User:Worm That Turned/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: I can see situations where this would be acceptable, though in the general case it is not. If, as stipulated, this is a conversation between friends and both are aware of the boundaries of the conversation, it would not be an uncivil remark. Therefore, if it is on a user talk page it may not be an issue. I would certainly not take issue with anyone who might make such a comment to me.

  However, outside of user talk pages or to editors who are new to a conversation (i.e. the general case) this is more likely to be uncivil - and would certainly cause difficulties within the collaborative environment. I don't believe I can go further to say the comment would definitely be civil or uncivil, problematic or unproblematic, because there is insufficient context to the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 10:13, 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: No. I personally rarely swear, but I know many who do and don't blink an eye. Profanity does not equal incivility, though they are often found together. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 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: WRITING AN ENTIRE PARAGRAPH IN ALL CAPS IS DISTRACTING, I DON'T THINK MANY PEOPLE READ IT AS YELLING ANY MORE, BUT IT DOES UPSET THE FLOW OF A CONVERSATION IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO YELLING. Now, you see, your eye is drawn to the caps, and for that reason the emphasis should not be over used, nor should any emphasis as it only serves to de-emphasise other people's text. I wouldn't put limits in, I don't see this as a massive issue, but rather one that can be easily picked up and sorted. Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 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: I don't like the idea of "enforcing" civility like it is an objective rule which can be broken. Civility is enormously subjective, based on the context of the conversations and the attitudes of the both parties and the peer group. So, as a community we are ultimately responsible for creating the atmosphere, and as much as administrators and arbitrators try to steer things, the broader community should be the ones who show what they want from civility. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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 is not generally an appropriate response to incivility, though it may be for gross incivility (eg personal attacks). Topic banning and interaction banning might be, if the incivility can be narrowed that specifically. Blocking is also necessary for long term disruption, where other ways of trying to sort incivility have failed (say, discussions on topic, wider discussions with the community etc) Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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: Yes. Of course it should, context is everything. We take context into account for our most objective rules (eg WP:3RR in the context of vandalism), so we should take it into account for our subjective rules where the context is more important. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Severity

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

• Reply: For a block regarding a single incident - if it is an unequivocal personal attack, which is inexcusable in the context. As above, I do not approve of "enforcement by sanction" for incivility Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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 must say this questions are starting to become very leading. I don't think there is anything I can add to this point that I haven't said above, context of the discussion matters, such as provocative comments from both sides. It's not black and white enough to answer this. However, I will say we should not be excusing incivility based on a civil history. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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: As above, I do not believe in general sanctions for incivility, making this rather moot. But as I stated above, the context matters, as would a person's history with the other editor or the subject - but otherwise number of contributions shouldn't matter. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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: Yes, I believe this would be a good solution. I would suggest that Arbcom could still make blocks for civility or an admin could block based on consensus that from something like an RfC. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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: As above, yes, this would be another good solution. As for time frame, I'd like to see a minimum of 24h. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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: I hate the RfC process and do believe it requires an overhaul. That being said, it should be suggested and encouraged, as an intervention prior to blocking. Worm^TT(talk) 10:55, 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: There is a clear difference between personal attacks and criticism. Though criticism can hurt, it is what is meant to happen at RfA. For preference, it is constructive and the candidate can work at it, but even if not it should be explained. No Personal Attacks should not be relaxed at RfA, if there is a clear personal attack, it should be treated in the same manner as any other personal attack. In the RfAs I've followed, few if any involve personal attacks - the worst thing I've seen are comments like "this candidate is untrustworthy" but that is generally followed by diffs showing why. Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 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: Besides the third, none of these come close to a personal attack (without more context, the first couple and last one could certainly be uncivil depending on context). The third implies that the user regularly comes up with stupid ideas and all should be dismissed, that is an adhominem personal attack. Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 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 = Usually not acceptable

• Typical of the foolishness I have come to expect from this user

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

• After looking over your recent edits it is clear that you are incompetent.

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

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

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation

• You seem to have a conflict of interest in that you appear to be interested in a nationalist point of view.

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation

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

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation (but tending towards 4)

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

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

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

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

• Whoever proposed this should have their head examined

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

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

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable (but tending towards 5)

• This proposal is retarded.

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

• The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

• This proposal is crap.

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable (but tending towards 5)

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

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable (but tending towards 5)

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation

• A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

• The OP is a clueless idiot.

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

• Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable (but tending towards 5)

• Just shut up already.

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

• File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation

• Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

admin actions

• The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation

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

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation (tending towards 2)

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

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

• 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: 2 = Usually acceptable (but a poor comment)

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

rating:3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation (tending towards 4)

Possible trolling

• Your comments look more like trolling to me.

rating: 2 = Usually acceptable (but a poor comment)

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

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation (tending towards 4)

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

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

• Go troll somewhere else.

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

• Somebody block this troll so those of us that are here in good faith can continue without them.

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

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 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation (tending towards 4)

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

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation

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

rating: 3 = Acceptability entirely dependent on the context of specific situation

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

rating: 5 = Never acceptable

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

rating: 4 = Usually not acceptable

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: The conversation has clearly gone past its natural limit and there is no point in continuing it. I would discuss this matter on their respective talk pages, pointing out that civility lines had been crossed and that no benefit in carrying on like this, suggesting mediation. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 29 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: Admin should get an uninvolved admin to look at the situation. Generally the "asshattery removed" comment should be removed all together, along with admins signature. Other than that, I'd recommend the blocking admin gets on with other stuff and ignores the blocked user's comments. They may be being uncivil, but the context suggests it's not worth worrying about. Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 29 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: Blocking is not the key here, but instead some sort of intervention such as RfC or consensus at a noticeboard would be the way forward. The problem with one admin blocking on civility is that it is subjective, and though the scenario does appear to be one which would require a block, I find it hard to believe that we would have 15 incidents at ANI with such a clear case. Therefore an RfC or civil discussion on the users page is the way to improve matters, and if they need to be blocked it should be ArbCom that does it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:33, 29 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: A is clearly trying to withdraw from the dispute, and should be allowed to. His comment in the edit summary are excusable, and I would suggest to User B that he needs to leave A alone. If he refuses, it would be B that is looking at the block. Worm^TT(talk) 11:35, 29 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: It may not be helpful, but as long as they are civil on wiki, that's as far as Wikipedia's jurisdiction extends. If the user's conduct extends into off-wiki harassment, then it may be actionable, but otherwise, a request to tone it down off wiki is about all that can happen. Worm^TT(talk) 11:38, 29 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: HA! I would not accept. If the entire community could agree that one person could modify CIVIL, then we would not have a crisis. Worm^TT(talk) 11:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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

Throughout this questionnaire, I felt it was written in a manner encouraging specific answers - as if a decision had already been made. In all, I felt it was a poor questionnaire, and I would take any findings from it with a pinch of salt.  Worm^TT(talk)