User:SoWhy/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: Such remarks should be avoided on Wikipedia because "smiling and raising a glass" does not work in a virtual collaboration environment. It is acceptable though if the user knows that the addressee will understand the lighthearted manner, for example because they always communicate like that.

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


 * Reply: No. It's what you do with those words that might or might not be considered uncivil. A simple "Fuck, I forgot..." is perfectly acceptable.

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 don't necessarily see all caps as yelling (for example I use it to emphasize words when other formatting options are not available such as in the edit summary) but writing everything in caps is annoying because it simply makes things hard to read. I'm not for setting strict rules but comments that are clearly formatted to annoy only (and not for intonation or emphasis) should not be allowed.

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: Not administrators because they are janitors, not moderators. In any discussion where admins are involved, they are so as users, so it's the job of the community to maintain civility. Admins should only step in if they have to use their tools to prevent further problems, such as blocking users who are determined to break the rules and where other options do not exist. ArbCom is good for judging conduct later but they are not elected to monitor discussions. If Wikipedians want a group of people to monitor civility in discussions, this group needs to be created first or the task has to be formally added to an existing group's rights.

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: It always depends on the situation. Blocking and any kinds of bans can be appropriate if other, less invasive, options to stop severe incivility are not available. The blocking and banning policies apply to CIVIL just like they do to all other situations.

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


 * Reply: Yes. If everyone else is uncivil and not sanctioned, the individual shouldn't be sanctioned either for example.

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


 * Reply: There's no way to answer this question in general. Rule of thumb for me would be: If it is severe enough to disrupt the discourse in a way that will have consequences - editors retiring, flame-wars starting, etc. - then it merits sanction.

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: Depends if the instances are connected. An uncivil argument between two editors is most likely one offense, a pattern of one user being uncivil to multiple users separately means most likely several offenses. No user should be excused for incivility, no matter how civil they normally are. What good is it to the project if someone is civil 99% of the time when the 1% of the time he isn't he manages to scare away other editors or new users? Or, in real-life terms: If someone who is honest most of the time steals something, they are prosecuted just the same as someone who steals for a living. They might get different sentences for their crimes but their crimes are not excused.

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: No. You don't earn the right to be a dick by making good contributions.

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 should always give a specific reason for blocking someone - not necessarily in the blocking summary but at least on the talk page of the user in question. Such drama is mostly the result of a) a block not being warranted or b) the community giving someone preferential treatment because of their status, contributions etc. Changing the block summary to NPA, HARASS etc. will probably not stop those users from crying out.

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: Blocks are a way to stop users from disrupting in the future, so they might have to be applied without delay. Instead, such blocks for incivility should be reviewed on AN/I afterwards, with the community being able to decide to reverse the block if it was against the rules.

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. It might be a good idea before banning them but blocks are something that should be used to prevent further disruption that cannot be prevented by discussion. Regards  So Why  17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship
Requests for adminship (RFA) is a place where an editor requests the additional tools and responsibilities of adminship. In the discussion concerning the specific request, each commenting editor is to convey whether (and why) they would (or would not) trust the requester with those tools and responsibilities. Due to this, typically the requester's actions, behaviour, and contributions are noted, evaluated, and sometimes discussed.

Due to the nature of RFA (a question of trusting an individual), should it be considered necessary for the standards concerning personal attacks be somewhat relaxed at RFA? What, if any, should be the limits to this? How personal is "too personal" at an RFA? What types of criticisms cross the line between being considered merely an evaluation of a candidate and being considered an unwarranted attack? Should comments considered to cross that line be left alone, stricken, moved to the talk page, or simply removed altogether?


 * Reply: Personal attacks are never justified. One can evaluate an individual without having to attack them. Saying "you have no experience" or "I do not think your judgment is correct because..." are not personal attacks but simply valid criticism of the candidate's edits. On the other hand, "you are stupid because you think..." would be an attack and not okay. I do understand though that RFA is a special case because candidates will face such attacks as admins and thus have to be able to live with them; doesn't mean !voters should attack them though. As for what to do with those attacks, it depends on the attack in question. It should probably be removed or moved to the talk page if it's no longer connected to the candidate's request.

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: None of them seem personal attacks but neither are they valid arguments. Such comments are useless to a discussion but their existence can be tolerated because they are about the idea and/or the reaction of the user, not themselves (except for #3 maybe - in that case the editor should be reminded not to make such accusations).

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: 3


 * 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: 4 - unless explained


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating: 3 - generally 5 but there might be usernames that actually demonstrate this


 * You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.
 * rating: 1


 * 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:4


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating: 1 - but not a valid argument


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating: 4-5


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


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating: 1-2 (since it only judges the proposal)


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


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating: 1-2


 * This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
 * rating: 1-2


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: 1-2


 * 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: 3


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 2


 * File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
 * rating: 3


 * Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
 * rating: 3-4

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating: 1-2 (depends if there is any further proof presented)


 * The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
 * rating: 1-2


 * The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.
 * rating: 5


 * I'm sure their admin cronies will just censor me like they do to anyone who points out the hypocrisy of all WP admins, but this was a terrible block.
 * rating: 3


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating: 4-5 (3 if the block was objectively incorrect)

Possible trolling

 * Your comments look more like trolling to me.
 * rating: 3


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 4-5


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 4-5


 * Go troll somewhere else.
 * rating: 3


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

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


 * Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg
 * rating: 3

Enforcement scenarios
The general idea that Wikipedians should try to treat each other with a minimum of dignity and respect is widely accepted. Where we seem to have a serious problem is the enforcement or lack thereof of this ideal. This section will submit various scenarios and ask to you to suggest what an appropriate response would be. Possible options include:
 * ignoring it
 * warning the users involved
 * WP:RFC, WP:ANI, or other community discussions,
 * blocking, either indefinitely or for a set period of time
 * topic or interaction banning
 * Any other response you feel would be appropriate

Please bear in mind that what is being asked for is not what you believe would happen but what you believe should happen.

Scenario 1
Two users are in a dispute regarding the name of a particular article on a geographic region. The debate is long and convoluted, and the motivations of the two users unclear to those unfamiliar with the topic. They have not used any form of dispute resolution to resolve the content dispute. They have not edit warred in the article but the discussion on the talk page has gotten extremely long and seems to be devolving into the users accusing one another of having ethnic/nationalist motivations. One users has said "You only believe that because you were educated in the Fubarian school system which filled your head with their lies." To which the other user replies "That is exactly what I would expect from someone who live in Kerzbleckistan. Everyone knows that Fubaritol has always been part of our great empire. Only Kerzblecki  fat heads believe it isn't. "


 * Response: Warn them to stop attacking the other user personally and threaten to block them if they continue to do so, then request outside input from an associated WikiProject or, if none exists, one of the appropriate noticeboards. Advice them to use Dispute Resolution since they both should be aware by now that their discussion will not resolve the problem.

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: The blocking admin should request an uninvolved admin at AN/I to review it, possibly requesting that they restore the comments or remove them completely. If the blocked user continued this behavior against the uninvolved admin, the blocked user should be reblocked with talk-page access removed. If the other users continue their tirades, their behavior can and should be discussed at AN/I or another noticeboard.

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: No user - no matter how good their contributions - should be allowed a free pass at being a dick. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant because their behavior will scare away other editors who might also be good contributors but simply be wrong on a single issue. The block is warranted if they clearly didn't stop but if it's really a repeating problem, a WP:RFC/U discussion should be initiated or - if that already failed once - the matter be brought to the attention of ArbCom.

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: Ignore for now and wait for B's response. If they continue to post, remind them that another user has the right to remove comments from their talk page if they want and that it's therefore pointless to post them. If they ignore this as well, their behavior might have to be considered harassment and dealt with accordingly.

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: Ignore it. I believe that off-wiki discussions are irrelevant to this platform because the rules Wikipedia has created can only apply to Wikipedia itself and noone should be restricted in their off-wiki activity because of our rules. If they follow the rules here, then their conduct is okay. Since the Wikipedia email system merely serves to deliver emails without revealing the addressee's email, it should be treated just as if the email was sent normally. Of course just because off-wiki conduct should not be sanctioned it doesn't mean that other users won't take it into account when judging this user's judgment. To give a real-world example: If one travels to a country where certain drugs are legal and consumes them there, their home country cannot prosecute them for this usage, even when the same usage at home was illegal. On the other hand, a prospective employer who found out about that might choose not to hire this person because of it but it's their choice to do so.

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 decline because I don't think I'm sufficiently neutral to make the necessary changes. Also, I don't believe that any single user should make decisions instead of the community, so I'd recommend to either select a body of users to do so or to hand the task to an existing body like ArbCom.

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