User:Awilley/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: It's different online because you can't smile and raise your glass. You can get around this a little with emoticons like :-P or :-) but you still run the very real risk of being misinterpreted. Location does matter. If you're on the talk page of a friend you've known for years it's fine. If you're on an article talkpage in the middle of a content dispute you'll be misinterpreted. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Profanity

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

• Reply: Not by default, but the words should be avoided. You never know who they're going to offend, and my opinion is that the English vocabulary is big enough that you can get by without using them at all. If they are directed at an individual ("You are a _______") then it is a civility breach. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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: SHOUTING is annoying and the person should be asked to stop, but should not be punished in any way. (It generally only hurts their credibility anyway.) Italics, bolding, and green are perfectly fine, as long as the entire comment is not bolded. In fact italics and bolding can be very helpful. (Italics and green are better than bold.) Big Text should not be used in threaded discussions because it messes up the lines, is disruptive, and gives undue weight to the arguments of the writer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement and sanctions

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: A combination. Start with the community. If that fails, move it up a level to admins. If that fails, move it up a level to arbitration. But everybody needs to work on it. You can't just depend on administrators and arbcom. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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 should only be for very extreme and chronic cases. The block length should be proportional to the damage caused by the incivility. In my opinion this means that blocks should not be escalated for repeat offenses. No two week-long blocks for saying a bad word, because that's just ridiculous. An interaction ban might be appropriate for individuals who just can't get along. Topic banning might be appropriate if the incivility is a byproduct of some deeper more serious problem like tendentious POV pushing, but I don't see it as a solution to incivility itself. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Context

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

• Reply: Of course. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Severity

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

• Reply: It had better be pretty darn severe. I can't think of a situation where a single incident would merit sanction. (A talk page warning is plenty of sanction for a single incident.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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: I'd have trouble putting a number on it. If somebody is civil most of the time but flips out occasionally and then apologizes afterward I think we're fine. They should be encouraged to look at the things that make them lose it, recognize the signs of losing control, and then try to disengage when they see those signs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Ouch. Hard question. As much as it bugs me to say it, I think the quality of contributions should count. Editors who are actually building an encyclopedia but have civility problems on article talk pages should be treated differently than editors who think this is Facebook and spend all day stirring up muck on the drama boards. Sorry. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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: There should be specific criteria for blocking individuals for incivility. Repeated personal attacks and harassment are good criteria. If a block is to be made, it should not come as a surprise to anybody. If someone is to be blocked, they need to know where the line is before hand, and must have acknowledged as much. (This might involve an admin saying something along the lines of "the next time you say this specific thing you will be blocked.") If the rules are in place and are agreed upon, the outcry will be less. If an admin is making up rules as they go, well, that's bad. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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: No, it should not be required for all cases. In all cases, though, the discussion should remain open long enough for the individual to respond. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Meh, I don't know. RFC/U's are messy and time consuming. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Requests for adminship

Wikipedia: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: RfA candidates should be able to tolerate higher amounts of incivility and personal attacks because that's what they're going to get if they pass. I wouldn't put it in writing though that we're relaxing the standards for RfA. Comments that really cross the line should be moved to the talk page. This avoids the drama of having one's comments removed by giving the offending editor a place to vent, explain themselves, or rephrase. It also prevents the messiness of striking/revising on the RfA page too. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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 <username of proposer>'s stupid ideas and should be ignored"

"You don't understand/misunderstand"

"You aren't listening"

"You don't care about the idea"

• Reply: 1 and 2 are problematic because "stupid" and "idiotic" usually refer to a person. "That's a bad idea" is better. 3 is completely ad-hominem and is a civility breach. 4 is appropriate. 5 and 6 are borderline but ok. They would be much better with a "don't seem to be" instead of statements of fact. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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: 4

• 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: 5

• Anyone with a username like that is obviously here for the wrong reasons

rating: 4 (there are some pretty bad usernames)

• 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: 4

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

rating: 5

• This is the stupidest proposal I have seen in a very long time.

rating: 4

• Whoever proposed this should have their head examined

rating: 5

• I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.

rating: 5

• This proposal is retarded.

rating: 5

• The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.

rating: 5

• This proposal is crap.

rating: 4

• This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.

rating: 4

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating: 4

• 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: 4

• Just shut up already.

rating: 4

• File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

rating: 3

• 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: 3

• 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: 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: 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: 2

• Stop trolling or I will find an admin to block you.

rating: 4

• All I can say about this user is "obvious troll is obvious".

rating: 4

• 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: 4

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: 4 (I have very strong feelings about this, by the way. I think this happens way to often, and it usually escalates the situation more than anything. Unless the user is already blocked, don't do it. And if somebody reverts your actions, don't revert them. It's so much easier to just ignore it.)

• Comment removed from a conversation and replaced with <redacted> or {{RPA}}

rating: 4 (Same as above. The whole redacting thing is so silly, and if anything it usually draws more attention to the comment than it would have gotten if it were just ignored.)

• Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using {{hat}} or other such formatting

rating: 3 (This can actually be useful if a discussion goes on a tangent. It should still be used sparingly.)

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

rating: 4 (Meh, I don't like it. That's what edit summaries are for.)

• Comment removed from conversation and replaced with File:DoNotFeedTroll.svg

rating: 5 (How on earth is that less disruptive than just ignoring the troll?)

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: Mediate. Gently remind the users involved to focus on the content, not the editor, and remind them of the policies on personal attacks. Don't take sides if you don't understand what's going on...try to get them to compromise. Make sure both give a little. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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 leave and let someone else handle it. The blocked user is probably just venting and their antics probably aren't going to get them unblocked. Some other admin can remove talkpage access if the talkpage is only being used for soapboxing (instead of legitimate unblock requests). ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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: How unfortunate. The user should have been given some sort of warning or ultimatum before a block was levied. They should have known where the line was before they crossed it.

  There are a number of ways that this could be handled and I'm not sure which would be best. The first order of business would be to close the ANI discussion with a pointer to an RfC/U. Depending on the length of the block and whether or not the user makes an unblock request, the unblocking admin would be in a fairly good position to discuss things with the user. They may be able to get the user to acknowledge the problem and take steps toward fixing it. This might also be a place to lay down a few ground rules.

  If it is decided that an RfC/U is in order, the RFC/U should be civil and moderated, and the user should be given their ultimatum there. Something along the lines of "Civility is absolutely essential in a collaborative Wiki environment, and if you can't follow the rules, here are the consequences." Very precise and clear consequences should then be outlined, tailored to the individual user, and agreed upon by the involved parties, using regular Wikipedia guidelines of consensus etc. I could see something along the lines of the user getting a short (non escalating) block for egregious personal attacks. Talkpage access would be removed, and there wouldn't be trips to the drama boards because there is now a consensus discussion to point to when the block is made. The user would either get tired of the repeated blocks and reform, learn to live with blocks, or retire. The outcome would be entirely their choice though, and that is what is important. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Do nothing and see if it dies. If it doesn't, ask User B (on their talk page) to respect A's wishes. Ask User A to be more civil in their comments. It should end there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Wow! Never heard of this happening, but OK. If the emails are abusive, I think the Wikipedia email system can be disabled. I can't see having any other on-Wiki sanctions for off-Wiki actions though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Hmm... the first part doesn't seem all that "hypothetical". For the second part, I don't think I'm familiar enough with WP:CIVIL to unilaterally rewrite it. I'd probably just ask User:Dennis Brown to do it for me :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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