User:ThatPeskyCommoner/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: No, this shouldn't be counted as incivility, really.  Sometimes it's hard for other users to understand the context in which a remark is made between two editors (who may have "known" each other for a long time), and take offence on behalf of the other person.  Taking offence on behalf of someone else is pretty daft.  Comments like this on user talk pages, and project talk pages, are really best ignored.  If someone is (genuinely) uncivil to you on your own talk page, you can ask them to stay away.  If they're (genuinely) uncivil to you on their talk page, you can choose not to go back there again.  But their own personal idiom may be very different from yours, and it's generally best to assume that they probably didn't mean it as badly as you think.

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


 * Reply: No, definitely not. The use of "naughty words" in passing isn't uncivil, though a lot of people might think it coarse or vulgar.  A lot depends on where, how, one was brought up.  In some places, conversation is littered with four-letter words meaning virtually nothing.  It's just normal, kinda.  However, there's a big difference between saying "I think bent coppers are fucking cunts" and saying "You" [or your friend, or whatever named person who is likely to read it] "are a fucking cunt."  Again, though, editors shouldn't take offence on behalf of someone else.  This is very relevant.  Everyone who has an interest in WikiCivility should watch that video.

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: All-caps should be avoided; however it's worth bearing in mind that although most people know that it means "shouting", not everyone does. With regard to other kinds of wikimarkup, I think most are acceptable.  Really huge writing usually isn;t ... but an awful lot is dependent on context.  Flashing and scrolling should be avoided everywhere, in my opinion ;P

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: Each individual editor is responsible not only for their own levels of civility, but also for how they choose to react (or over-react) to perceived incivility from others. Even the most even-tempered of editors can sometimes just have had enough.  That's just human.  My own feeling is that we should make allowances for the fact that some people are just a bit grouchy under certain circumstances, and "just a bit grouchiness" isn't a major problem.  You can always choose to avoid that editor, if the two of you really can't get on.  Little same-level growls shouldn't be added up constantly and be blown up into something which they're not.  Having a little growl from time to time is not the same as all-out personal attacks, and pointing out the obvious (even if the obvious is a harsh truth) isn't the same as genuinely nasty aggression.  Again, nobody should take offence on behalf of someone else and start dragging things kicking and screaming to noticeboards when the individuals involved in the first place either have worked it out already, or are likely to.  Over-reaction is a far bigger problem than little growls.  I'd like to see less over-reaction at the noticeboards, and admins and Arbs being far more ready to say "Look, it's a petty little growl, just ignore it and avoid him/her, don;t turn it into a major pitched battle."

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: Blocking is almost always over-reactive, and causes more problems. Short blocks (very short blocks, say 6 hours) may be appropriate if there's a possibility, for example, that the "offender" was drunk, or overcome by some other real-life issue.  It'll give them time to sober up or get over whatever it was.  Blocking should never happen for a "little growl", and if two people are involved in more than a little growl, blocking one but not the other is unjust.  Sometimes it can be hard to see who really was the worse offender, without looking not only at the immediate context, but also at any pattern of interactions between the two.  If there's consistent incivility which really has caused offence in certain topic areas, then a topic ban might be appropriate.  But it has to be remembered that blocks, topic bans and interaction bans should never be used to silence critics on such things as policy and procedures.  They're more appropriate for content-based topic disputes. "Laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics or to oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech." (Barack Obama) Interaction bans may be appropriate when two editors just can't stop taking pokes at each other, wherever they meet (or behind each other's backs).

Alternative sentencing?
In the Real World, there are alternative sentences to fines, imprisonment, exile, etc. alternative sentencing is one system we maybe could look at. Just as a kinda idea, instead of blocking for incivility which isn't gross, how about imposing "Community service" of having to do 100 constructive article edits (typo-fixing, filling-in bare urls, copy-editing, ref-hunting, etc.) before being "allowed" to edit in other areas? That way, although I can well appreciate that it might still annoy the punished, we'd be steering people in the direction of improving the encyclopedia rather than shutting them up altogether. A beneficial side-effect would be that it would give those who do virtually no content-constructive work some education in what it's like dealing with the sludge at the bottom of the pond. Can we consider "alternative sentencing" of some kind, bearing in mind that civility blocks do little, if anything at all, to improve anyone's outlook, temper, or even actions?

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


 * Reply: Context is of absolutely vital importance. Not just the context of the immediate situation, either; the context of any backstory between the editors involved should be taken into account.  For example, Editor A may have been having little pokes at editor B all over the place; making snide little remarks about them, constantly bringing up their name (or making it totally clear who they're talking about) all over the place in a mildly derogatory manner, or constantly using Editor B as an example of poor behaviour without ever going to the trouble of seeing if they can think of an alternative (or better) example, and then they follow that little war of attrition up by poking their nose into a situation which had nothing whatsoever to do with them and having another dig, and Editor B then chucks a swearword or two at them.  It's wholly wrong for Editor A, who has been subtly escalating the situation for ages, to get off scot-free while Editor B gets sanctioned for incivility. Reminds me of a situation with two dogs I knew of, a Jack Russell and a Rottweiler.  The Jack Russell had, for years, ever since the Rottie was a small pup, been tormenting him, bullying him, nipping at his ears, snarling at him, and generally being a right pain in the arse.  He put up with it for three years.  Very, very patient dog.  And then one day she pushed it just a bit too far, and he turned on her and almost tore her to shreds.  And she deserved it.  (The owner of the two dogs should have stopped her bullying him long beforehand, or just separated them.) Knee-jerk blocks and sanctions that take no account of either current context or previous interaction problems do much, much more harm than good.

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


 * Reply: It should have to be really gross, intentionally hurtful incivility. Not just the odd cussword, or pointing out that a stance or a comment was just plain stupid.

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: That depends very much on context. And it always has to be remembered that one person's incivility is another person's normal idiom.  And the perception of incivility should never be restricted to cusswords.  Calling another editor "immature" or "incapable of controlling himself", or suggesting that he's mentally ill, is just as uncivil as calling them an idiot, or saying that they don't know what they're talking about, or telling them to grow up or grow a pair. A person from one culture might use the phrase "Significantly lacking in insight" about another editor or their comments, when a person from culture B would word it as "Fucking stupid".  And both phrases mean exactly the same thing, and are said with exactly the same level of offence (or lack of it) intended.

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: Quality and number of contributions are very important, just as a measure of "percentage of incivility". If two editors have both had four instances of incivility noted in the past two months, but Editor A has made 5000 edits in that period, and Editor B has made only 1000 (or even less), then Editor B is the worse offender.  Simple numbers of offences are a wholly inadequate measure of an editor's overall level of incivility.  It must always also be remembered that the editor with many thousands of article edits is far more likely to encounter really disruptive editors, total stupidity, civil POV-pushing, and all the rest, much, much more often than the editor who hardly edits articles at all, so will always be on the receiving end of a lot more genuinely disruptive hassle.  It all takes its toll.  The two will be inextricably linked. A driver who does 1,000 miles a year of driving along quiet country lanes is far, far less likely to be involved in an accident than a driver who does 30,000 miles a year in inner-city areas frequented by boy racers.  It doesn't mean that the 1,000 mile a year driver is a better driver. An editor who turns up making snide or judgmental remarks about someone on noticeboards or talk pages once every twelve edits is a far worse editor, civility-wise, than one who responds coarsely to stupidity once every 1,000 edits.

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: Again, a lot depends on context. I can think of a lot of instances of atrociously bad blocks where the outcry was fully justified. This analysis should be required reading. It is hardly surprising when editors get soured by something like this.  It's even worse when the length of someone's block log, the number of total blocks, is then used over and over again as a reason for further blocking, rather than any kind of intelligent look at the quality or appropriateness of blocks.  In order to avoid this kind of trouble, blocks should not be given for civility violations unless they are absolutely gross violations, and unless the same block would be given to any other editor for the same behaviour, regardless of whether the other editor was an Admin, an Arb, or a 'crat.  It's hard to imagine an Arb, for example, being blocked for calling a group of editors "sycophants".  Jeeze, groups of editors get called "fan clubs", "supporters", "enablers", etc., all the time. They all mean the same thing.  They're all equally uncivil.  Even "arse-lickers" means the same thing.  It may be more coarse, but it's no more uncivil. A personal attack, coarsely worded, should be no more harshly penalised than a personal attack euphemistically worded is.  An attack is an attack is an attack, no matter what equal-meaning words it's couched in.  If you were to re-word the "atttack" in a different idiom, would you still see it as an attack?  Calling someone immature is just as uncivil as telling them to grow up.  If we're not going to sanction someone for calling an editor immature, then we shouldn't be sanctioning them for saying "grow up" either.

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 above and right.

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: See above and right.

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: When the conduct, responsibility, and trustworthiness of an editor is being assessed in an RfA, then it would be wholly artificial to force unrealistic constraints on either comments or discussion. Having said that, there should obviously be some constraints. All this stuff has to be considered in the light of the contexts of previous questions and comments, and in the light of personality clashes between individuals (not necessarily between the candidate and a commenter or !voter, but also between non-candidates).  It seems to be a place where commenters feel it's OK to take stabs at each other, and that's kinda non-constructive.  BUT ... apart from the kinds of comments which would get anyone sanctioned, anywhere, no matter what their standing was, then nothing said at RfA should warrant a knee-jerk block or even a knee-jerk warning. It's best to encourage people to strike their own comments, if they went beyond the line, but if they really don;t want to, then pushing the matter is only going to cause more trouble and battling than just leaving it alone would.

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: I don't think any of these are intolerable. And, unless they're considered intolerable from any editor, of any standing, anywhere, then they shouldn't be considered intolerable from any other editor.  The one thing most faulty in our entire approach to civility issues is inequality of enforcement.  No sanctions should be imposed on Editor X for the same kind of comments that Arb Y has made, anywhere. Jimbo makes comments (however obliquely!) on his own talk page which are very similar to #3. See this discussion, where he said that trolling was par for the course for an editor - now that's an accusation that an editor is a habitual troll.  Jimbo conceded the point.  BUT ... if Jimbo never gets sanctioned for stuff like this (and that's only one of many, many examples  he's called editors in good standing "toxic personalities", as well  and I'm darned sure that, if people wanted to, they could locate a lot of stuff in a similar vein) my point is that if Jimbo doesn't get sanctioned for persistent civility violations and name-calling, then nobody else should get hauled over the coals for anything similar.  We need equality of enforcement; otherwise all we have is witch-hunting.

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 (and I've known Jimbo to make this kind of comment, and not be sanctioned for it ...)


 * After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.
 * rating: 4


 * Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons
 * rating: 3


 * 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: 3


 * This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.
 * rating: 3


 * Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
 * rating: 3


 * I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
 * rating: 3


 * This proposal is retarded.
 * rating: 4


 * The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
 * rating: 4


 * This proposal is crap.
 * rating: 3


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


 * What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
 * rating: 3


 * A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.
 * rating: 4


 * The OP is a clueless idiot.
 * rating: 4


 * Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.
 * rating: 3


 * Just shut up already.
 * rating: 3


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


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

admin actions

 * The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
 * rating: 3


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


 * 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: 3


 * How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
 * rating: 3

possible trolling

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


 * Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.
 * rating: 3


 * All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".
 * rating: 3


 * 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: 4


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

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

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

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


 * Response: Warning and advise to take the matter to dispute resolution

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: That's a very hard one.  So much depends on the background.  So I'm going to play Devil's advocate here:

For example, the "edit warring" could be consistently removing NPOV violations, DUE violations, or anything of the kind. Just suppose that the editor was having to defend a serious medical article, which nobody else had an eye on, against a tag-team of two people consistently inserting fringey, totally non-verifiable, third-hand-anecdotal crap? The sort of crap which, if a reader decided to use it in their own medical condition, could seriously compromise their health (or life?) You do get kinda "emergency" situations, sometimes, on articles, where most of the people watching the article are in a different time zone, and asleep, and sometimes WP:IAR can even apply to bright-line 3RR situations, if there's a chance that leaving that misinformation in an article could have real-life consequences for a reader, but isn't technically vandalism, or BLP violation, etc. Sometimes it's necessary to fight tooth and nail to protect the integrity of an article while you're waiting for help in dealing with the situation ... it can happen. It's rare-ish, but it can happen. The blocking admin could be known to be sympathetic to the other editor's (or editors') nationality / viewpoints / be a "friend" of the other editors, or anything else which, on deeper examination, shows that, regardless of technical involvement in the current situation, their history of interactions with either or both other editors shows that they are emotionally involved. If there's been a long low-level backstory of emotional involvement, and the admin has been following the other guy around causing low-level trouble, taking digs here and there, backing up the other editor left, right and centre, then that admin's comments on the blocked editor's talk page may be quite deliberate baiting and asshattery. It could all be designed into provoking the guy protecting the article from civil POV-pushers, etc., into some kind of response where the offending admin could then issue a civility block as well. And it's highly likely that the blocked editor's "friends" (um? sycophants, maybe?) will know far, far more about the backstories and personality clashes and possible ongoing low-level hounding, which may have been quietly smouldering for months, than any new visitor to the page could possibly know. So they may, indeed, have a very good point. And it's always worth remembering that an editor's "friends" may have a very long history of constructive, collaborative, co-operative editing, at a very high level, with the blocked editor, and can see that (as usual) he/she was entirely in the right, given the overall situation. See what I mean? Context is all-important. It's impossible to judge this particular situation without an in-depth knowledge of context and backstory, including any pre-existing personality clashes and factionism. Terribly, terribly important not to come up with a knee-jerk, ill-thought-out response to this one.

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: "Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do'. If it's their fifteenth time at AN/I, then why on Earth has nobody yet suggested mentoring from another editor with excellent content contributions, interested in a broadly similar area, who's shown some ability in defusing situations and mediating? (That's illustrative of a community failure to seek a constructive approach.) If that fails, then RfC/U is the way to go.  "Civility blocks" are basically for emergency situations. I do feel obliged to add, here, that this particular situation would be most unlikely to happen ... it would come under the umbrella of WikiProject Equine, and that's a remarkably level-headed bunch capable of solving some of the most challenging situations with minimal drahmahz.  It's pretty rare to see Equine turning up at AN/I.  Maybe that's because an inordinately high percentage are female?  On the whole, among us, we can train any horse which doesn't need to be shot ...

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: User B probably needs to drop it ... IF the situation has been accurately represented here. But, again, it all rather depends on the backstory and the context, and who is in the right on the backstory, and so on.  A lot depends on a lot.  User A's final edit summary probably warrants no more than a warning, IF (again) the situation has been accurately represented here.  This is one of those situations which would need some real in-depth study before any sensible decision as to how to continue should be made.

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: I don't personally think that off-wiki interactions with, and comments on, other Wikipedians (broadly construed?) should be wholly discounted. After all, we use off-wiki evidence to assess conflicts of interest when it comes to articles.  But, yet again, so much is contextually dependent.  What else is going on in those off-wiki areas?  When it comes to using the Wikipedia email system to send an insulting and profane email, maybe they should be denied access to that system.

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: Y'know, I'd probably recruit a small team with varying viewpoints, but who could put their personal differences aside to achieve the real goal of something consistently workable and fair. But I'd take the opportunity to get rid of it as a "pillar". Stupid idea ... Watch this again.  It's way too open for abuse and gaming as it's currently used.  And I have a distinct feeling that there are an awful lot of people who either haven't read the section I've boxed up above, or who don't realise that that is part of the policy, too.  People using cherry-picked parts of the policy while wholly ignoring other parts, to suit their own blocking / punishment agenda.

The civility policy is NOT intended to be used as a weapon. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive.

Comments
Is this all it really is, sometimes? Y'know, in a working environment here in the UK, the only people you have to be unfailingly sycophantically polite to, never tell them they're an idiot, never use a swearword when you're talking to them, are those who are your acknowledged superiors. When you're talking to someone of equal status, your language is far more down-to-earth. And if someone of equal status to you decided to tell you that you could only address them in the sort of terms you'd use to a company director, the response is likely to be: "Who the fuck do you think you are, telling me I have to lick your boots?"