User:Kurtis/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: Wikipedia is probably not the best place to be making such comments in jest. It's not a table at a bar, it's not your friend's kitchen, it's the internet. It is much easier to misinterpret things when you don't have any means of nonverbal communication.

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 is important. This doesn't mean people should be telling others to "fuck off" or that something they've done was "fucking stupid", but that a "no-no word" is not inherently bad just because it is present. Like all words, it's the sentiment behind them that counts. By that same token, even culturally accepted terminology isn't necessarily inoffensive: "you have clearly demonstrated a lack of policy knowledge" can be every bit as patronizing and presumptuous as "here's some advice: before getting involved in something, try reading up on it first, dipshit."

There is an exception to my personal "context rule", though: the term "nigger" should not be condoned in even run-of-the-mill conversations, simply because it is such a vile and dehumanizing racial slur with so much historical context that it is offensive in and of itself.

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: I think using all caps is a bit much, but otherwise no. Adding emphasis to certain parts of text is not in and of itself incivil, but as with anything, it is the context that counts.

See what I did there? I put emphasis on the word "context" by typing it in italics. That is decidedly not uncivil.

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: It is every Wikipedian's responsibility to abide by our behavioural guidelines. If someone does not sufficiently conform to this expectation and their demeanour is actively harming the collegial environment of the project, then it is perhaps best for them to be blocked for a certain period of time (which would depend on the circumstances). Of course, there is hardly anything on this site that has proven more divisive than civility blocks; if a certain editor's contributions are marred by their aggressive tone and the community by a large cannot adequately handle the situation, ArbCom should take the case on and come to a solution that will: a) recognize the scope of the issue; b) maintain an equilibrium between said user's supporters and detracters; and c) limit the amount of drama that would arise from enforcing whatever sanctions are applied. Obviously it's easier said than done for anyone to accomplish such a nuanced approach to a complex situation, but that is why we have a small elected body to resolve disputes.

That said, I'm neither naive nor misinformed. ArbCom has historically been ineffective at handling chronic incivility. But with each failure comes new lessons for future arbitrators, who might one day find a solution that is to everyone's satisfaction.

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 entirely on the circumstances. If someone has no ability whatsoever to collaborate with others and their needless aggression is harmful to the project, then sanctions – up to and including a block – may be warranted. But those should be used as a last resort, and are never a substitute for communication. People need to learn how to speak up about their feelings, and come to a solution on that basis. Talking about things can save everyone so much trouble in the long run, and I think it's a good idea to encourage people who are having disputes about civility to just calm down, discuss the matter, and then come to a resolution. If they are incapable of doing so, then whoever is being uncooperative might need to be prevented from participating in whatever areas they are causing trouble in.

Context

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

• Reply: Since that is basically the central thesis statement of all my aforementioned answers, I guess that would be an affirmative.

Severity

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

• Reply: Outing someone else's personal information, death threats, legal threats, false suicide threats, a faked death (whatever the circumstances may be), threatening to bring about real-world harm to another user (or, worse yet, actually attempting to do so), posting anything that endangers the security of a minor, saying things that degrade or dehumanize an individual or group (discriminatory remarks, referring to someone as a pedophile, etc.) – I think that about covers it. Otherwise, most personal attacks should be dealt with by leaving a note on their talk page and politely asking them to tone it down a bit (all the while avoiding any perceived condescention in doing so).

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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: 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: 3

• 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: 5

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

rating: 4

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating: 3

• 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: 2

• The blocking admin needs to be desysopped if this is representative of their decision making abilities.

rating: 3

• 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: 4

• 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: 4

• 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

• 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: 3

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

rating: 5

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

rating: 4

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: First, it's "Kerzbleck", not "Kerzblecki". ;-)

OK, so basically what we have here are two editors who've shifted the discussion away from the content itself, and are instead speculating on each other's motives. The best way to handle such a situation is to try and get them off that tangent by bringing the conversation back to the original topic. There are a number of ways this can be achieved; my personal favourite is to start a new subheader under that very same section which places emphasis on the third-party consensus regarding the issue. Being able to look at the situation objectively is absolutely crucial to resolving disputes and maintaining neutrality.

Is it possible that someone's edits can actually be informed by a nationalist bias? Of course! Anyone who's been around Eastern European articles knows this all too well. It's entirely possible that the accusations being thrown around could very well have a grain of truth to them. But that's not the point. Such disputes distract from the core discussion and only serve to alienate all involved. It also creates a toxic environment where edits might be perceived within a more ethnocentric context. If getting those two editors to cooperate on the talk page proves to be an impossibility and they have been warned at least a couple times before, then a stricter approach (up to and including a topic ban) may need to be considered; however, this is more of a last resort than an ideal resolution. Other mediums such as 3O or RfC should always be tried first.

On that related note, if this topic is broadly controversial and has had such issues in the past, it may need to be examined by the Arbitration Committee. Discretionary sanctions exist for a reason, which is to prevent such disputes from getting in the way of writing an encyclopedia.

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 so 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: Well first of all, calling someone a "disgrace", referring to their comments as "asshattery", and clamouring for their head on a platter is practically never conducive to a positive end result. The best way for the user in question to handle the situation is to calmly explain their actions (backing it up with links) and politely ask for an unblock with a guarantee that they will not edit war again. Another thing I should mention is my belief that a vested contributor's fan club, as well as their detractors, are generally far more annoying than the user they're discussing.

That said, in a certain context, this scenario is a perfect illustration of my belief that Wikipedia's bureaucracy places a higher value on conduct than it does on content. I'll give an example: let's say a random editor (most people call him "Randy in Boise") with only a few hundred edits to his name inserts a statement into an article. The newly added text is written in perfect grammar and even has an external (albeit bare) link backing it up. The problem is that it makes an assertion deemed nonsensical by the academic community. An active contributor to the article with thousands of edits under his belt proceeds to remove the content with the following edit summary: "Removing sentence - while undoubtedly added in good-faith, this perspective is not widely accepted among academic sources and should not be given such credence within the article". The person who originally added that content immediately hits the undo button with no further explanation given, only to be promptly reverted by the same exact editor who provides an additional edit summary: "Removing again per my previous edit summary". He also notifies them on their talk page with a very civil explanation and provides a direct link to the "due/undue weight" subsection of the neutrality policy. The message received no response, and the editor reverted again (no summary given). This time, the experienced contributor simply hits the undo button and adds nothing more in the way of a rationale. This is followed by one more back-and-forth reversion between them; the conflict is then taken to AN/I by the involved parties (not AN3; very few people would report themselves). An administrator examines the situation closely, determines that each editor has violated the three-revert rule, and blocks them both for 36 hours. From the perspective of most administrators and arbitrators, it doesn't matter who was "right" or "wrong" — what matters is that you follow the rules and behave yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that edit warring is ever a good idea, nor do I believe that rules and good behaviour aren't important. But oftentimes in our attempt to enforce policy, we lose sight of the big picture. It's important to foster a collaborative environment, that much is true; it is also important to make sure we're getting it right.

Scenario 3

Don't pretend like this isn't your reaction when you see yet another one of these threads...

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: Oh, God. Here we go again...

Like many other people, I am of two minds on the matter. On one hand, I highly value the integrity of the encyclopedia. There are editors who have been known to speak their minds in an abrasive manner, ascribe motives to those they disagree with, and are pretty much imposssible to reason with — yet their contributions are second to none in their field of interest. But on the other hand, those types of editors do tend to stoke the flames more than is needed. It is also very off-putting for other prospective contributors to get into a subject when someone is blatantly trying to exert their control over it. Depending on the nature and distribution of their edits, sanctions could help them to keep busy with what they're good at, while steering clear of the areas that have proven problematic for them. However, there are times when the negative aspects of someone's temperament will outweigh any positive contributions they've make. This is a collaborative project; unfortunately, not everyone is capable of collaborating.

Now, as for the block imposed, it would depend entirely on the circumstances. Did it reflect a general consensus established at ANI that their conduct is disruptive enough to warrant a block, or was it a unilateral action based on one administrator's judgment? From my observations, the latter typically results in more drama and will only serve to further divide the community. In any case, three hours is a pretty short amount of time to go from soup to nuts (in the figurative sense), which means it would likely be overturned anyways. Some might call for the administrator's head on a platter, but unless it was only the latest in a longstanding pattern of innapropriate sysop actions, I would be vehemently opposed.

I think that about covers all the bases.

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: Ugh. Word of advice to User B: if someone is being that obstinate, don't bother with them anymore. They're a waste of your time.

That's pretty much all I have to say, actually. There isn't much to go by here (ie. hard to determine who's right and who's wrong), but it does seem clear that User A is not interested in debating the matter any further. If they disengage, they disengage. Meanwhile, other people are joining the discussion. User B should try to gather consensus with them.

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: Well, that's pretty disingenuous. They're basically only acting nice on Wikipedia to avoid sanction, not because they actually value anyone else's feelings. That's not the spirit of WP:CIVIL.

That said, in this case they have done nothing actionable. A block is intended to be preventative, not punitive. If they were engaging in off-wiki harassment, that would be different; a block might help in mitigating their ability to do so. There are also instances where I think an editor's history should be considered in the context of their off-wiki behaviour. If someone makes positive contributions and is very approachable while editing, that doesn't mean they should be exonerated if evidence surfaces that they have outed another contributor, or created an attack site. But personal attacks made off-wiki, while no less offensive, are still irrelevant to our collaborative environment.

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: If that's the case, then the Wikipedia community has always been in a time of crisis. Congratulations, Wikipedia — your future is now in the hands of an absentee landlord! In my judgment, WP:CIVIL is fine. Even if it weren't, I couldn't care less. Now if anyone needs me, I'll be off editing capital punishment in Yemen. Goodbye, so long, and thanks for the fish. =)

...Not a very creative response, is it?

Well, for the most part, there isn't anything wrong with the wording of WP:CIVIL. It's actually very broadly defined and offers up good suggestions for dealing with direct rudeness. The only thing I might do is flesh out the "dealing with incivility" subsection so that it adds particular emphasis on the idea that there may have been a miscommunication on the part of the other editor; oftentimes no offense was intended. But otherwise, I'd probably just leave it as is. Enforcement is something that can only really be adequately handled on a case-by-case basis, not through a standard procedure where the response is always the same regardless of context.

Comments

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