likely lose their job eventually. There should be no reason that someone, who makes good contributions, should be a not-so-good civil participant. Don't let it matter - all should be treated equally. It helps us all check our behavior, and remain civil knowing everyone will be treated equally. SarahStierch (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: There should be different types of incivility reasons - sure. You should be able to say "cursing and using personal attacks." A check list, so to say. SarahStierch (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Yes, there should be a discussion but it should only be a brief discussion - 24 hours or so. Or, perhaps a temporary block is either placed on the editor, or they are topic/discussion banned until consensus is determined. SarahStierch (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Some type of RfC I suppose could be created, but, they take too long. I think there should be some type of specific civility behavior thing - I'd rather see upstanding members of the community on a board or committee and they discuss the editor. Then letting the whole world weigh in. SarahStierch (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: They should be stricken and removed. Anything personal is too personal - we're editing an encyclopedia, not someone's personal life. SarahStierch (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: The first three are totally obnoxious and improper. The last three can be civil if used in a non attacking way. Calling someone childish names is totally incivil and poor behavior. SarahStierch (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: 3


 * 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 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: 5


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating: 5


 * 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: 5


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 5


 * 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: 2


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating: 2


 * 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: 4


 * 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: 3


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 3


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 3


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: 3


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * rating: 3

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: 4


 * 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.

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: When I was a child and my sister and I used to fight in the back seat of the car, my parents used to tell us to "separate." We'd instantly stop fighting and scoot over to our side of the cars. That's a situation like this - people saying things that are attacking and specific to their cultures and heritage. They need to be separated - topic and interaction banned for a time period and a mediator involved for any further discussions.

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 editor needs to be blocked from editing their own user page and the page should be protected so their friends can't edit it either. The page should also be blanked, it's all in the history. SarahStierch (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Good for the admin. The person should be blocked - we're supposed to be editing collaboratively here, and this editor obviously fails to do that. SarahStierch (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: User B is a bully. I totally agree with User A - even if it did get a little vulgar, it sure was warranted. I probably would also go to dispute resolution. or suggest that they do - and an admin should deal with User B, but I'm not sure how...yet :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Sadly it's not our responsibility, but, if the discussion on that other website is that bad, perhaps it can be a libel situation. But, again, it might not be in our jurisdiction. Legal might have to be asked about this. SarahStierch (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Scenario 6
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: I'd decline, but, I'd advise that a committee perhaps be formed, and a grant proposal written for the pain and time put into it - and they could also consult with community organizers and human resources folks about keeping a civil environment. And then, write a proposal, let the community analyze it and do it. Something has got to give!! SarahStierch (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Something has got to give. I really do hope that we can create a decent civility "policy" - I'd rather have a happy healthy environment and miss a few articles then have good articles and an unhealthy community. We can't meet our mission if we don't have a healthy collaborative environment. SarahStierch (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sarah, no civility policy can work until the current admin system is done away with. The current admin system itself is an ultimate expression of incivility towards content builders. For example, a powerful way to humiliate an editor is to subject them to an indefinite block and make them crawl in undignified ways. That is why indefinite blocks are so favoured by the very worst of admins. If this weapon is to be used against a well established content builder, its use should be a measured decision made by a panel of the editor's peers. In practice, indefinite blocks are arbitrarily handed out by any one of many hundreds of often woefully underqualified admins. Far from a measured decision, it is something that is inflicted on the say so of a single admin who may be little more than a schoolboy, or may have no real background at all in content building, or may be a puritan afflicted with an obsessive civility neurosis, or just an outright power tripper. Some of your proposals make my blood run cold. For example, your Scenario 2 above. This scenario is currently being played out again and again, with the indefinite block you seem to favour indeed being enforced. I saw a recent example made on the grounds that the editor was "trolling" his own talk page. When I enquired what was meant by "trolling", it became clear that trolling was anything the admin didn't like. Other admins are reluctant to reverse decisions made by another admin, however inept and damaging to content editing that decision may be. The status of admins are not at risk if they humiliate content builders and treat them with contempt, they are at risk only if they do something that might restrict the powers of other admins. Any content builder who watches scenarios like these being played out daily, knows that they, in the eyes of many admins, are lowly and despised. That is the real incivility that is played out daily on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)