User:Jayron32/CERFC
General questions[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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:
- People know the context of their comments. There are people on Wikipedia with whom I am collegial, there are people whom I don't know, and there are people whom I do not get along with. It wouldn't be the position for a third party to decide if such a statement was between friends or enemies, but we should honor people who say they are offended by such a statement. A blanket ban on such statement should not be made, but on the flipside, people who consistently make such statements in the context of an adversarial relationship can be part of a case of habitual, harmful, incivility. It isn't only what is said, it is in what context it is said, which makes something incivil or not. --Jayron32 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Profanity[edit]
Should all profanity (such as the use of "bad words", "four letter words", "the Seven dirty words", etc.), be considered incivility?
All caps/wiki markup[edit]
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:
Enforcement and sanctions[edit]
Responsibility for enforcement[edit]
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 is the responsibility of the Community at large. The only responsibility of other parties is to enact the decisions of the community. Admins don't bear special responsibility in creating policy or making decisions, just in enacting community decisions. The community should decide what needs to be blocked, admins merely flip the switch. ArbCom's role is in dealing with specific cases (not making broad policy) which the community is deadlocked over or cannot decide for themselves. --Jayron32 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Appropriate sanctions[edit]
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:
- Each case needs to be considered in isolation and fully explored on its own, and not held to universal standards. Some incivil users should probably be blocked, some conflicts require interaction bans, topic bans, etc. some require no response from the community at all. Perhaps some behaviors need bright lines (threats of violence, over-the-top "fighting words" (the N-word, etc.) etc.) but these are few and far between. Instead, the community should have some general guidelines (escalating sanctions, for example) but we don't need a mandated set of sanctions. Too much variability. --Jayron32 19:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Context[edit]
Should the context of the situation be taken into account when considering whether to apply sanctions to the individual due to incivility?
- Reply:
- Yes. The context is the primary thing which should be taken into account. Context is the single most important factor when making sense of how the situation should be dealt with. Calling someone a "dumb fuck" in the context of a friendship where both parties "josh" each other in this way is very different from calling someone a "dumb fuck" in the context of a heated conflict. --Jayron32 19:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Severity[edit]
How severe should a single incident of incivility need to be to merit some sort of sanction?
- Reply:
Instances of incivility[edit]
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:
- Everyone is incivil from time to time. The problem is not occasional incivility, or isolated cases of such. The problem is with editors who use hostility as a standard means of communication, who consistently create an environment of hostility in all cases where they disagree with someone or are in conflict over an issue. --Jayron32 19:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Weighing incivility and contributions[edit]
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:
- The quality of contributions can be taken into account on deciding the type of sanctions, but not when deciding between sanctioning an editor and doing nothing at all. If an editor is capable of making good content contributions, but consistently creates a hostile environment in certain environments, then we can ban them from those environments and let them work on article text. At some point, however, even quality contributions won't be missed in the case of editors who ignore other sanctions, or refuse to reform. --Jayron32 19:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Outcry[edit]
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:
- Except for "bright line" behaviors, admins shouldn't block unilaterally. It is that simple. The community should be allowed to request a block/ban, and admins can enact it based on consensus, for all behaviors which don't meet the "bright line", but still merit blocking. --Jayron32 19:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
AN/I prerequisite[edit]
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:
RFC prerequisite[edit]
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:
- Suggested or encouraged, yes. Required, no. Having multiple layers of bureaucracy mandated encourages gaming of the system. Some cases would benefit from RFC, or mediation, or other things. Others, maybe not. Some discussion should occur always, but the venue and type and tenor of those discussions will be mandated only by the particulars of each situation. --Jayron32 19:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal Attacks[edit]
Requests for adminship[edit]
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:
- No. A collection of diffs and a civil rationale for opposing is never a personal attack, however when editors personalize their attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, it should not be allowed. RFA is no different. People should learn to differentiate between legitimate, neutrally worded, concerns and personal attacks. The former are fine, always, the latter are fine, never. --Jayron32 19:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Attacking an idea[edit]
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:
Rate examples[edit]
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[edit]
- 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: 5
- 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: 2
- 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: 2
- Whoever proposed this should have their head examined
- rating: 4
- I don't know how anyone could support such an idiotic proposal.
- rating: 2
- This proposal is retarded.
- rating: 2
- The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.
- rating: 5
- This proposal is crap.
- rating: 2
- This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.
- rating 2
- What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been
- rating: 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: 2
- Just shut up already.
- rating: 3
- File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.
- rating: 4
- Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.
- rating: 5
admin actions[edit]
- The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.
- rating: 1
- The blocking admin needs to be desysopped of this is representative of their decision making abilities.
- rating 1
- 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 1
- How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?
- rating: 4
possible trolling[edit]
- 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[edit]
(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 <redacted> or {{RPA}}
- rating 3
- Entire discussion closed and/or collapsed using {{hat}} or other such formatting
- rating: 1
- 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[edit]
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[edit]
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: 1) Protect page in question, and direct users to use WP:DRN or other DR process (mediation, etc.). 2) If one or both users refuse to do so, start discussion at WP:ANI to ask for input on sanctions for continued disruption
Scenario 2[edit]
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[edit]
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
- Blocks should not be enacted unilaterally. If a user needs a block, start a discussion with the topic sentence "User X needs to be blocked because" and lay out rationales and diffs. The proper way to have handled this was through an escalating series of interaction and topic bans, restricting the user from their "trigger" type discussions and keeping them focused on content contributions. That should have happened long before the poorly enacted block by the admin at the end of the above scenario. --Jayron32 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Scenario 4[edit]
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[edit]
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
- Off-wiki communications should only be relevant when it directly affects either content or conflicts on-wiki. Users recruiting others to cause on-Wiki disruption, for example, would be clearly relevant to any on-wiki sanctions. Merely acting like an asshole off-wiki shouldn't be sanctionable on-wiki. In the above scenario, the email may be a bit over the line, as it was sent via the Wikipedia mail system, and so should be considered to be "on wiki" for the purpose of the discussion, but at the point noted above in the scneario, I would merely remind the user that the "email this user" link is "part" of Wikipedia, and they should remain civil when emailing users using that link. Otherwise, no sanction. --Jayron32 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Scenario 6[edit]
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
- Fuck that. --Jayron32 19:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let me elaborate 1) The community is not at that stage of crisis. The small subset of that community that frequents the Drama Boards always thinks it is at that moment of crisis. It isn't. There's thousands of great articles being written, improved, and maintained by people who wouldn't create a problem and wouldn't be involved in the isolated, self-sustaining community that maintains the Drama Boards for its own purposes. 2) If it were, I ain't that person. If the community thought I was that person, it's more fucked than any of us thought. --Jayron32 19:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck that. --Jayron32 19:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
Please use this section for any additional comments, observations, recommendations, etc.