User:Rivertorch/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: Context always matters, and location is a part of context. Whether I'd be offended by the words themselves would depend partly on context and partly on where the explanation preceded by the asshole part fell on the spectrum of ingenious to idiotic. I'd tend to be much more tolerant of something being said in a suboptimal way if that something were insightful. In the example above, quite honestly, I'm more bothered by the lack of proper punctuation than anything else.

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


 * Reply: Perhaps on some other wiki in an alternate universe. Not on this wiki. Not in this universe.

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: There is NO type of formatting that should never be used in a discussion. Persistent SHOUTING or the use of other distracting or hard-to-read formatting anomalies, after one is asked nicely to desist, would constitute incivility, I suppose. It certainly would be disruptive.

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: The community is ultimately responsible for determining the sort of environment we're inhabiting around here. It is the community that unlocks the door to the mop closet, it is the community that elects Arbcom members, it is the community that bays like a pack of hounds at ANI on a frequent basis, and it is the community—composed of lots of individual editors and a handful of cliques—that votes with its feet by feeling comfortable and happy and sticking around to edit or quitting in frustration. We shouldn't underestimate the number of quitters, by the way. For every editor who goes out with a bang and an angry retirement notice, there may well be ten who just quietly stop contributing. (The vast number of inactive sysops may be telling, in that regard; I don't know.) By way of clarifying what I said above, let me put it this way: Wikipedia is self-policing. When enough editors get fed up with something they're uncomfortable with, critical mass is achieved to effect change. It's a messy process that lends itself to inconsistency: we have our scapegoats whose punishments are far too weighty for their crimes, and we have our Teflon editors to whom the most serious repeated charges somehow never quite stick. It's not fair and it's not right, but it's just like any broad cross-section of society in that regard. As a microcosm of modern humanity, the Wikipedia community perpetrates injustices right and left. We can, and should, try to minimize injustice, but we cannot eliminate it.

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: Civility is quite subjective, so it is impossible to make a blanket recommendation in this regard. Blocks and bans can sometimes be an appropriate response, I suppose, but in the cases where they seem most appropriate, there usually is some other undesirable activity besides alleged incivility at play (e.g., personal attacks, edit warring, tendentious editing or arguing, violating core content policies). It's worth noting also that blocks (and bans, for the most part) are supposed to be preventive; they should never be imposed unless the perceived problem is ongoing (or may be reasonably expect to be ongoing).

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


 * Reply: Of couse it should. Anything else would be asinine—a foolish consistency. I dislike incivility and try hard not to practice it, but the day we start having paint-by-numbers enforcement of the civility policy is the day I'll know it's time to post my own retirement notice and part company with the project.

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


 * Reply: How can the level of severity be quantified? (Rhetorical question. It can't.) If we cannot trust ourselves to judge each situation on its own merits, and instead insist on some sort of benchmarks, we might consider the following:
 * Was there a victim? Were someone's feelings hurt?
 * If so, do a sizable number of other editors sympathize or is it a case of "grow a thicker skin"?
 * Was the alleged incivility incidental—a matter of thoughtless wording in a larger context of meaningful, clueful discourse—or did it constitute the core of the message?
 * Does the transgressor show any signs of contrition? Is he or she willing to rephrase or apologize?
 * Was this the first offense? Does it happen often?
 * Did the offended party do anything to provoke the transgressor?
 * In other words, each case presents a unique combination of circumstances and therefore needs to be judged individually. If the project has grown too large to accommodate that, then we have a real problem, but I don't think it has.

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: Again, this is asking for quantification, which is next to impossible if not outright absurd. What are we looking for here—"yes, incivility should be excused if it happens no more than once every 60 days"? These are not questions that lend themselves to meaningful answers.

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: Short answer in three parts:
 * no one should be above the law;
 * however, it is generally counterproductive to issue speeding tickets to volunteers hurrying off to do exceptionally good deeds;
 * therefore, it is necessary to look closely at context to decide whether sanctions are warranted.

To expand on #3 a bit, context means several things here. One of them involves this question: "Is the transgressor apparently a sociopathic monster who delights in hurting others or merely an ill-tempered bastard who couldn't care less about hurting others or just a well-meaning, bumbling misfit with poor social skills and a short temper?" Let's be clear—the third option describes, in varying degrees, more than a few Wikipedians, and some of them are among our most prolific and best article-writers. While no number of FAs and GAs should exempt someone from following the rules, the community is cutting off its nose to spite its face when it takes a mindlessly punitive approach toward sanctioning certain editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz made a perceptive comment recently, noting (I paraphrase) that the "civility pillar" seems to be attracting undue attention at the expense of the other pillars. I think he's right, and I think it's something the community should be concerned about. I also think we should be concerned that for all our (quite proper) efforts to be welcoming to newbies, we sometimes are all too willing to act quite callously towards editors who have been doing good work here for years.

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: Yes and yes.

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: No. Blocks are supposed to be preventive; issuing them as punishments after the fact inevitably leads to dissension. (Note: logically, this question is incompatible with a 'yes' response to the previous question. I've answered it anyway.)

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: No. See my answer to the previous question.

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: There are no easy answers to these questions. If innumerable discussions on RfA reform haven't shown a viable way forward (or, for that matter, even produced a clear consensus about what exactly is wrong with the RfA process), this RfC isn't going to magically do the trick. I'll say this much. Personal attacks (i.e., gratuitous assaults on another contributor's worth as a human being and as a Wikipedian) shouldn't be tolerated anywhere. Candid, evidence-based evaluations (sometimes including highly negative generalizations about a contributor's competence and demeanor) are inevitable at RfAs. As distasteful or even hurtful as such comments can be, the alternative—failing to sound the alarm and handing the tools to someone who will misuse or abuse them—can do a lot more damage in the long run.

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 (in order): Carefully. No. No.

Rate examples
''Note: I don't think this section of the RfC lends itself to constructive answers on my part, so I am skipping it. Actually, it makes me rather annoyed because it takes what I described in an earlier section as a paint-by-numbers approach, which effectively removes context from the equation. The mildest of these examples could be a terrible insult under certain conditions, and the harshest of them could conceivably be justified (if only barely).''

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:


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


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating:


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


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * rating:


 * It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.
 * rating:


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


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


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating


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


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating:


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


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating:


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


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


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


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * rating


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


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating:


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating:


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

admin actions

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


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


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating:


 * 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


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

Possible trolling

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


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


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


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating:


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

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:


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


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


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with "redacted twattery, don't post here again" with posting users signature still attached
 * rating:


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

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: Collapse those last two posts. Warn both editors their conduct is disruptive to talk page decorum and to stop it immediately. Block short-term if behavior continues. Propose interaction and/or topic ban if behavior resumes after block is lifted.

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: Uninvolved admin reverts misleading edit and warns blocked editor not to do it again. Failure to respect that warning leads to revocation of talk page access for duration of block.

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: Trout the admin for making a punitive block while an ANI discussion is underway and adding to the drama. Seek consensus for closing the ANI discussion and opening an RfC/U. Attempt in RfC/U to clue in problem editor to the fact that the community values his contributions but insists that his invective be toned down significantly even when he's dealing with ignoramuses and trolls, because ignoramuses can sometimes learn and trolls can sometimes be reformed and, besides, it's disruptive to the whole community. If the editor agrees, great; hold him to it. If not, or if he agrees but breaks his agreement, it's warnings followed by blocks of increasing duration. If the editor returns from a six-month block utterly unreformed, then it's over to AN to thank the editor for his good work and tell him his continued presence is incompatible with the collaborative nature of the project. Very important to emphasize: calling out another editor for ignorance or stupidity or whatever is sometimes quite proper, but it can be done without resorting to abusiveness.

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: No response is required to this scenario, as far as it goes. While one might wish User A would be more creative in her vocabulary, she has my sympathy. Unless it goes further (e.g., User B posts again or runs off crying to ANI or something), there's nothing further to be done.

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: Profane, shmofane; profanity is a red herring here. WP users shouldn't use WP email to insult other users, but other than that, there's not a lot to be done about the situation. Off-wiki forums are often toxic places that spread their poison into the community, but they're off-wiki and they have different rules. If there's something really serious involved, such as threats or outing or blatant defamation, I suppose we might look at a community ban. Otherwise, all we can do is try to keep such users at arm's length, be civil back to them, and make sure they don't get on-wiki permissions or appointments that their poor behavior off-wiki indicates they're unsuitable for.

Scenario 6
(Please bear in mind that this is a hypothetical scenario, not a description of the current situation)

The Wikipedia community is in a time of crisis. Arguments about civility are leading to more and more disruption and the project seems in danger of losing many long time contributors as a result. In desperation, the community decides to appoint one user to modify WP:CIVIL in any way they see fit in order to resolve these issues and restore order. In their wisdom they select you as that person.


 * Response: I'd say thanks but no thanks.

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


 * Frankly, I didn't like the looks of this questionnaire initially, and I still think it's deeply flawed in that many of its questions make certain presuppositions that they shouldn't, which is likely to skew the results in certain ways. Compelling myself to answer (most of) the questions, however, has proved beneficial in that it has led me to think about civility in new ways and given me some new insights into the project and the community. Among the things it has clarified for me is that my vague suspicions of authoritarianism within the community are resolving themselves into a feeling of deep unease. When it comes to incivility, there's possibility of the solution being much worse than the problem, and I can only hope we don't go down any such road. I'd never really thought about it before, but it occurs to me now that if I plotted a graph, the Wikipedians I respect the least would be pretty much evenly arrayed across the civility–incivility spectrum. While the curve would be rather different for the Wikipedians I respect the most, tending more toward the civility end of the graph, many in that group are less than admirably civil all of the time. Civility is something I support, and its all-too-frequent absence at Wikipedia is something I have, at times, found irritating and sad. Still, my concerns about incivility pale in comparison to my concerns about other problems that have a more direct effect on the quality of our encyclopedia. And there are other user conduct issues that concern me far, far more than incivility per se. The bottom line for me is that we cannot take our enormously diverse body of contributors and all the diverse ways they communicate with each other and try to cram each of them through some sort of predefined template that says what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Each editor is different, each set of circumstances is different, and each problematic interaction—as few as those really are, compared to all the words typed on talk pages every minute of every day—must be addressed individually.