User:RedSoxFan2434/CERFC

I recommend that the reader read the bottom Comments section first, as that summarizes my main points and are referenced or alluded to throughout my responses.

I know that I may ramble on at times, but I hope you take me seriously, offer me any constructive criticism you may have of my responses or of my "Two-Fives System", and, of course, are generally Civil. Signed, RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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: Yes, of course it is incivility, regardless of the page location. To call someone an "asshole" in THIS environment is not acceptable. Wikipedia isn't a casual home or bar where 2 friends may discuss whatever topic they please. This is an encyclopedia, and working on an encyclopedia must be treated as such.

Profanity

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

• Reply: Yes, except when used as part of a quotation or a discussion about such a word. I cannot imagine any other case where it would not be considered uncivil to use profanity on a Wikipedia discussion. A profane environment is not an effective environment, especially when building an encyclopedia.

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: In my opinion, this is a sort of grey area. Formatting for a word or phrase, or perhaps even a whole sentence, to emphasis a main point should not be prohibited. Bolding is standardly used in various XfD discussions to give one's basic "keep" or "delete" opinion. However, I do not think it is necessary to present an entire comment in bold, italics, all caps, enlarged text, or other formatting code, which attempts to make one's own comment more important and noticeable than anyone else's. However, I would not consider this incivility, and am torn as to whether or not this should be outright prohibited. I would recommend it should be a guideline, but not a policy, that users not present an entire comment in bold, all caps, or other formatting with emphasizes their comment; this would allow for all comments to be considered equally.

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 each user's own responsibility to remain civil. If a user does not, however, each member of the community ought to have the right to report repeated incivility if it meets a standard definition of "incivility" that has been determined by community consensus. Incivility should be reportable to ArbCom, MedCom, and any other anti-incivility agency that the community may set up if there is consensus to do so. Whether ArbCom or MedCom should be used depends whether or not this would be better treated as a mediation case (MedCom) or not (ArbCom). Administrators in general can be another option if neither fits well and the community does not set up a specifically anti-incivility agency, although I believe such an agency should be set up to deal with this.

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: My basic system is outlined at the "Comments" section at the end of this page.

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, as I show in the example-related sections below, taking one sentence of a longer comment out of context is harmful to the process of determining sanctions. The entire context should be considered by the sanctioning party.

Severity

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

• Reply: There is no definite answer to this question. If the "single incident" refers to one discussion in which a user is repeatedly, undisputedly uncivil, then sanctions are probably necessary, although if its incivility is disputable, then a warning will suffice. If a "single incident" is one or two comments, which a user apologizes for in that discussion or to any user the comment is directed toward, then no, sanctions are not necessary. If it is very clear that a user is uncivil, but has only done so in 1 discussion, then we should start with a warning (and perhaps a fish slap if the offender is a veteran user) and a gentle reminder of what Civility is and what incivility is. New users could even get off with a warning on their 2nd incident 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: Multiple instances in one discussion should be treated as one offense if it repeated pushes the same main point. If the user repeatedly pushes one main point in one comment or series of comments and a different main point in others, with incivility throughout, then it becomes multiple offenses. The simplest way for Wikipedia to approach this is to generally consider one discussion's incivility to be one offense, rather than one comment to be one offense. Incivility can be excused if the offender civilly apologizes in that discussion or to any offended user on that user's talk page, although if a discussion contains multiple offenses by one user, they must apologize for each offense. For this reason, a user who attempts to point out incivility to the offender should point out that the offender may have committed multiple offenses. Frequency of Civility can be thrown out, as Civility is an expectation, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of rewarding people for meeting expectations.

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: No. Sockpuppetry is a lesser offense than incivility (as it does not violate a pillar, whereas incivility does), yet content contributions do not excuse sockpuppetry. The same should go for incivility, which is a higher offense. Therefore, incivility offenses are separate concerns from content contributions, unless a user's content contributions are somehow directly related to their incivility.

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: No, although such a clarification ought to be recommended for blocking admins, it need not be required. This required clarification turns the admin into the offender if he/she does not clarify and makes the uncivil offender seem victimized.

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: Yes, and with a minimum time frame of one week, but with some exceptions. If the RFC bot sends out notifications via the Feedback Request Service, then a week gives enough time for consensus to form while also cutting off the user (if necessary) with as much haste as possible. I would prefer a forum for these discussions be set up, separate from the Admins' Noticeboard, or perhaps as a different subpage of the Admins' Noticeboard (such as "AN/Incivility"). However, if faced with obvious incivility from a user who has previously been punished for incivility, then admins may use their authority to instill the necessary block or ban (if utilizing my recommended system, as outlined in the Comments section at the end of the page).

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: It should be required for a user who has never been blocked for incivility before. If Wikipedia uses my recommended system, as outlined in the Comments below, the same would apply for a ban from all discussions. If a user has been blocked or banned from all discussions for incivility before, then an RFC is not necessary unless the incivility or frequency of it is disputable.

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, NPA should be relaxed at RFA, but only to a degree. Since RFA is about trust, NPA should be relaxed somewhat relative to trust. Obviously, personal attacks of no relevance to RFA discussions are still prohibited and punishable as any other incivility. Pseudo-attacks relative to trust and notable to RFA discussions, if backed up well with civilly-spoken evidence, should not be considered incivility. To simply attack a user on RFA with "he's an idiot" without presenting some sort of solid evidence, or to use some more profane attack such as "go to Hell" or "fuck off", is still uncivil and should be treated as such.

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: In general, if a user comments on a user's idea(s), he/she is commenting on the user. The incivility restrictions can be somewhat relaxed when a user is discussing another user's idea(s) rather than the proposer. However, the use of offensive language is never tolerated, nor anything which implies a negative, uncivil opinion of the user rather than the idea. In these cases, there is a more civil way to phrase the offender's opinion. Regarding the individual examples given:

• "That idea is stupid" or "That is idiotic": Not necessary, as a well-framed comment explaining why the idea is stupid/idiotic would leave out this actual sentence. To say this as the entire comment, however, is not constructive and, at least in my opinion, calls the proposer stupid by association, and is therefore uncivil.

• "That is yet another one of Example's stupid ideas and should be ignored": This implies a negative, uncivilly-present opinion of the proposer rather than his/her idea and therefore is uncivil. To say that User:Example has a pattern of stupid ideas definitely implies that User:Example is "stupid", which is uncivil as a personal attack. Also, no ideas presented to the community should be simply ignored, although this is not an issue of Civility or incivility.

• "You don't understand" or "You misunderstand": Here, context is important. The latter is always preferable to the former, especially if the beginning of the sentence, and preceded by the words "I think", thus creating this comment: "I think you misunderstand..." This should never be seen as incivility if presented as such. If the entire comment consists of "You don't understand", then, depending on the larger context of the discussion, this can be seen as uncivil, although even then it would be debatable. Like "That is idiotic", it could be counted as incivility if other instances of incivility are present in that discussion.

• "You aren't listening": This would be uncivil, as it assumes bad faith in another user in the form of a personal attack. Users should assume good faith in their fellow users during discussions, rather than call them out for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it could certainly be a case of disagreement, rather than ignorance. Of course, if a user admits to not listening, the poster of this comment is not the problem and is simply stating a fact.

• "You don't care about the idea": Much like "You aren't listening", this is certainly unwarranted unless the user has admitted to not caring about the idea, in which case this becomes a statement of a fact.

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: 3 - This is determined by whether or not an explanation as to the idea's foolish appearance is given. If not given, this is uncivil. If a suitable, civil explanation is given, it's acceptable, as the editor is giving a legitimate, constructive criticism of the idea, and not insulting the proposer.

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

rating: 5 - This is a direct attack on the user which even addresses the user more than the idea. As shifting the topic of discussion to the proposer, we have easily crossed the line into incivility.

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

rating: 4 - WP:CIR is an Essay, not a Guideline or Policy. Many Essays are contradictory to policies and guidelines, and therefore should not be treated as such. While there is nothing wrong with saying someone makes poor decisions, to claim a user is generally incompetent should not be allowed, and this is made further worse by the presence of assumed credibility. Once again, the discussion has shifted away from the topic of discussion and to the topic of the proposer.

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

rating: 2 or 3 - Again, is the offender offering a legitimate explanation? And, more importantly, what is the username? A username such as WiKKKipedia or SuperVandal69 would certainly stimulate such a response, perhaps without needing explanation. A username giving a clear bias that may create a COI in the topic (e.g. ObamaIsEvil discussing Barack Obama, WallStBanker discussing the Wall Street bailout, ProLifer discussing abortion, etc) would also stimulate such a response. In most cases, if a legitimate explanation is given, then there is no problem with this. However, there could be some cases where this is unwarranted, so context is extremely important here.

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

rating: 1 - Presuming this discussion is taking place on a discussion where nationalism is relevant, than it is fair to say this, as it is very civilly spoken and acceptable to notify a user who may be violating Wikipedia policy.

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

rating: 1 - I would rather see this rewritten as the previous example, but this is acceptable to say as it points out that another user appears to be violating policy. The "It is obvious that..." beginning is slightly uncivil, but this is acceptable

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

rating: 4 - To say someone should leave Wikipedia is uncivil, as policy-violators can be reformed. I know firsthand, as a former anonymous vandal, that a Wikipedian's behaviors can be changed, and POV-pushers do not need to be booted off of the project until given chances to reform their behaviors here. However, if this POV-pusher has been continuously POV-pushing, this could be warranted.

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

rating: 5 - This is not acceptable, as it insults the proposer as stupid by association. While there is nothing wrong with saying someone has bad decision-making abilities, this is not necessary. There are some things that the offenders should just keep to themselves.

• Whoever proposed this should have their head examined

rating: 5 - Even worse than the previous example, as it literally insults the proposer's intelligence. While it is not uncivil to say someone has bad decision-making abilities, this is not how to do it.

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

rating: 5 - Not only is the offender calling the proposer stupid by association, but he/she is also directly insulting the proposal's supporters, which is absolutely unnecessary.

• This proposal is retarded.

rating: 5 - Not only wrong for reasons I've already given here, but also offensive, as more and more people begin to recognize "retarded" as a discriminatory slur. This requires a warning to be issued even if it is the offender's first offense.

• The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.

rating: 5 - Now the offender is directly insulting the proposer and, even if this is all he/she has posted on the discussion, this requires a warning to be issued even if it is the offender's first offense.

• This proposal is crap.

rating: 5 - Once again, wrong for reasons I've already given here.

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

rating: 3 or 4 - Okay, so not really necessary to say, but could be approvable if backed up well, as some proposals can be a waste of time, but to simply write something off this easily as a waste of time is not necessary.

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating: 5 - The previous example being sometimes acceptable, this isn't at all acceptable.

• A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.

rating: 5 - This requires a warning to be issued even if it is the offender's first offense, as it is a personal attack.

• The OP is a clueless idiot.

rating 5 - This requires a warning to be issued even if it is the offender's first offense, as it is a personal attack.

• Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.

rating: 3 - Although it's usually not fair to say that nobody is listening, since you can't really know, it is fair to say this if nobody has responded to one editor's frequent complaints, as it may be necessary to give him/her a little trouting in that case.

• Just shut up already.

rating: 3 - A user can be told to shut up if he/she is clearly being uncivil, POV-pushing, or violating any other core policy, but otherwise this is probably unwarranted.

• File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

rating: 5 - This requires a warning to be issued even if it is the offender's first offense, as it is an obscene personal attack.

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

rating: 5 - This requires a warning to be issued even if it is the offender's first offense, as it is an obscene personal attack.

admin actions

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

rating: 2 or 3 - This can be warranted if it is true and well-supported by a civilly-given stance by the editor giving this view.

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

rating: 1 - I don't see anything particularly uncivil here, and there is nothing wrong with saying someone has bad decision-making abilities, as that is what Deletion Review, Arbitration, etc are for.

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

rating: Okay, this is the stumper for me. IS it uncivil to call someone a "rule Nazi"? What is a "rule Nazi"? I find this confusing, and I'm not sure if this is simply not uncivil as questioning someone's decision-making, or steps beyond the line into uncivil. Perhaps it straddles the line.

• 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: 5 - Generalizing ALL admins as hypocrites who censor you is not acceptable. If the offender said "some WP admins" rather than "all WP admins", then it could be acceptable, although I'll be curious as to what the editor means by "admin cronies".

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

rating: 5 - Moves beyond questioning decision-making and into offending intelligence, and with a generalization no less.

possible trolling

• Your comments look more like trolling to me.

rating: 3 - Why do they look like trolling? With no explanation, I would be unsure if this is uncivil or not.

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

rating: 3 or 4 - Threats are generally wrong, but an obvious troll that can be blocked should be warned of such a block coming; of that is the case, it is likely acceptable.

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

rating: 3 - Like the above: Is this an obvious troll? If not, uncivil. If yes, then civil.

• Go troll somewhere else.

rating: 2 - While we shouldn't be telling people to leave, trolls are a different type of user. They will always be trolls, and this is usually acceptable as a result.

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

rating: 3 - This depends on whether or not the trolling is obvious. If not, assuming bad faith is uncivil, but if so, then this is perfectly okay.

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 - Having seen these removed in many cases, this is usually actual off-topic trolling that is removed. Even if it isn't trolling, off-topic material should not be tolerated, and in most cases removed.

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

rating: 2 - Assuming the user's signature remains for the ease of civility enforcers, this is fine. However, it must be an undisputable personal attack.

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

rating: 3 - What type of discussion is it? RfC-type discussions can be closed, but regular, on-topic discussions ought to remain. It really depends on the case.

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

rating: 5 - Wrong to say the user has no right to post here again, as they can always keep going until they are banned or blocked for repeated, frequent incivility, which, in this likely case, is what will happen.

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

rating: If the redacted comment is clearly a troll, then this is okay. If the redacted comment is feeding a troll... then that has nothing to do with civility or incivility.

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: Punish the Fubarian, warn the Kerzblecki. The Fubarian user is clearly POV-pushing, as evidenced by his use of "our great empire", and is also uncivil because of what is apparently an ethnic offense. The Fubarian has gone too far and should be punished per my system outlined in the additional comments at the end of the page. The Kerzblecki has accused the Fubarian of POV-pushing, and that is an obvious truth, so it is not actually incivility. However, he should perhaps be warned about saying that "the Fubarian school system... filled your head with their lies."

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: Further punishment for Blocked User. The blocked user is guilty of incivility by unjustly removing the admin's comments. He/she should be punished per my outlined system in the additional comments at the end of this page. As for the blocked user's friends, then each user's case depends on what each specifically said.

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: Content contributions do not excuse incivility, and neither does a tendency to be the "winner" in an argument. The offender should be punished per my system; if this user is at the point that mere discussions bans would be used, then a block is necessary and proper.

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: User A is uncivil, but this should be ignored if it is their only recent offense. This is because we should only reprimand repeated incivility, as I explain in the Comments section below. If A was uncivil throughout the discussion, then he would be warned, but this appears to have been a civil conversation. I don't exactly what is to be done re: User B's persistence, although I don't regard B's actions as uncivil.

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: Ignore as Single Offense. The Civility policy should not be enforced off-wiki, except when using EmailUser. All discussion policies should still apply to EmailUser, and this is no exception. However, this is clearly this user's first offense, and should be ignored, as it is not repeated incivility. However, we could warn him/her for gaming the system.

Scenario 6

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 to make any decisions without gauging the community for consensus, with one possible exception. I improve the Civility Enforcement Policy to meet my proposal given in the Comments section below, if I feel that my proposal is better than whatever the current policy is. This policy is used to give appropriate bans and blocks to the uncivil users that are drawing away longtime Wikipedians, hopefully pulling them back into the fray as the incivility lessens.

Comments

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

The 2-Fives Civility Enforcement System

(Please note that all of these timelines given ("in less than a week", "within the last month", etc) are entirely negotiable by community discussion. Additionally, I leave the lengths of bans and blocks up to community discussion and admins' discretion.)

This system (primarily created as an answer to the "Appropriate Sanctions" question) is based on the two Fives: Five types of incivility, and Five Levels of Reprimanding to enforce Civility.

The Five Types of Incivility

1. Any form of personal attack, including rude or offensive attacks of another user's proposal
2. Any discriminatory attack based on race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
3. Pushing one's point of view on the article's subject in a discussion ("POV-pushing"), so as to swing the article in favor of your POV.
4. Intentionally trolling a discussion, such as by straying it off-topic, or doing something outlandish for attention.
5. A violation of another user's privacy rights, including publishing of defamatory of libelous information.

What An Incivility Offense Is: An incivility offense is any case of incivility, with the exception that repeated incivility within 1 discussion should be considered 1 offense for each of the 5 types of incivility listed above. For example, if a user repeatedly pushes their POV, that is one offense. If a user pushes their POV and is making any discriminatory attack(s), then that is 2 offenses.

What Repeated Incivility Is: Repeated incivility is when a user makes multiple incivility offenses in less than a week. At this point, Civility Enforcement should be enacted.

The Five Levels of Reprimanding (I would like to note some major positives to this system: that it uses Warnings as a default and blocks as a last resort, so the "but he/she contributes such great content!" excuse is hopefully less used. It also only punishes repeated incivility, so the occasional meltdown all Wikipedians experience is ignored, and we are not at risk of feeding trolls until they become chronic trolls, which are easily snared by my system.)

First Level of Reprimanding - Warning: A warning should be given on an offender's talk page if they have not been reprimanded within the last month, or otherwise do not meet the requirements to be given an interaction ban, topic ban, discussion ban, or block.

Second Level of Reprimanding - Interaction Bans (if applicable): If an offender's incivility is only as an offense against 4 or less other users, then the offender should be banned from interacting with these users. Interaction bans are only necessary if a user has been warned for this incivility within the last 3 weeks and has committed this form of incivility repeatedly since that warning.

Third Level of Reprimanding - Topic Bans (if applicable): If an offender's incivility offenses are confined to one topic's discussion, the offender shall be banned from editing or discussing that topic. Topic bans are necessary if a user has been warned within the last 2 weeks and has committed repeated topic-centric incivility since that warning (if interaction bans are not applicable), or an interaction ban has ended within the last 2 weeks (or is ongoing) and the user has committed repeated topic-centric incivility in the last 2 weeks.

Fourth Level of Reprimanding - Discussion Bans: At this level, the offender is banned from all discussions. Discussion bans are necessary if a user has been warned for repeated incivility within the last week and has committed repeated incivility since the warning (if neither topic nor interaction bans are applicable), or a topic ban or interaction ban (if topic bans are not also applicable) has ended within the last 2 weeks, and has committed repeated incivility in the last 2 weeks. For a user who has not been banned from all discussions before, consensus to ban must be received through either AN/I, an RfC, or some other area of the site that the community may designate for this.

Fifth Level of Reprimanding - Blocks: Blocks are used when a discussion ban that ended within the last month has not prevented another case of repeated incivility, or if any ban intended to stop incivility has been broken by the user. However, as with discussion bans, the former requires consensus to be received through either AN/I, an RfC, or some other area of the site that the community may designate for this. However, consensus is not needed if the user has violated a ban.