User:TParis/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: In the case presented above, it assumes that there is a previous friendly interaction and a level of mutual respect between two beer-sharing friends.  In that case, it is acceptable behavior.  However, in a dispute between two people without prior interaction or when prior interaction has been poor and full of disrespect, then no it is not acceptable.  As Wikipedians, we know who our 'friends' and 'enemies' are.  There are folks each of us has managed to piss off.  Using that language with those folks is never acceptable.  The location doesn't matter either.

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


 * Reply: No, context matters.

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: Perhaps once per paragraph or once per major idea or point?  There is a difference between emphasizing a point and emphasizing every word to belittle others.  The intention behind one is to make an idea stand out because the idea has more importance than the rest of your ideas.  The others purpose is to show a sign of force and intentional disrespect.

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: It's the responsibility of each Wikipedian to enforce their own civility.  Each Wikipedian is responsible for their own behavior.  That means that they alone are responsible for the consequences of that behavior.  Provocation, POV pushing, ect should be dealt with before a Wikipedian explodes and should manage stress levels by taking breaks during high stress points.  When a Wikipedian is unable to make mature and adult decisions on what is acceptable behavior in a society, it then becomes the responsibility of those listen above to reeducate, restrict, or remove that individual for the health of the society.  Wikipedians should be expected to know the difference between settings which are appropriate and inappropriate for different behaviors as I said above concerning a group of friends.

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 depends on the situation.  I never subscribed to the "draconian solutions are never a solution" nonsense.  For one thing, I don't think all incivility is a "small infraction."  I think incivility can be a big issue deserving of a big response.  Let's be honest: people don't like being banned, blocked, or otherwise punished.  That's just basic fucking common sense.  It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.  So it stands to reason that folks who are punished do not believe the punishment is effective.  "I dont care if I get grounded, I'm going to keep smoking." ect.  Fact is, who cares?  If you block them, they arn't causing trouble and we can all get on with our lives.  So it's not effective to them, it's effective to us.  That's what matters.

It's complete bullocks and is full of stupid liberal cry baby nonsense to suggest that spanking your kids doesn't work. Respect is taught. It's something that you teach by punishing for disrespect. There are people in this world who never got that lesson and they'll whine all day long that respect is earned. What they don't get is they haven't earned any, but they expect the rest of us to earn theirs.

Blocks, topic bans, warnings, interaction bans, hatting: these are all tools. They fall into a range. They should all be appropriately used at the appropriate time. None of them are off limits, but none of them are a VFR direct solution either. Appropriate opportunities should be afforded to change behaviors and improve. It's not the responsibility of society to dumb itself down to the level of misbehaving users in an effort to integrate them. It's their job to elevate themselves to the level of society.

I've heard the argument that we're all adults and we should be able to hear some harsh words. That logic goes two ways. We should be able to express ourselves without resorting to incivility.

However, with all of that in mind, folks arn't expected to be Vulcan's either. Everyone should be afforded an opportunity to take a breath, come back, and try again. What I mean to say is, if someone flips out in an edit and they want to (in good faith and sincerity) apologize or even just remove their comments then it's acceptable. As long as they do come back calm and are ready to either discuss civilly or drop the matter.

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


 * Reply: I can't think of a rational reason why context wouldn't be a consideration.  The only time this would even come up is when someone is asking for an unbalanced solution in their favor in bad faith.

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


 * Reply: Unfortunately, I think intention is more important than severity. Some incivility is sneaky and not obvious on the surface.  It's the intention behind it that is more important.  We can't weigh this though.  However, I think that severity should depend on what the person who wrote it intended.  Did they intend it to gain attention, to sting, hurt, enrage, or belittle the other person?  If it's attention grabbing, it falls to the less severe side.  If it's meant to enrage (provoke) or belittle, then it falls into the more severe category.

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: Small attention grabbing incivility in 3 months should be excused.  Severe belittling or provoking should not be excused, but if it happens once in a blue moon (a year maybe) then it could be given a 'suggestion' (not a warning) to take a break.  The range could be built around that.

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: Yes and no. The actual number doesn't matter.  It should be a matter of if an editor has come to edit Wikipedia in good faith and has been productive or if their entire time spent here has been to cause trouble.  However, even for folks who have been productive, they should not be excused, but rather given a longer rope.  At some point though, the rope needs to run out.  I'd say that when an editor's contributions no longer outweigh the sum of their disruption, then they need to take a break.

Now the controversial part. When disruption centers on a specific individual, whether or not that individual caused it, it is still centered on that individual. For me, that gets included in what I consider the "sum" of their disruption. There is an image, rightly or wrongly, around a person that needs to change. I've dealt with it in my life, I had to change because I came off prickish and arrogant (yes, even more than I appear to now) at the office. It was my image, and my responsibility to change it. Rightly or wrongly, I earned it.

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: No. I'm generalizing here, but there needs to be less "they should be unblocked because they have been nice to me" and more "well, even though he and I have got along in the past, let me take a look into the reasons why he wasn't polite to this other person."  Much 'outcry' is ill-informed.  It's unfortunately that it goes the other direction as well, though.  Folks need to spend more time understanding and thinking rationally instead of standing up for their friends on all sides of any matter.

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: Depends on severity and likelihood it is going to continue in the immediate future, but no. However, once a discuss is started then it should remain for at least 24 hours and acted upon by an uninvolved administrator (someone who is not a friend of the blockee or an emeny of the blocking admin).  The idea that the block can be done unilaterally but not undone unilaterally is unimportant.  If said admin was wrong, grossly so and well out of discretion, then Arbcom can take away the bit or another admin can block them instead.

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:

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:

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:

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:


 * 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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