User:Richwales/CERFC

Note: I answered these questions in November 2012. I basically stand by my comments, except where indicated below. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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)?


 * It's not uncivil if there was no intent to be uncivil, and if everyone involved realized this. However, even in this case, it's still very unwise and needs to be strongly discouraged.  While the intent may have been to be lighthearted and friendly, it's just too easy for language like this to be misunderstood — by the person originally being spoken to, or by others who might join the discussion later, or by outsiders who might happen upon the discussion much later on.  Even on a user talk page, the risk of a misunderstanding is there; it's just not worth the real possibility that "colourful" language might be misinterpreted at some point.  It's far, far better to communicate in a professional way that has the best possible chance of being clearly understood by all.

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


 * Such language should normally be avoided (see my answer to the previous question). Certainly, someone using words or phrases which are widely considered to be coarse or offensive should stop doing so if other participants in a discussion ask them to stop.  There may be a grey area when a given word/phrase is considered OK by one group but offensive by another (e.g., when regional dialect differences are involved) — or when one person insists a given word/phrase is inappropriate even though everyone else is certain it's OK.  But if a given user fully understands that a given manner of speaking is offensive to his audience, but defiantly insists on continuing to use it anyway, that user is (in my view) betraying an uncivil attitude toward others and needs to stop (or be forced to stop) in order to prevent further deterioration of the collaboration process.

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?


 * Emphatic conventions in written text are sometimes necessary in order to convey nuances that would be clearly understood in spoken speech, but which would otherwise be missed in the written form. Any such visual emphasis should be used sparingly; otherwise, it loses its effectiveness (and, such as the case of WRITING LONG STRETCHES OF TEXT IN ALL CAPS, may upset some readers).  In general, I am reluctant to try to deal with this issue through rules against incivility, unless visual emphasis is clearly being used in a specific case to communicate in an offensive manner.

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?


 * Any or all of these may be helpful in handling a civility problem, depending on how far out of hand it has gone and what sorts of efforts have already been tried to fix it. First and foremost, however, each individual Wikipedia participant has a responsibility to promote a collegial, cooperative environment — not only by using appropriate language, but also (and just as importantly) by projecting an attitude of respect of one's peers.  If it becomes clear that someone is treating others with contempt, pushing a fringe POV in defiance of consensus or common sense, etc., that person needs to be forced to stop it so that the project as a whole can function in a wholesome and constructive way — perhaps by topic or interaction bans, or (if those clearly won't work) by a site ban / block.

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?


 * Any or all sanctions are potentially appropriate for incivility. But since sanctions are not supposed to be punitive, the least stringent sanction that is reasonably likely to work should be tried first.  Sanctions for incivility could include, for example, a strong admonishment; an interaction ban (if the problem specifically involves two or another small number of editors); a topic ban (if an editor seems especially hotheaded when one particular topic is involved but might be able to function OK in other areas); or, as a last resort, a blanket site ban / block.  If it becomes clear that an editor is simply not interested in changing his misbehaviour or in listening to what anyone else has to say, it may unfortunately be necessary to escalate to a site ban / block fairly quickly.

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


 * Since sanctions are intended to prevent future harm, and not as punitive measures, the context of a situation is clearly important. If all someone really needs is to be clearly told that a given behaviour is offensive to others or disrespects core principles such as NPOV, a clear statement to this effect (accompanied by a reasonable explanation) may be sufficient.  Even an otherwise very serious faux pas (such as an "outing" violation or an apparent legal threat) may sometimes (e.g., if committed by a new editor) be sufficiently handled by a prompt, to-the-point explanation of why this behaviour is unacceptable here and absolutely must not be repeated ever.  On the other hand, someone who obviously understands the lay of the land and simply doesn't care about the unacceptability of his actions is likely to need firmer measures right from the start.

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


 * It depends on the severity, the degree of disruption (including disruption which is likely to result if the behaviour continues), the evident cluefulness of the offender, and the overall situation. If a given problem can be handled by a timely, to-the-point, and respectful admonition — which some might not even consider to be a true "sanction" — then we shouldn't need to do any more than that.  A particularly blatant, egregious action, on the other hand, might require swift and drastic measures even after only one incident.

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?


 * I'm more concerned about a situation that betrays an uncivil attitude than in counting the number of "naughty words" someone is using. Occasional incivility resulting from a case of extreme frustration that "comes to a head" is to be avoided (and the user should be firmly but gently reminded to avoid this), but I wouldn't consider it as bad as occasional incivility from someone who just decides every once in a while that they're going to be nasty for the sake of it.  Even more of a problem than either of these, in my view, is an editor who is calmly pushing an agenda, and pushing others out of his way, all without uttering a single clearly identifiable cross word.

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?


 * The quality of work produced by an editor with "civility problems" needs to be balanced against the harm (however much it may or may not be) that is, and will be, caused by his coarseness / rudeness / disrespectfulness to others. We should make a sincere effort to help anyone with civility issues improve their behaviour — and all the more so in the case of someone who is making valuable contributions and whose exile from the project would be deeply felt.  But there may still come a point (as described in the Banning policy) where whatever good they may be accomplishing is, unfortunately, outweighed by the harmful disruptiveness which they are causing.

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?


 * Although my first impulse would probably be to say that principle is more important than protests, the fact is that almost everything done here on Wikipedia is in response to, and supported by, community consensus. If there is a clear consensus opposing a sanction, those in charge of enacting the sanction (administrators or ArbCom) should seriously consider whether this may mean the relevant policy is not being implemented properly, or possibly even that the policy needs to be tweaked in order to better accomplish our goals.  As far as I'm aware, the only situations in which policy absolutely does override consensus, and where we are obligated to stand firm no matter how many people might object, are cases involving Office Actions or other directives from the WMF (including, for example, certain portions of the BLP policy) — and even then, we need to be extra careful to be sure we really are basing our actions on WMF-mandated policy (and not on someone's proposed interpretation or implementation thereof).


 * Since defining "incivility" can sometimes be slippery (especially if we want to get away from a simplistic definition involving red check marks for nasty words), I actually do think we might be better off concentrating on the issues underlying incivility, such as harassment, personal attacks, edit warring, and POV pushing. The main reasons, I believe, why people have come to focus on the "bad words" definition of incivility are that (1) use of "bad" language is often an indication of an underlying uncivil attitude, and (2) it's frankly a lot easier to count bad words that to look for an uncivil attitude which may be evident only through a careful study of an editor's overall manner of interaction with others.

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?


 * No. Some cases certainly may call for this sort of discussion and consensus, but I would not want to gum up the works by imposing such a requirement in all cases (many of which are obvious).

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?


 * An RfC/U can be a valuable tool in some cases — especially when an editor's uncivil attitude may not be obvious to casual observers and it's important to establish a record for others to refer to. An RfC/U may also be called for if community consensus is needed for a block or ban that cannot quickly be imposed via arbitration enforcement / discretionary sanctions.


 * For what it may be worth, I had an experience drafting one RfC/U — see here for the nitty-gritty. This RfC/U ended up prematurely closed because the user "went missing" in the middle of the process.


 * Although I think the RfC/U process can often be useful, I also consider it to be cumbersome (based on my own experience, see above), and I would not want to make it a general requirement for all proposed incivility sanctions.

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?


 * I don't exactly see the candour required at RfA to be a question of relaxed tolerance of personal attacks. Even when criticizing someone's history in an RfA, there are still ways to criticize someone politely.  For example, there's a big difference between (for example) pointing out that someone seems to have a poor track record at AfD (in terms of how often his opinion on a given AfD matches the eventual result) on the one hand, and saying something like "this guy has an atrocious track record at AfD — I wonder whether he even bothers to read the articles most of the time" on the other.


 * A comment in an RfA that clearly crosses the line into "personal attack" territory should, in my opinion, be deleted and (generally) replaced with the RPA placeholder template. Excessively or egregiously disruptively uncivil behaviour at RfA should be sanctionable as appropriate, just as it would be sanctionable anywhere else on Wikipedia.

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"


 * "You don't understand" and "you misunderstand" should, in general, be acceptable (especially when followed by a new attempt to explain). The other sample comments should, in my view, be avoided / discouraged with various degrees of ferocity.


 * "You aren't listening" is borderline. "That idea is stupid" and "that is idiotic" may not be obvious, overt attacks, but since it's hard in practice to say someone else's idea is stupid or idiotic without implying that the person himself is stupid or an idiot, they are (at best) dangerously close to being personal attacks and should definitely be avoided.  "You don't care about the idea" is also very unwise in my view, since it can imply that the other person isn't even really trying to be collaborative.


 * "That is yet another one of 's stupid ideas and should be ignored" is obviously, indisputably a personal attack and should absolutely never be tolerated here.

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 (bordering on 5)


 * 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: 5 (if the username is truly and obviously contrary to our policies, report the username at WP:UAA instead of engaging or commenting on the user in a discussion)


 * 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 5


 * 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: 3 / 4


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating: 3


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: 4 / 5 (not because of the vulgar language issue, but because of the implication that other editors' contributions have been worthless)


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


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


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * rating: 4 / 5


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 5


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: 3 / 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: 4 / 5


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating: 4 / 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: 3


 * 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: 2


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 1 / 2


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 1 / 2


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: 5 (trolls shouldn't be trolling anywhere on Wikipedia)


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

removal of comments
(Assume all removals were done by a single user and are not part of a suppression action for privacy, libel, etc)
 * Comment removed from conversation with edit summary "removed off topic trolling"
 * rating: 3


 * 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: 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. "


 * Warn the users about WP:NPA, remind them about WP:NPOV and its emphasis on English-language sources, and advise them to take their dispute to an appropriate forum for resolution (such as, for example, the talk page of a WikiProject relevant to the region involved). If they refuse and continue squabbling, bring it up (being careful not to take sides) at the relevant WikiProject talk page, or raise it at WP:DRN.

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.


 * While someone is blocked, the only legitimate thing they should be doing on their talk page is requesting an unblock (and providing reasons for same). I would tell the blocked user not to post anything further on his talk page except for a properly executed unblock request.  If he refuses and continues abusing his talk page, modify his block to prevent editing of his talk page, and remove everything on his talk page after the block notice and the notice about requesting an unblock.

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.


 * Good block. High expertise and a positive contribution history will not, sadly, give an editor licence to verbally abuse and belittle others.  I would probably comment that the editor should seriously reconsider his ways because good article writing skills do not excuse egregiously insulting and demeaning behaviour toward other editors, and if he continues acting as he has been, he will likely be blocked indefinitely, and Wikipedia will thereby be deprived of whatever constructive contributions he might otherwise have been able to make.

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."


 * Advise B to respect A's stated wishes and stop posting on A's talk page. Block B if he refuses to stop.  A's descent into the world of "colourful metaphors" is unfortunate, but understandable given the circumstances and not worth making a case over.

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.


 * Take no action. As a general rule, we do not sanction users on-wiki for things they do off-wiki.


 * Update: Upon further reflection and further study of our policies, I would answer the above question differently today than I did a year ago.  Gross misbehaviour taking place off-wiki, where it can clearly be attributed to a specific Wikipedia editor, should IMO be eligible for consideration as a basis for sanctioning said editor here on Wikipedia. FWIW, I note that our administrator policy (see WP:ADMINACCT) says that "conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship" may be a valid reason for sanctioning an admin (including desysopping), and that our policy on personal attacks (see WP:NPA) says that personal attacks made off-wiki may "create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions".  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (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 in order to resolve these issues and restore order. In their wisdom they select you as that person.


 * After recovering from the initial shock, I would propose refining WP:CIVIL to emphasize that civility is, first and foremost, a all-encompassing state of mind; that uncivil attitudes are as important as, or even more important than, specific words (though users should still avoid intentionally using language which they know will be perceived as offensive by others); and that so-called "civil POV pushing" is an even worse violation of civility than using "bad language" is.

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