User:Art LaPella/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:

No, that isn't incivility. Any kind of policing, in Wikipedia or in the real world, can seldom be reduced to a formula. The location matters. The previous formality or profanity on the talk page matters. What matters more is whether the insulted person objects, and whether the insulter backs off accordingly.

Profanity

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

Reply:

F---, no; had I spelled out that f word, it would be an example of civil profanity, because it wasn't intended to irritate anyone. Well, it would be intended to irritate anyone offended by profanity in general; I could write several paragraphs about the morality of swearing, but the short answer is that WP:NOTCENSORED is a consensus.

However, the most noticeable profanity on Wikipedia is incivility. Profanity can be used as an uncivil insult ("you asshole", "f--- you"), to emphasize an uncivil insult ("f---ing idiot"), or to change a relatively civil request into an uncivil demand ("Stay the hell off my talk page!") "Why did you even get involved?" might be a constructive question, and it might be the best way to phrase it. "Why the hell did you even get involved?" has the same objective meaning, but the mild swear word isn't serving any purpose except to discourage analysis and encourage a hormone-driven response. "Why the f--- ..." has a similar effect, but stronger. Encouraging hormones can be a good thing when leading a sports team or a justifiable military attack, but writing an encyclopedia requires more analysis than most everyday tasks do. So although one is often told that swear words are necessary to get the offender's attention, it would be unusual for that kind of attention to be a good thing on Wikipedia. More civil methods of getting attention to a point you think someone is ignoring include italics, rephrased repetition, and words like "seriously".

So when uncivil Wikipedians are glorified as champions of free expression, that is a nonsense excuse. It's theoretically possible to swear without offending anyone except profanity opponents, but in practice swearing on Wikipedia is used to be uncivil.

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 avoid most of those things on the Internet, largely because I have heard of that "established convention", just as I would try to respect the established convention for left hands if I went to the Middle East. But calling attention to things like capital letters is as likely to be looking for trouble than trying to prevent it.

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:

Who is responsible for spelling? Some specialize in those areas, but anyone can do what they can when they see an obvious problem. Something like "Aw come on, be nice" is the most efficient way to deal with most routine problems, without even mentioning anything related to blocking or reporting. But nobody can be made to do anything; we're volunteers.

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:

Any of the above. What's the alternative, saying "naughty naughty"? Objections to incivility often solve the problem, and maybe warnings do too, but what happens if the offender's response to anything you say is "F--- you"? I suppose the politically correct answer would be that you didn't wax eloquently enough about the wonders of friendliness, joy, and bunnies, with allusions to Gandhi and Martin Luther King. But if the offender is still giving you the same answer, you're part of the problem, not the solution. Is the alternative another warning? Wikipedia is already awash with last, final, ultimate, we-really-mean-it, last, last warnings, and one more warning just encourages them to laugh us off.

We are often told that blocking never solves incivility because the blocked offender comes back angrier than ever. If that were true, we would have had to give up on civility and shut down Wikipedia a long time ago. Actually, if you check people's block records, you will find blocks in the records of many Wikipedians who are productive and clearly undeserving of a block today, so their behavior must have improved. Some people's behavior never improves; does that mean we let them drive everyone else out? No, we give them some number of chances, and then block them indefinitely.

Those who claim to be against blocking for incivility often reserve that opinion for their uncivil allies. Enemies are routinely accused of incivility for minor or imagined slights, and if they are administrators, they can sometimes actually get them banned. So removing the civility policy or its meaningful enforcement wouldn't remove the need for civility, and it wouldn't stop people from being banned for incivility; we would just call incivility something else. What would change is that enforcement would be even more irrational than it is already, resulting in a Reign of Terror where nobody knows who is getting banned next.

Context

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

Reply:

Obviously. If the context is ignored, then does that mean only the text of the final insult can be considered? How would that work? I suppose it could be standardized with a handbook prescribing a two-hour block for "moron", three hours for "bastard", and two days for "kike". Of course that wouldn't work; realistic policing would require considering a long list of factors, from how often he said it to whether it might just be a misunderstanding.

Perhaps what you had in mind, as WP:CIVL puts it, is: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." That is exaggerated. Our banhammers aren't love sonnets. If we're going to control civility at all, we will need to do some things uncivil editors won't like. And if it's OK to block them, it's OK to tell them they are misbehaving. And they can consider that an attack. Of course, uncivil editors routinely use that argument as an excuse to justify any incivility, and uncivil editors' defenders routinely rise in unison to insist he was "baited". There's no way to reduce civility to a formula.

Severity

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

Reply:

Disclaimer: I have never given anyone such a sanction, unless you count simple requests to be nicer.

I interpret "a single incident" to mean that no previous civility warnings have been given. Only the most serious incivility, like this one, should get an immediate block with no previous warnings for an experienced editor. For a new editor, only an even worse incivility (if physical threats are still considered incivility) should get a block without warning. Art LaPella (talk) 02:02, 10 December 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:

The first question strikes me as strictly semantic. That is, you could call it one offense, or you could call it several, and I would understand you either way. Using singular or plural grammar shouldn't affect the question of what sanction is appropriate. I once compared civility percentages by dividing uncivil edits by total talk page edits, but that was never intended to be more than a rule of thumb.

An editor who is uncivil "most of the time" would be very unusual, and if it happened, he would be banned immediately, or at least before his hundredth edit. Allowing people to be uncivil 49% of the time would be much more often than what we do now. As for just how often, once again I don't think we can reduce civility to a formula.

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:

Oh, it should have some "bearing". But if you make it too obvious, then a new Wikipedian will perceive injustice when other Wikipedians are allowed to say things that he would be sanctioned for.

In the case I'm most familiar with where this argument was used, at least the number of contributions was another nonsense excuse. The high activity level provided far more opportunities for both good contributions and bad incivility, than anyone would be likely to take the time to list. Stated algebraically, if GOOD>0 and BAD<0 and GOOD+BAD<0 (that is, the editor is a net negative influence on Wikipedia), then n(GOOD+BAD)<0, no matter how large n is.

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:

That "outcry" has the potential to make Wikipedia unlivable for editors, and thus destroy it in the long run. The outcry includes many otherwise respectable editors, and it might be a majority.

Changing the reason from "incivility" to "personal attacks" and "harassment" is unlikely to change anything. The same drama would continue, with a mere substitution of vocabulary. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand what is driving the outcry. It certainly isn't because we call it incivility instead of personal attacks and harassment. When the most flagrant incivility is deliberately ignored, tinkering with the definition won't solve anything.

The outcry denies the most flagrant incivility (or whatever name for it you prefer), while imputing incivility to their opponents for the most imaginary slights. They make completely unsupportable excuses for their favorite, many of which are listed on this questionnaire. So nothing they say can be taken at face value. Getting to the root of the problem requires determining why they will so zealously guard someone who is so completely and obviously disrupting Wikipedia, and you can't get an honest answer by just asking them.

Unfortunately, if I discussed the real underlying problem too plainly, I would risk getting (figuratively speaking) burned at the stake for sexist heresy.

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:

You probably were thinking of blocking experienced editors for incivility. My guess is that there are enough new and obviously uncivil editors being blocked, that we wouldn't have time to give all of them such a formal hearing. Perhaps someone could find a way to provide statistics that would support or refute my guess.

If we need more "due process" to block someone, then we should need at least the same amount of due process to unblock someone. How else do we have a chance against Wikipedia:Unblockables? Maybe their fan club can dominate WP:AN/I also, but at least it would take more than one unblocker.

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:

This is similar to the previous question, so similar comments apply. I would think at least an RfC should be encouraged before blocking an ordinary experienced user. But if we're talking about the unblockables, that's just another excuse; they've been discussed to death anyway.

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:

Disclaimer: RfA is another part of Wikipedia I avoid. As you've learned by now, I'm not very compatible with your politics.

So I'll just answer the first question: Yes, the standards should be somewhat relaxed at RfA. As WP:NPA puts it: "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack."

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:

"That idea is stupid" is preferable to "You are stupid", but we probably overemphasize that distinction to the point of Wikilawyering. In the case of "stupid" or "idiotic", I can't think of a good time to use either word at all on a talk page (with trivial exceptions like quotations or titles). If someone is literally idiotic, they would be unable to edit a Wikipedia talk page, therefore we have no idiots. We have drama queens, megalomaniacs and other assorted sinners, but not idiots. And an idiotic idea would almost certainly have to come from an idiot, so we don't need to say that either. If "that is wrong" isn't strong enough, it would be easy to add civil intensifiers like "that is completely wrong".

"<username>'s stupid ideas" is a more serious insult, and comes closer to "<username> is stupid".

Any of the top three comments sound much worse than the bottom three.

"You don't understand" may be helpful, but consider the alternative of just re-explaining. If you have already re-explained repeatedly, then "you don't understand" might be the best way to express the problem.

"You aren't listening" and "You don't care about the idea" could be considered accusations of bad faith, so you had better be right, and be conservative about it even if you are right.

Ask a Wikilawyer which of these should be defined as "personal attack" or "incivility". A more useful question is whether to block over something like that. I suppose frequent use of the top three should be blockable after several warnings.

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

- - - - The problem with the scale is that the word "acceptable" needs an operational definition. Does "not acceptable" mean "block", "warn", "discourage", "block after n warnings", "I silently wish you wouldn't", "block permanently", or what?

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:3

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

rating:5 (even that essay says "So if WP:COMPETENCE applies to an editor, it is usually not appropriate to tell them so." Why not "You don't understand"?)

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

rating:2

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

rating:1

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:3

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

rating:5

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:2

This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.

rating:1

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: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

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:2

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

rating:2

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:3

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

rating:5

Possible trolling

- - - - Calling someone a troll is a kind of accusation of bad faith, so the main question is whether good evidence has been presented.

Your comments look more like trolling to me.

rating:2

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

rating:2

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

rating:2

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:2

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:2

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

rating:2

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:4

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

rating:3

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:

If we don't have the time to get down to the facts, all we can do is judge the quotes provided. All of them might be true except the words "fat heads", which can only mean that the other editor is a fat head, and that insult is intensified by associating it with his ethnicity. Once again, we can be sure no fat heads are able to edit Wikipedia, so we should warn him for that. Other than that, there isn't much to do except provide a link to dispute resolution. Art LaPella (talk) 05:45, 10 December 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

I would report it to ANI and duck. I don't have anything more helpful to say about it. Art LaPella (talk) 05:47, 10 December 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

Well, was there overwhelming consensus after three hours? In the case you're probably thinking of, no there wasn't, but there's more to the story. Anyway, the user should have been blocked a long time ago, so there isn't anything to do at this point. Art LaPella (talk) 06:08, 10 December 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

To me, WP:NOBAN doesn't clearly answer the question of how much right an unwelcome user has to post on another user's talk page, although the rest of the page states that removing unwelcome comments is OK. I would give a sterner warning to User A than to User B, although both of them are pushing it, because User A could have found a much nicer way to say that he believes User B shouldn't be allowed to post where he isn't welcome. It doesn't say how many warnings or blocks each user has gotten in the past; of course too many unenforced warnings amount to crying wolf. Art LaPella (talk) 06:31, 10 December 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

I don't know what the policy is, but one would think that off-wiki insults have the same effect as on-wiki insults. So he should get the choice of editing here or editing there. There isn't any hurry, but he should eventually need to choose. Art LaPella (talk) 06:38, 10 December 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

I would refuse. The civility arguments I'm most familiar with involve denying obvious incivility, and making unsupportable excuses for it. It says a hypothetical scenario, but the only way to fill in the blanks is from the current situation you are presumably talking about. One of those unsupportable excuses is that the civility policy is unevenly applied (it unevenly favors their hero, but they mean the opposite), and therefore the civility policy needs to be specified more precisely so that we can more easily tell when it is uneven. Transparent nonsense. No rewriting of the fine print will prevent people from living in a fantasy world. The real problem is described in the "outcry" section of this questionnaire. So helping them rewrite would only help them distract from the real problem. And therefore I would refuse.

That said, we could improve WP:CIVIL if we didn't have unrealistic expectations. For instance, one repetitive argument about any sanction is whether it is "punitive". Of course it is punitive; it couldn't prevent future behavior if it didn't punish past behavior (except in the case of a permanent block, but that is a last resort). What the "punitive" clause is really intended to prevent, is a sanction that won't prevent anything, for instance if the offense happened years ago and the offender doesn't behave that way any more. So keep that thought, but remove the word "punitive" to describe it.

Similarly for "cool-down blocks". What's the difference between a protective block and a cool-down block? If you're blocking me, it's a cool-down block; if I'm blocking you it's a protective block. That's about it. It's true that blocks don't cool people down in the short run, but you could say that about any block, and without blocking, everything else we say about civility is noise.

Perhaps WP:CIVIL should also emphasize that incivility accusations shouldn't be taken very seriously, unless someone who hasn't taken sides on the underlying issue agrees that it is uncivil.

Comments

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

I have never had a real life job where it took years to remove someone who was so completely uncooperative, so it doesn't have to happen here. And even after rebels are supposedly banned, it takes them seconds to re-register a sock account, which they can use for weeks (remember, Wikipedia:CheckUser is not for fishing! ) before they need another one. Any reason why CheckUser isn't automatic for anyone in the same location as a banned user, or at least a known puppeteer, or am I missing something?

But sometimes I think all this unnecessary melodrama explains how Wikipedia grew so fast. It rescues productive Wikipedians from boredom by providing something better than an action movie, because in this movie you can chase the bad guys yourself.