User:Skyring/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: The environment of Wikipedia is very different from the beer party described. Regardless of whether two editors know each other well in real life and might use such language without any offence intended or received, in the wider environment here, where many editors are either part of a discussion or observing it, it is incivility. However, on a user talk page, it may be appropriate. It would be up to the owner of the talk page to decide whether they are offended or not.

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


 * Reply: Not necessarily. It is not just the language used, which may be viewed differently according to culture, so much as the attitude employed. However, profanity is certainly a factor to be considered in evaluating an exchange. I would be more inclined to consider a comment as incivility if such words were used. A wise editor would rephrase their comment to avoid even the appearance of incivility. An editor of any experience would know that such words would be very likely to offend some readers.

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: ''I think most editors can make up their own minds about how they react to formatting. I personally see overly "loud" formatting as detracting from the message - "My argument is too weak to stand up without yells and shouts and flashy effects." Humph. I would not support a ban on such things, however."

Responsibility for enforcement
Who is responsible for maintaining a civil environment for collegiate discussion? Should it be it the responsibility of administrators, the arbitration committee, the broader Wikipedia community, or some combination of these?


 * Reply:I think it is up to the general community to at least highlight cases, through the traditional use of gentle warnings and templates and references to policies. Persistent or offensive examples should be brought to a forum of some kind, where more eyes (and especially uninvolved eyes) can look over the matter. Admins (of course) should act upon consensus or obvious infractions.

Appropriate sanctions
What sanctions, if any, do you think are appropriate for incivility? Should blocking be considered an appropriate response to incivility? Should topic banning or interaction banning be considered an appropriate response?


 * Reply:I think that the importance of a cooling-off period is high. The offensive behaviour ceases, there is time for reflection, the chance of re-offending is reduced. A short block - one or two hours - would achieve this and would be unlikely to be appealed. It would not necessarily be seen as anything more than a "Time Out!" call. However, repeated TO blocks would lead to longer restrictions, and yes, if an editor cannot participate in a particular area without disruption, then topic or interaction bans should be imposed.

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


 * Reply: The context is critical. An editor might be under stress, or goaded into incivility, or just conversing informally with a friend. Use of "rude words" may be a one-time thing, later regretted and apologised for. It may be that multiple editors in a situation are incivil and the atmosphere is heated. Editors should be given every chance to explain their actions to aid in understanding what has occurred.

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


 * Reply: A single instance, i.e. not part of a continuing habitual pattern, would have to be extremely and deliberately incivil to merit sanction. It would be something that couldn't possibly be sugar-coated or explained away; the gross incivility would be apparent to anybody reading the words.

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: To my mind, it would depend on the timing and frequency. A discussion over a period of several days gives an editor a chance to pause and reflect, hopefully to recognise their poor behaviour and resolve not to continue. A heated discussion - the sort where back and forth responses generate frequent edit conflicts - allows little time for sober thought. It is just one instance. If there is a chance for reflection between instances of incivility, it is a pattern. Excusing incivility is a slippery slope. I wish there was the "bright line" of 3RR for guidance, but if we excuse the occasional deliberate outburst, an editor can game the system and make a free attack, knowing they will be excused in deference to their seniority or whatever.

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: Look. It's a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Enforce it, just as we enforce 3RR without regard for edit counts.

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: Admins are only human and will have differing standards. One admin may have a hair-trigger response, another a more lenient approach. What concerns me here are two things - the potential for "wheel-warring" admin conflict, which helps nobody, and the opportunity to game the system by having pals approach a more lenient admin to overturn the block. However, a block should have a reasonably high bar to be used as a sanction. If all you do is say "fuck" loudly to nobody in particular, perhaps in response to yet another instance of Colbert-inspired elephants, then a block is inappropriate, and if imposed should rightly be lifted. What about a mechanism where an incivility block automatically goes to a community discussion page, complete with robot-generated past instances, and a consensus can be gauged? Get the thing off AN/I (or wherever) and into its own specific environment where all parties can wrangle and bluster and if there is consensus for lifting or retaining the block it will soon emerge.

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:See my preceding answer. I think an admin should be able to make a decision on whether to block or no. What should require consensus is a decision to overturn the block.

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: An RFC/U may be appropriate for long-term sanctions, but an admin should not be required to go through a long and cumbersome process to bring ongoing disruption to a halt by blocking the offender(s).

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: I don't follow RFA, but certainly it is a process that demands some scrutiny of the editor and their ability to interact with others. Highlighting past poor behaviour on the part of an admin candidate is certainly pertinent. The tone and nature of any personal comments should be civil. If the clear intention is to wound, or to unfairly derail objective discussion, then the comments are out of line. At the very least, diffs should be used to support adverse comment.

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:Many ideas - or arguments or beliefs - are stupid or wrong or fringe. The notion of a flat earth is a textbook example. However, some beliefs are often strongly held, despite their patent impossibility, and even a well-intentioned attack on such a sacred cow or article of faith can well cause offence. Miscommunication is sometimes the cause of misunderstanding and confusion and unintended insult. I would draw a distinction between attacking the person, and attacking an argument or position, and if there is a crossover such as in example three above, then at least a warning would be justified. I am reminded of court proceedings where opposing lawyers will do their best to shoot down each other's arguments, and then go off together when the day's work is done to have a drink together, their friendship undiminished. We should be able to criticise points made in discussion without them being taken as personal attacks.

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: 1


 * Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user
 * rating: 4


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating: 3 (the opinion should be justified with an explanation of why specific posts are in error.(


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating: 4


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 2


 * It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 2


 * You are clearly here to support your nationalist point of view, Wikipedia would be better off without you.
 * rating: 4


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating: 2


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating: 4


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * rating: 4


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating: 4


 * The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
 * rating: 5


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating: 3 (it may well be crap. An explanation should accompany the assessment.)


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating: 4


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: 5


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


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


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


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 5


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: 2


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * rating: 5

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating: 2


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


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating: 4


 * I'm sure their admin cronies will just censor me like they do to anyone who points out the hypocrisy of all WP admins, but this was a terrible block.
 * rating: 4


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating: 4

possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating: 4


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 5


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 5


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: 5


 * Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.
 * rating: 5

removal of comments
(Assume all removals were done by a single user and are not part of a suppression action for privacy, libel, etc)
 * Comment removed from conversation with edit summary "removed off topic trolling"
 * rating: 5


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with or RPA
 * rating: 3


 * Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using hat or other such formatting
 * rating: 3


 * Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with "redacted twattery, don't post here again" with posting users signature still attached
 * rating: 5


 * Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg
 * rating: 4

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: Well, they are not wasting anyone's time other then their own, so that's OK. They are, however, filling up a talkpage with opinions rather than sources, and as we use sources to back up our articles, then this sort of thing is unproductive. A warning is appropriate.

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: User talkpages are usually moderately free-fire zones, but I think that the repeated disrespect to an admin deserves some action. A wise admin - there may be one or two left - would steer clear and ask another to look at the situation. A warning has been issued, next step is to block the user from his talkpage for 24 hours. He can sleep on it and reflect.

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: Entirely justified. We can always find another expert. But if we tolerate bad behaviour for one, then we must tolerate it for all, otherwise we are sliding down that slippery slope. A wise man (as opposed to well-informed) will play by the rules, and if we allow an exception, then he will continue his poor behaviour, because that's how the rules actually play. Enough block to allow a pause and reflection, and a warning that the next block will be longer.

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: It's not sparkling behaviour, but there's a bit of goading happening, and usertalkpages are places where you can spit on the floor and call the cat a bastard, especially if it's your floor and your cat. Ignore bad behaviour.

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: There's a certain amount of dishonesty happening in this case, and clearly they are gaming the system by operating within the rules when they don't really mean it. Rather like driving at the posted speed when you know it's perfectly safe to go a lot faster. You are governed by the possibility of punishment, rather than from any interior force. But we play by the rules as they are laid down, and if there is no technical infraction, then we are enforcing some sort of unwritten rule, and that is a slippery slide. No sanction.

Scenario 6
The Wikipedia community is in a time of crisis. Arguments about civility are leading to more and more disruption and the project seems in danger of losing many long time contributors as a result. In desperation, the community decides to appoint one user to modify WP:CIVIL in any way they see fit in order to resolve these issues and restore order. In their wisdom they select you as that person.


 * Response: Jimbo could not do this with authority. What lesser mortal could? We operate by consensus, and I would open up discussion to all, then use that discussion as a basis for decision on specific points. My own feeling is that we should enforce civility more than we do, and we should have admins lead by example. I am a great believer in getting more eyes on a problem, and of allowing time for reflection. Hand out 24-hour blocks and make them difficult to overturn and the problem will sort itself out.

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

My sincere thanks to those who set this up, worked over the wording, and will collate the answers. This is a difficult and largely thankless task, and I would like to express my gratitude.