User:PartTimeGnome/CERFC

This completed questionnaire is PartTimeGnome's contribution to the 2012 RFC on Civility enforcement (phase 2).

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 prefix their remarks with "listen up arsehole 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 light-hearted manner in which they were 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:
 * A distinction exists between intended incivility and perceived incivility. In the example given, there is no intended incivility. In a casual pub atmosphere, or even a more formal setting where body language and intonation gives clues to the speaker's intent, the example is unlikely to be perceived as incivility either. On Wikipedia, however, the perception of incivility is more likely to depend on context. Editors should be careful in what they say on-wiki (or by email or other online means) to ensure they don't create the perception of incivility, even where no incivility is intended.
 * Talk page location is one example of context affecting whether a comment is perceived as incivility. For example, suppose two friends are having a discussion on their user talk pages, and one addresses the other as an "arsehole". As friends they understand each other well, so both understand that no incivility is intended, hence do not perceive any incivility. Were they having this discussion in a more public location, say the administrators' noticeboard, other editors would read the comment who may not realise it was intended in jest, and hence would perceive it as incivility.
 * For the purposes of determining whether a remark is in violation of our civility policies, we should only consider the perception of incivility, as it is this that drives away editors. However, intent should be considered when considering enforcement actions. If an editor makes an uncivil remark without any intent, they should simply be informed of their mistake so they can avoid it in the future. If they are aware that their remark is likely to be perceived as uncivil, more drastic enforcement action should be considered. If in doubt, assume good faith.
 * Of course, what is perceived as incivility will vary from editor to editor. Hence, whether the Wikipedia community considers a remark to be incivility should be based on a community consensus of how the community perceives that remark. In many cases, this may require discussion. The community should be careful to discuss the perception of incivility separately from the intent.
 * The community may agree that certain remarks always create the perception of incivility, and do not require discussion. Such community standards should be recorded in policies or guidelines. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 21:40, 11 November 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:
 * No. I can think of many situations where profanity would be used without any intent of incivility, and where a reasonable person should not perceive incivility either. Attempting to avoid profanity in situations where it is reasonable can lead to awkward wording and euphemisms that make the discussion harder to understand. (The question is a good example of this, in fact. Rather than give a list of euphemisms, a sample list of profane words would have been more useful.)
 * Some examples:
 * Discussion of profanity itself&#160;– e.g. on Talk:Profanity, or when discussing our civility policies.
 * Discussion of things with profane titles&#160;– especially various bands (e.g. Fucked Up) and songs (e.g. Fuck tha Police).
 * Discussion of articles that contain profanity.
 * Discussion of another editor's use of profanity&#160;– e.g. at Requests for comment/User conduct.
 * Emphasis – e.g. "Your edits were fucking fantastic! Thank you!" could hardly be considered uncivil, despite the gratuitous swearing.
 * Crude synonyms for a subject&#160;– e.g. mentioning "fucking" in Talk:Sexual intercourse could be a crude way of referring to the topic. Though gratuitous, this is not incivility. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 21:40, 11 November 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 unacceptable. Individuals also sometimes use italics, bold text, green or other coloured text, even enlarged text or other formatting code to attempt to indicate intonation, or to otherwise emphasise 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:
 * Generally, editors should be free to format their comments as they see fit, provided this does not cause disruption to the discussion as a whole. Disruptive uses of formatting would not be incivility however, and should be covered by a different policy or guideline (e.g. Talk page guidelines).
 * Though incivility could potentially arise or be intensified by inappropriate use of emphasis, the mechanism used to achieve such emphasis does not matter. That emphasis can create the perception of incivility in some uses is not a reason to disallow it, since most emphasis is helpful rather than harmful.
 * I personally believe that blinking text and animated GIFs with rapid flashing are never acceptable, simply because they are irritating. Though annoying, they are not incivility, however.
 * I think it would be overkill to sanction users for poor formatting choices (except for obvious cases of disruption). In most cases, it should be sufficient to leave a note to a user explaining that their formatting causes irritation, possibly suggesting better ways to present their views. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 21:48, 30 November 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:
 * A combination of all of the above. Everyone should try to behave in a civil manner at all times on Wikipedia.
 * As well as each editor policing themselves, the broader Wikipedia community can help enforce civility.
 * When someone is uncivil, it is often unintentional, so a polite warning from any editor is all that is necessary to correct their behaviour. Where someone is intentionally uncivil, discussion of their behaviour in the broader community can be helpful, so the editor understands that their behaviour is unacceptable, and that uncivil behaviour won't help them achieve their ends. Such discussion could also lead to community bans and sanctions (e.g. interaction bans) for severe cases.
 * The role of the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) in civility enforcement is to investigate cases that the community cannot adequately resolve on its own, and to impose bans and sanctions as appropriate. Note that Arbcom only interprets and enforces community policies; they cannot act where no policies have been violated.
 * The role of administrators is to block users banned by the community, and enforce other sanctions with blocks if necessary. Should the community agree (in the form of policy) that certain types of incivility merit automatic blocks if continued after warnings, it would be the role of administrators to perform such blocks. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:50, 19 November 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:
 * Most types of sanction are appropriate. However, short-term "cool-down" blocks should be avoided. Such blocks typically have the opposite effect, and can cause further incivility when the block expires. Civility blocks should always be long-term or indefinite, so that the blocked editor has a better chance to calm down and reflect on their actions. Even if they do not, Wikipedia would benefit more from the long-term absence of the uncivil editor.
 * Topic bans and interaction bans are particularly useful sanctions. These types of ban keep an editor away from topics or other users to which they react in an uncivil manner, while still allowing that editor to make positive contributions to the rest of Wikipedia. Violations of topic and interaction bans can be handled by escalating blocks, regardless of whether or not incivility is involved in the violation of the ban.
 * The Arbitration Committee can impose discretionary sanctions on areas of Wikipedia that have particular problems with incivility.
 * Where an editor continues to be uncivil despite multiple attempts by the community to resolve the situation by other means, a long-term or indefinite block might be appropriate, or even a full site ban. In such cases, the objective is to remove the problem editor from Wikipedia to prevent further incivility. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Reply:
 * Yes. Context affects whether a comment could be perceived as incivility, and hence whether or not it is a problem (see my earlier comments on Collegiality).
 * Also, there have been many cases where one editor has baited another into saying something uncivil, often without being uncivil themselves. A baiter's intent is typically to "win" a dispute by getting other parties to the dispute blocked or topic-banned. Where the victim reacts with incivility towards the baiter, there is little harm: this is the reaction the baiter wanted; they are not driven away by it. In such cases, the victim should be given no more than a polite warning to not take the bait. The baiter should be subject to a boomerang block. (Note: I do not believe we currently have a policy on baiting.)
 * Where the victim responds uncivilly in a manner that is visible to a greater number of editors (e.g. on a Wikipedia noticeboard rather than the baiter's talk page), there is harm to the encyclopaedia, however. Uncivil comments create a toxic atmosphere that drives away good-faith editors. Enforcement of the civility policy should concentrate on preventing harm, not punishing wrongdoing, so a victim of baiting could still be subject to sanctions for taking the bait. In the majority of cases, I would expect that the most harm to Wikipedia would be prevented by sanctions against the baiter rather than the victim, however. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Reply:
 * Immediate sanctions for a single incident (i.e. without any prior incivility or warning) should be very rare. For such immediate action, it should be clear that the incivility is intentional and that the user's main reason for being here is to be uncivil to others (hence not here to build an encyclopaedia). Blocking of such incivility-only accounts should be similar to that of vandalism-only accounts.
 * As I said, this should be rare. In most cases it is not possible to tell from a single incident that a user's only intent is incivility; a pattern of edits would typically be needed to make this determination. Exceptions could be where a user explicitly states their intentions, or where there is no other possible intention behind the user's actions. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Instances of incivility
Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offence 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:
 * Multiple instances of incivility in a single edit should be considered as a single offence. For incivility across multiple edits, the time that passes between the edits and whether the user was cautioned about their incivility between the edits should be considered. Incidents of incivility over a long period should be counted separately, since the user has had a chance to re-think since their last uncivil remark. If only a short period of time elapses between uncivil comments, the uncivil edits should be treated as if they were one edit, since the user is unlikely to have rethought their actions between edits.
 * Warnings about incivility invite a user to reconsider what they are saying. If incivility continues after a warning, it should be counted as a second offence, even if little time has occurred since the incivility before the warning.
 * In stressful situations, a person who is normally civil might say something uncivil. Such things can happen to most people. Though an uncivil response is always unacceptable, a one-off incident is generally excusable. Context matters a lot here&#160;– this should only apply when the incivility is caused by some stressful situation. Of course, the source of stress might be unrelated to Wikipedia, in which case we should assume good faith and take the user at their word if they claim to be affected by off-wiki stress.
 * One incident of incivility per year I would probably excuse. One per week I would not. I am reluctant to be more exact; not only is this the kind of thing where it is hard to choose a reasonable place to draw the line, but there is the risk that some might see a set level of acceptable civility incidents as an entitlement rather than a limit. (For example, some users interpret the three-revert rule as entitling them to three reverts without discussion. Outside of Wikipedia, poor car drivers interpret speed limits as an entitlement to drive at the set speed, regardless of road conditions.) I think "use common sense" would be a better approach. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:47, 20 November 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 that individual should be sanctioned due to incivility? Should the incidents of incivility be taken on their own as a separate concern?


 * Reply:
 * Allowing good contributions to offset bad contributions gives the appearance of a double standard. This can be very damaging to Wikipedia's contributor levels and wider reputation. New users cannot use a history of good contributions as a defence, which puts them at an unfair disadvantage if this defence is allowed to users who have such a history. In the case of administrators, who are tasked with enforcing the rules, it seems particularly hypocritical when they are not held to the same standards themselves.
 * It is an unfortunate fact that long-term Wikipedians can presently get away with far worse behaviour than newer editors. Such attitudes create an unofficial hierarchy that gives long-term editors greater power to break the rules while newer contributors are blocked for lesser offences. We should reverse this trend.
 * Should we continue to tolerate incivility from "otherwise good" editors, we will not make much progress in correcting the civility problems on Wikipedia. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:06, 26 November 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:
 * When taking administrative actions, administrators should follow consensus, which can be expressed in community discussions and Wikipedia policies. An outcry after a block could be because the block was against consensus and/or policy, in which case the action should be reversed. However, there is no guarantee that those who are the most vocal are representative of consensus. Administrators should try their best to determine consensus. If the outcry appears to be against consensus, the outcry may be ignored, though it is useful for the admin who closes a discussion to give an explanation.
 * Administrators should give the most specific reason that applies when blocking a user. The reason should link to a policy that permits the block (e.g. one of those mentioned in the question), to a discussion that shows consensus for the block, or to details of a sanction the user has violated. I do not think the civility policy should allow a block for incivility without specifically defined types of behaviour that are blockable. The community may agree to define further types of incivility that are blockable under policy, of course. A user may be blocked for non-specific incivility if it violates an existing sanction that applies to that user or discretionary sanctions on the page where the incivility occurred. Other than that, discussion should be required before a block. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:08, 22 November 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:
 * As I explained in my previous answer, where the incivility is of a type for which policy allows a block without discussion or where the user has violated an existing sanction, then no such prerequisite exists. For other cases, discussion should be required before a block. The appropriate forum for such a discussion would typically be the administrators' noticeboard rather than WP:AN/I. The discussion should be open for at least 24 hours before implementing any sanction. (24 hours is the norm described in the banning policy. I see no reason to vary this for incivility.) – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:08, 22 November 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 finding a voluntary solution.

Should an RFC be required as a prerequisite of blocking a user for incivility? Should it be suggested and/or encouraged?


 * Reply:
 * A voluntary solution would be preferable to imposed sanctions, so editors should be encouraged to find voluntary solutions where possible. Though the structure of RFCs and their high community participation can help find a solution, there are other ways to agree a voluntary solution, such as discussion on user talk pages. Hence, an RFC should be suggested as a venue for finding voluntary solutions.
 * There should not be a requirement to start an RFC before seeking blocks or sanctions, since there are sometimes cases where it is clear that an RFC will not resolve the situation. However, where an RFC is in progress, editors should wait for this process to complete before starting a block discussion, except in extraordinary circumstances.
 * When discussion of a block takes place at the administrators' noticeboard, the community can decide that an RFC should take place first for that particular case. Once the block discussion has been closed with this consensus, an RFC can then be started. Should no solution be found in the RFC or it becomes evident that the solution is not working, a new block discussion can be started. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship
Requests for adminship (RFA) is a place where editors request the additional tools and responsibilities of adminship. In the discussion concerning a specific request, each commenting editor should convey whether (and why) they would 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 to 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:
 * The second sentence of our policy on personal attacks reads "Comment on content, not on the contributor". However, candidates for adminship are both contributors to Wikipedia and the "content" discussed at RFA, so it is harder to apply this rule there. One obvious way to apply this rule is to read "contributor" as referring to those participating in the discussion other than the candidate. The only editors to be discussed at RFA should be those who are up for adminship.
 * Nonetheless, editors should not have free reign to say what they like about the candidates. Uncivil treatment towards prospective administrators discourages many editors from pursuing adminship. There should be limits on the types of comment that are acceptable.
 * Comments at RFA should focus on the candidate's suitability for adminship. Comments can, for example, discuss the candidate's contributions, interactions with other editors, commitment to Wikipedia, judgement, technical knowledge, and skills relevant to adminship. Discussion of the candidate that is clearly irrelevant to their suitability as an admin (e.g. sexuality or ethnicity) should be treated as incivility.
 * For some areas of discussion, it is debatable whether they are relevant to adminship. To avoid unduly restricting the discussion in a way that might affect the outcome, assume that a comment is relevant to adminship if there is doubt. Other editors can give their opinion on the relevancy of comments to assist readers of the discussion to form their own opinions. Information about a candidate's personal life is rarely relevant, though it would be relevant to mention anything that could cause a conflict of interest or otherwise interfere with the candidate's ability to competently perform administrative actions.
 * As well as relevancy, respect is another good civility test. It is possible to criticise a person while still being respectful of them. Comments that lack such respect (e.g. name-calling) could be incivility.
 * As for the treatment of unacceptable comments, irrelevant discussion should be collapsed. Particularly severe personal attacks should be removed altogether. Disrespectful discussion should be preserved if it nonetheless makes a relevant point. Warnings and/or sanctions against users making uncivil comments should be considered regardless of the fate of the comments themselves.
 * Inappropriate comments should not be moved to the talk page. RFA talk pages are for meta-discussion about the RFA, such as discussing whether a given comment should be removed, or drawing attention to strange "voting" patterns. Discussion of the candidate should not normally take place on talk pages, so an unacceptable personal remark would be even more unacceptable on a talk page. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:58, 22 November 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?


 * 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:
 * Comments about ideas can be perceived as also reflecting upon the person who had the idea, and possibly other supporters of the idea. This is often unintentional and hard to avoid. To avoid discouraging or restricting genuine discussion of proposals, such unintentional reflections upon the proposer should not always be considered as breaches of civility. The test should be whether a person commenting on an idea could reasonably have made their remarks in a better way that avoids or reduces the perception of incivility. A major aspect of this is whether the remarks are made in a manner that are respectful of the proposer. (Note that prefixing "With all due respect" to remarks does not make them respectful. Respect must also be present in the content that follows.) Hence, I would rate the first three examples as follows:
 * 1. Unacceptable. When applied to a person "stupid" means that the person is lacking in intelligence, which I regard as a personal attack. When applied to an idea, "stupid" means the idea looks as if it was thought of by a stupid person. Though this is not such an obvious personal attack, it is still an attack upon the proposer. The comment can be expressed better as "That is a bad idea", since "bad" applies directly to the idea without commenting on its proposer.
 * 2. Unacceptable. This is similar to the previous comment. An idiotic idea is one contemplated by an idiot. This attacks both the proposer and any supporters of the idea. "That is incorrect" would be better.
 * 3. Very unacceptable. Not only does this have the same problem as the first example, but it is more of a direct attack upon the proposer. The statement says that the user has had other stupid ideas, which puts greater emphasis on the user's supposed stupidity. The past ideas of the proposer have nothing to do with discussion of their current idea. The idea should be discussed on its own merits, regardless of its proposer. To improve this remark would involve removing a large part of it: "That is an idea that should be ignored".


 * Saying that an editor does not understand something is rarely necessary. It would be better to simply explain what the editor does not understand. Sometimes it is necessary to tell an editor that they lack understanding, however. For example, where several attempts at explanation to a user have failed, another editor might want to advise the user to edit in an area they understand better. Such a comment at least implies that its target lacks understanding. Such comments about a user's understanding should be on the user's talk page, since the discussion is about the user, not content. Hence, I would rate the next three examples as follows:
 * 4. Acceptable, but should be rare and confined to user talk pages, as I previously explained.
 * 5. Unacceptable, but is fairly mild as incivility goes. Whereas a person can misunderstand or misread something in good faith, whether or not a person is listening is a deliberate decision. Hence, an accusation that someone is not listening is an accusation of bad faith. This comment could be improved by substituting comment #4 in its place.
 * 6. Depends. If this is used to mean that I oppose an idea, then this is absolutely acceptable if I really do oppose the idea. If used to suggest that a user has an ulterior motive for supporting or opposing an idea, this would probably be incivility, especially if no evidence is given to support the claim. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 22:07, 30 November 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 = Equally likely to be acceptable or unacceptable, entirely dependent on the context of the specific situation
 * 4 = Usually not acceptable
 * 5 = Never acceptable

Note: In my ratings below, I only deal with how likely a comment is to be acceptable. I try to avoid allowing the severity of incivility to influence my ratings. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposals or content discussions

 * I assume you realise how foolish this idea sounds to the rest of us.
 * Rating: 4, due to an assumption on someone else's views. Might be acceptable if the assumption is necessary to understand what follows, or if I had already said something to imply I did realise this. (This would have been a 5 if the example said "how foolish this idea is".) Could be better as "This idea sounds foolish to the rest of us". – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user.
 * Rating: 5. Clear incivility&#160;– the comment heavily emphasises the foolishness of the user. It would be slightly milder as "This is foolishness", but still unacceptable since it implies the user is a fool. Another adjective, as in "This is unwise" might be better. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After looking over your recent edits, it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * Rating: 4. Such a blanket statement about a user's competence should only be used if attempting to remedy a serious competence problem (e.g. offering assistance/education, discussing a block, or suggesting they leave voluntarily). Directing this comment at a user without proposing a way to resolve the situation would be gratuitous and uncivil.
 * Such a statement should only be used if the commenter believes the user to be incompetent at any editing. In most cases, a user is only incompetent in some areas of editing, even if this covers all their editing to date. Hence, this statement should normally be qualified to make this clear, e.g. "You have not shown much competence in your recent edits".
 * As a comment about a user rather than content, this should be said in user talk space or other Wikipedia forums that are intended for discussion of user conduct. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons.
 * Rating: 3. This would be acceptable in discussions about usernames (e.g. at Requests for comment/User names). This is completely unacceptable if used as an ad hominem attack in the course of some other discussion. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * Rating: 2. The statement is not uncivil, though it is wrong. Merely having a point of view of any sort is not a conflict of interest, though wishing to use Wikipedia to push that point of view is. This is unacceptable outside of user talk and user conduct discussions, though. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.
 * Rating: 2. Not ideally phrased, but I don't think this crosses the line into incivility. This is unacceptable outside of user talk and other pages for discussion of user conduct, though. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are clearly here to support your nationalist point of view; Wikipedia would be better off without you.
 * Rating: 3. Though generally unacceptable, this is acceptable on user talk and discussions of user conduct. Comments that Wikipedia would be better off without someone should only be used if a block is seriously being considered. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * Rating: 5. As I explained earlier, proposals and ideas should not be described as stupid because this also reflects on the proposer. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined.
 * Rating: 5. This expression is a colloquial way of saying that someone has mental issues, which is almost always a personal attack. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * Rating: 5. As I explained earlier, proposals and ideas should not be described as idiotic because this also reflects on the proposer and supporters. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * Rating: 5. Not only does the word "retarded" reflect upon the proposer as well as the proposal, but it is also very offensive due to the association with mental retardation. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
 * Rating: 5. Direct personal attack and name-calling. Obviously unacceptable. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This proposal is crap.
 * Rating: 2. Though profane, "crap" is used as a more emphatic alternative to "bad" or "poor" here. It does not reflect poorly on the proposer, so is not usually uncivil. Does depend slightly on context, though. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * Rating: 1. A valid opinion. I would be reluctant to call this uncivil for fear of restraining genuine discussion of the proposal. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been.
 * Rating: 1. This is a meta-comment on the discussion rather than on the topic of the discussion, so is technically off-topic. This has no effect on the civility of the remark, though. The use of profanity is clearly emphatic and not directed towards anyone. Though gratuitous, it is not uncivil. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.
 * Rating: 5. Describing an editor as "shitty" is a clear personal attack. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * Rating: 5. This is another obvious attack against an editor. Such comments are never justified. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * Rating: 4. Either telling someone to shut up or that no one is listening would be uncivil in isolation, let alone when used together. However, I think such a remark would be justified on a user's own talk page. Users should be permitted to tell other users not to post on their talk page (within reasonable limits). – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just shut up already.
 * Rating: 4. Slightly more uncivil than the previous comment, but I still think this could be justified on a user talk page, though this is a borderline case. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * Rating: 4. This reads as a crude response to an accusation of sock puppetry by another user. I regard accusations of sock puppetry outside of the forums intended for its investigation as uncivil. Telling another editor to shut up is uncivil. It would be better to tell the editor to stop making accusations of sock puppetry rather than telling them to shut up altogether. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * Rating: 5. Unacceptable for the instruction to shut up, and the clear implication that the target of the comment is stupid. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * Rating: 4. An admin's previous actions have no bearing on discussion of a recent block; the block should be discussed in isolation. The comment would be acceptable in a discussion of the administrator's conduct (e.g. at the administrators' noticeboard), however. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped if this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * Rating: 5. The "if" implies the commenter has not investigated whether "this" really is representative of the admin's abilities. Hence, the statement is merely incivility impugning the administrator's abilities. If the commenter had looked into the situation and found this sentiment to be true, they should replace the word "if" with "as". Such a comment should still be confined to discussions of the administrator's conduct, and should not be in discussions of any particular block. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule Nazi.
 * Rating: 5. This is a clear personal attack and name-calling ("Nazi" is particularly nasty). Also, discussion of an admin's general conduct should not be present in discussion of a particular block. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure their admin cronies will just censor me like they do anyone who points out the hypocrisy of all WP admins, but this was a terrible block.
 * Rating: 2. I would assume good faith on this one to avoid restraining legitimate discussion of the block. Though the sweeping generalisation against all admins seems uncivil, the commenter could genuinely believe that hypocrisy is unavoidable when performing administrative duties. Depends slightly on context. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was OK to issue a block like this?
 * Rating: 5. The implication that the blocking admin doesn't have a brain is clear personal abuse. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible trolling
General response to this section: Calling someone a troll should be absolutely unacceptable, as it is vague name-calling. In many cases, calling someone a troll is an unjustified assumption of bad faith. The term "disruptive editor" is more appropriate where genuine disruption is occurring.

The term "troll" sometimes describes someone who asks questions to get an emotional reaction rather than to seek a genuine answer. Since it is often hard to determine intent, Wikipedians should assume good faith and respond to the questions in a neutral manner (avoiding any emotional reaction a troll might be seeking), or simply ignore the question if they are unable to assume good faith (i.e. deny recognition). – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * Rating: 5. See rationale at the top of this section. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * Rating: 5. See rationale at the top of this section. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * Rating: 5. See rationale at the top of this section. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * Rating: 5. See rationale at the top of this section. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * Rating: 5. See rationale at the top of this section. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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 a conversation with the edit summary "removed off topic trolling".
 * Rating: 5. See my comments in the previous section. Would be acceptable as "removed off topic discussion". – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with or RPA
 * Rating: 1. Good way to redact unacceptable comment, so long as not used disruptively. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using hat or other such formatting.
 * Rating: 1. A good compromise between ignoring unacceptable comments and removing them, which can reduce disruption by editors who revert to restore their comments. If only part of the discussion is unacceptable, only that part of the discussion should be collapsed, of course. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with "redacted twattery, don't post here again", with the posting user's signature still attached.
 * Rating: 5. Unless it is clear that the redaction was by someone else, this is unacceptable interference with a talk page comment, since it then appears the removal was by the user whose comment was removed. "Twattery" is unacceptable as it implies the original commenter is a twat, which is extreme incivility. "Don't post here again" is only acceptable on a user's own talk page or where an existing sanction disallows a user from posting. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg.
 * Rating: 4. This is only borderline incivility, since the target of the troll accusation is not clear without looking at the page history. However, I think this would be disruptive to discussion, though perhaps acceptable on a user's own talk page. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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 and/or nationalist motivations. One user has said "You only believe that because you were educated in the Foobarian school system that filled your head with their lies." To this the other user replies "That is exactly what I would expect from someone who lives in Kerzbleckistan. Everyone knows that Foobaritol has always been part of our great empire. Only Kerzblecki fat heads believe it isn't."


 * Response:
 * An uninvolved editor should post on the talk page to tell both users that the current discussion will get them nowhere. Rather than arguing about what they each "know" to be true, they should be discussing what is verifiable. Towards that end, they should look at how reliable sources refer to the article's topic.
 * Assuming good faith, the editors will want to find an end to the dispute rather than continue the exchange of insults, so should react favourably to this suggestion. If they continue to exchange insults while examining reliable sources, a slightly stronger reminder of Wikipedia's civility policies might be in order: The insults serve no useful purpose, and only make everyone unhappier.
 * If a user stumbling across this dispute does not feel confident to assist themselves, they could instead drop a note to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard, so other editors can assist. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 01:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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, but are just doing their job by enforcing the edit warring policy. The blocked user removes the admin's actual comments, but leaves their signature attached to the phrase "asshattery removed". Several of the blocked user's 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:
 * This incivility is an abuse of talk page privileges, so the user's ability to edit their talk page should be removed, with an explanatory note to say why talk page access was removed. The "asshattery removed" comments and the admin's signature next to them should be replaced with a more civil message along the lines of "comment by (admin) removed by (user)".
 * To avoid accusations that the blocking admin is censoring someone who criticises them, the admin should not take these actions themselves. Instead, they should ask at the administrator's noticeboard for an uninvolved administrator to look into the situation. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 22:13, 30 November 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:
 * Per my response to Weighing incivility and contributions above, their good contributions should not be considered when determining sanctions. Since this is the fifteenth occurrence, I assume the user has already been adequately warned that their behaviour is unacceptable, and multiple previous attempts to improve their behaviour have failed (e.g. using an RFC on user conduct).
 * Assuming the block is a long-term one (at least one month), this is the right outcome. Ideally, the community would have agreed a policy that allows such obvious incivility to be immediately blockable if it continues after multiple warnings. Hence, the blocking admin would be implementing this policy.
 * Should the community not have agreed such a policy, discussion at WP:ANI or the administrators' noticeboard is necessary before performing such a block. Such discussion should be open for 24 hours (per existing policy) to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. In this case, since the block occurred after just 3 hours of discussion, it is premature.
 * A premature block should not be immediately reversed. If the ANI discussion has been closed, it should be reopened and the discussion allowed to continue for a further 21 hours. If there is a consensus that some other sanction would be more appropriate, the block should be reversed, otherwise it should be allowed to stand. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 22:17, 30 November 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 says "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:
 * Though user A's response is very close to incivility, I do not think it crosses that line. This is a valid request for user B to stop editing user A's talk page; users should be permitted to tell other users not to post on their talk page (within reasonable limits).
 * Editors may choose to avoid interaction with other users or on specific topics, and other editors should respect this. User B pursues the matter after user A has asked them to stop, however. This behaviour could be construed as harassment.
 * Initially, I would recommend doing nothing. I would hope that user B takes note of user A's emphatic request and realises that user A will not respond to their queries about the dispute.
 * Even if user A's response was unacceptable, it seems possible user B could have been baiting A, in which case there is no harm to user B (see my answer on Context above). Since few others probably saw the comment, there has been little harm to the encyclopaedia, so no action should be necessary.
 * Should user B post again, the incident should be raised at WP:AN/I. An administrator or other uninvolved user should then warn user B that their behaviour is unacceptable. If user B persists, administrators should respond with escalating blocks for harassment, starting at 24 hours. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 22:00, 30 November 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 regularly 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 appears that the user intends to continue this behaviour despite being warned (at WP:ANI) that it is unacceptable. Hence, a block with the "block email" option is appropriate to prevent further abuse of the Wikipedia email system. Since the user is clearly able to maintain civility on-wiki, a short-term preventative block could be appropriate here, with longer term blocks being considered if uncivil use of email continues.
 * There is nothing that Wikipedia administrators can do about the off-wiki incivility. However, off-wiki comments made by the user could cast doubt on the good faith of their on-wiki contributions. The community should discuss whether they are happy for this user to remain a part of the Wikipedia community. The community may choose to extend the block or completely ban the user. The view I would advance in such a community discussion would depend on the exact nature of the off-wiki comments. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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 to resolve these issues and restore order. In their wisdom they select you as that person.


 * Response:
 * I suspect that allowing one person free reign to edit the civility policy would just lead to more arguments and edit warring over the policy, with editors refusing to follow it because it does not properly represent consensus, etc.
 * In an attempt to reduce some of these problems, I would consult with the wider community for an extended period before making any changes. I would read previous discussions about civility to determine the views that have the greatest support. These would guide my changes. Where consensus is unclear or seems contradictory, I would start tightly focused discussions examining each unclear point in a structured manner. I would guide participants in these discussions by indicating which comments I find useful and why, to try to keep the discussions on-topic. Where no consensus can be reached, I would have to rely on my own judgement to determine the best action to take.
 * I have not conducted such an in-depth analysis of civility on Wikipedia, so the ideas below are purely my own.
 * Firstly, I would introduce a multi-level warning system for civility, which would allow any editor to leave incivility warnings on user talk pages. For severe incivility, editors could choose to skip some levels of warning.
 * The criterion for issuing such warnings would be a loose one: The editor leaving the warning must reasonably believe that the user being warned deserves the warning. I don't want Wikipedians to get into disputes about whether a warning was justified. If a user receiving a warning is not being uncivil, they should just ignore the warning as being inapplicable to them.
 * I would also draw up a list of things that are never acceptable on Wikipedia, or that are only acceptable within tightly defined circumstances. (Examples I have rated as '5' in this questionnaire would go on such a list, along with any others I identify or the community suggests.)
 * When incivility issues are raised at the administrators' noticeboard or WP:AN/I, what should happen next depends on a number of factors. If incivility on the "never" list has occurred after a "final warning", any administrator should be able to issue an immediate block of at least a month, or longer if the user has already been blocked for earlier offences. Where the user's alleged incivility is not on the "never" list, but has continued after warnings, community consensus after discussion of at least 24 hours should be required before a block or other sanction.
 * Where an account's contributions consist almost entirely of uncivil comments and other disruptive behaviour, administrators should be permitted to block that account without warning. In all other cases where the user has not been warned, the only response should be to issue an appropriate warning.
 * Any block under the above proposals should be reversed if there is a consensus that some other sanction should be used. Administrators should also be permitted to reverse immediate blocks where the blocked user gives a believable promise to improve their civility as part of an unblock request. Administrators should only reverse blocks based on community consensus if there is a subsequent consensus to reverse the block.
 * Blocks against IP address users should follow the advice at Blocking IP addresses. Blocks of IP addresses should typically be shorter than blocks on registered accounts. – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 23:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Reply:
 * I think I've covered everything I want to say on the topic of civility enforcement. I apologise about the length of the page (it's probably somewhere in the top three longest responses). If you've read this far, I hope you found my views useful. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them on the |talk page. Thanks for reading! – PartTimeGnome (talk&#160;&#124; contribs) 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)