User talk:Sarah777/CERFC

Unsolicited comments
This is hitting one of my bugbears and this is a great read. You've put a lot of thought into this. I understand the thinking gone into this, but I'd probably come at it in a slightly different way. I believe that in a large community environment, civility must be a high standard. But equally the discussion must be taken in context. Occasional swear words and exclamations are part and parcel of how many people communicate. But when the discussion moves to more personal insults, that is unacceptable. In the written form, it can often be interpreted as racist, etc. That can't be ignored or brushed under the carpet. Anyway, I believe we disagree with reactions to incivility - I believe it needs to be better policed and enforced with better guidelines, so I salute your attempt to start a discussion. --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at 3.1, admins may have a personal POV, but that doesn't/shouldn't infringe on civility issues - unless you're implying that an admin will censor an editor on civility grounds but has an ulterior motive.
 * 3.2, I believe that blocking is an appropriate reaction. In my opinion a big part of the problem is that it is difficult to draw a bright line between what is acceptable and what is not.  Sometimes editors get blocked and it is deemed harsh.  Other times, people get away with blue murder and insults for months and is deemed practically untouchable.  If the policy document made it crystal clear what is considered unacceptable and blockable, it would help.  Everyone would know where they stand.  Also for 3.2, it's a double standard to argue for allowing incivility in some shape or form, but then saying an admin must make a "polite" request to tone it down.  Far better if admins kept away until such time they could simply warn that the discussion was veering into blockable territory with a template.