User:Elonka/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: A conversation in a bar is entirely different from a conversation on a Wikipedia page. Verbal communications, by their nature, are temporary, and the audience is generally known. Conversations on a Wikipedia page are permanent, and visible to a much larger audience than might have been originally intended. As for the location on Wikipedia, I'd say a bit more leeway could be given to someone's comments on their own talkpage, since other editors would have to make an effort to actually go to that talkpage to see the comment. This changes though if someone is using incivility on someone else's talkpage, especially when asked to stop. Incivility in Wikipedia space becomes even less desirable, and incivility on an article talkpage would be the worst venue, as that is the most likely to be seen by potential new editors.

Profanity

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

• Reply: Depends on the context. Is it being directed at someone, or just a general rant? If someone says, "I'm tired of this shit," on their own talkpage, it's probably not an issue. If they say it on an article talkpage, then it's a problem.

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: Again, depends on context. If a new editor is typing in all caps because they don't know any better, then they just need education. If, however, an editor 1s d3l1b3r4t3ly sp33k1ng in 133t-sp33k (deliberately speaking in leet-speak) on a talkpage, then that could be regarded as disruptive. I probably wouldn't call it "uncivil", but it could definitely be viewed as disruptive behavior. The goal is for editors to be able to communicate most effectively. This usually means treating each other with courtesy and respect.

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's everyone's responsibility. Editors should be aware of their own language, should speak up if someone is saying something in a way that they regard as offensive, and do their best to educate new members of the community on the expected standards of behavior. Most often, new members will not need to be told how to act, but they absolutely will be observing more experienced members of the community to pick up cues on expected behavior. If an established editor is being uncivil, new members of the community will pick up the message that this is how they should act. Longterm contributors need to be aware of this, and that like it or not, they are rolemodels.

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: Yes to all of the above, if it's a recurring pattern of behavior. The uncivil editor should be cautioned about their behavior, and the consequences should be explained to them. The choice is then theirs -- if they choose to continue with the disruptive behavior, a block or ban may be necessary. To avoid the block or ban, all the editor has to do is moderate their own behavior. Most emotionally mature adults should have no trouble modifying their own behavior as needed.

Context

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

• Reply: Always.

Severity

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

• Reply: It's very rare that someone should be sanctioned immediately on a first offense, without at least a "warning shot across the bow". Plenty of exceptions might exist though, such as comments related to race, gender, religion, threats of legal action, etc., though those might not strictly fall under the category of "incivility".

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: These are two different questions. For the first part, I would weight things by the time between posts. If someone used uncivil language throughout a couple paragraphs, I would probably weight that similarly to uncivil language in a single sentence. Regarding the "civil most of the time" question, I don't see it as a proportion question. If someone is polite 95% of the time, and incredibly rude 5% of the time, the rudeness is just as bad as if someone is 50-50.

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: The incivility should be dealt with regardless of someone's contributions. Rudeness is rudeness, no matter who is saying it. If we would sanction a new editor for certain comments, then an established editor should expect the same, especially because the incivility by an established editor can cause even more damage than incivility by a new editor. Established editors are regarded as rolemodels, and should behave as such.

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: Incivility should not be deprecated. If someone is violating policy and being repeatedly disruptive to the project, they should be removed from the project.

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. ANI is good for many things, but one of its flaws is that the comments in a contentious thread are going to be primarily from the editors involved in a dispute, their friends, and lots of dispute-junkies. It's therefore very difficult to get a good indication of broad community consensus there.

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: No. User Conduct RfCs take enormous amounts of time, and can be useful, but it would be far too bureaucratic a means to approve blocks. Most editors would rather spend time working on articles, than having to spend hours of time in dispute resolution to get a clearly disruptive editor blocked from the project. An RfC could definitely be part of the process, but it shouldn't be required as a hurdle that administrators have to jump over before issuing a block.

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: Yes, the standard for personal attacks is lowered at an RfA. Some comments that might be inappropriate on an article talkpage, would be acceptable in an RfA and other appropriate venues around the project (such as ArbCom statements and evidence, etc.) As for how personal is "too personal", I would say that the comments need to be based on how it might affect the project, and avoid negative personal commentary about someone's hygiene, ancestors, race, religion, etc. Any clearly inappropriate comments should be removed, and the editor warned. In some cases, oversight might be necessary.

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: The first three I would regard as generally unhelpful and probably uncivil depending on context. The latter three, again, depending on context, are probably okay.

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: On Article talk: 4 On user talk: 1

• It is obvious that your purpose here is to promote your nationalist point of view.

rating: Article talk: 3 User talk: 2

• 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: 4

• Whoever proposed this should have their head examined

rating 4

• 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 3

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating: 5

• 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: Article talk: 5 User talk: 3

• Just shut up already.

rating: Article talk: 5 User talk: 3

• File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

rating: 5

• 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: Article talk: 3 All other venues, 1.

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

rating. Article talk: 5. All other venues, 3.

• The blocking admin is well known as an abusive rule nazi.

rating: Article talk: 5. Other venues, 3

• 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: Article talk: 5. Other venues, 3

• How could anyone with a brain in their head think it was ok to issue a block like this?

rating: Article talk: 5. Other venues, 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 <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: Article talk: 5. User talk: 1

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

rating: Article talk: 5. User talk: 1

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: This would depend a bit on whether they were relatively new users who were unaware of our policies, or experienced users that were going off the rails. No matter what, it would be appropriate to post a warning on the article talkpage with reminders about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Advise (or remind) them to comment on content, not the contributors. Check to see if they are even aware of Wikipedia's dispute resolution techniques, and advise them to try something such as requesting a third opinion or starting an RfC. If incivility was a continuing problem, diff the most egregious comments to the relevant user's talkpage, and advise them to improve their behavior. If the behavior continued, warn again. If the behavior still continued, block for a short period of time. If the behavior resumed after the block, block again for a longer period of time. After three blocks in a relatively short period of time (1 week to 1 month), block indefinitely (not permanently), while telling the user that the block will not be lifted until they acknowledge that they understand the reason for the block, and promise to modify their behavior accordingly. If they can't make that promise, don't lift the block.

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: (sigh) Lovely scenario. Delete the "asshattery" comment, warn the user to be civil on their talkpage, or the page will be protected and they won't be allowed to further comment. If the incivility continues, protect the talkpage and advise the user that if they want to appeal the block, they can do so via email.

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: There's nothing here indicating whether the user has ever been formally warned by an admin, so I'm going to assume that they haven't been warned yet. Assuming that the user was continuing to be uncivil on the noticeboard, I agree with the block. If they hadn't been uncivil for hours though, then the block probably wasn't that useful. The user does need to be formally warned by an administrator though. Tell the user that though their content contributions are appreciated and valued, that Wikipedia still has standards of behavior which are expected of contributors. Ideally the user will acknowledge the warning. If not, and they continue with incivility, they should be warned again. If they still refuse to acknowledge and accept the expected standards of behavior, issue a temporary block on the next instance. If the behavior still continues after that, then block indefinitely, and tell the editor that the block will not be lifted until the editor acknowledges that they understand the expected standards, and will do their best to abide by them. Until the user makes that promise, don't lift the block. Note: If the uncivil behavior is focused only on a particular topic area, but the user is civil everywhere else, a topic ban might be used instead of a block.

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: If User A has withdrawn from the conversation on the article talkpage, there's no reason to pursue them on their own talkpage. User B should continue with discussion with the other new uninvolved users, and work on consensus for the article from there. If User A disagrees with the consensus, they must engage on the article talkpage about it. Decisions are made by those that show up.

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: There are different issues here. The most actionable element is that a member of the community was using the Wikipedia email system to send disruptive messages. If that could be proven, then there would be grounds to sanction the user, or at a minimum, restrict their ability to use the WP email system. As for the off-wiki forum, that's not really something that we could or should take action on, at least within the scope of Wikipedia. Sure the user's behavior is tacky, but there's a lot of unpleasant stuff going on around the internet, and it's not our job to police all of it -- our concern is about the actions taken on our project, with our software. That said, there can probably be other repercussions on a user exhibiting this kind of behavior. If they think that if they're being civil on-wiki, that no one is going to pay attention to the off-wiki ranting, they are being foolish. Wikipedia has a highly political system behind-the-scenes, and there would be other, subtler repercussions. Less of a voice in other on-wiki discussions, since there would be less respect for their comments. Attempts at running for admin would probably be more likely to be opposed. The opposers might not say, "I'm opposing because this person is being a twit off-wiki," but they can really oppose for any reason. Obtaining reviewers for GA or FA might also become more difficult, unless of course such reviewers were in agreement with the person's off-wiki statements (or completely unaware of them).
  
  Another aspect to consider would be the kinds of things that were being said in the off-wiki forum. If it was just general ranting, that's one thing. If it was more seriously abusive though, there are other actions that can be taken. The language might be violating the policies of the forum site, that of one of their upstream providers, or might be violating local laws in some way. So there are other ways to handle off-wiki hate speech, that would not involve any kind of specific on-wiki sanctions.

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: The policy is written fine. The problem is with enforcement, and administrators who reverse other administrators' actions without discussion. I might make civility blocks more difficult to reverse, sort of like AE actions. As it is, part of the problem is that uncivil editors who have friend admins know they can get away with most anything because even if they're blocked, it'll be reversed within minutes. In my opinion, those administrators who do repeated kneejerk reversals should be de-sysopped, as they're adding to the problem. The same goes the other way too. If an admin blocks for civility and then a broad community consensus shows that the block was inappropriate, and this extends to multiple inappropriate blocks, that admin should risk losing their administrator access as well. Blocks should only be done in clear cases.

• (addendum) As I'm reading through the variety of replies to this Questionnaire, it is really striking me how differently people would handle different enforcement scenarios. So it might be worth creating a "Best practice" guide for administrators dealing with civility violations, with scenarios such as these and recommendations for the best ways to handle them. Getting some consistency in the process would be very helpful. --Elonka 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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