User:Tryptofish/CERFC

Note: This page was created as part of responding to a survey request. The questions are from the survey, and are followed by my answers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2019 (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: First, I think that, just as context matters in personal speaking, it matters on Wikipedia as well. Something that might be objectionable on an article talk page might be acceptable on a user talk page in a discussion between editors who know each other well. Second, the community broadly should recognize that Wikipedia is not a pub. Editors should normally be expected to communicate as one would communicate in a workplace, and should understand how easy it is to misconstrue badly-articulated comments online. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: In my opinion, generally, yes. An isolated lapse should be regarded as no big deal, but habitual use of such language is either unprofessional or WP:POINTy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: I'm reluctant to say something should "never" be acceptable, but we should discourage habitual shouting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: All of the above. We are all in this together. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: Sanctions for a first incident or an isolated incident (we all have bad days) generally should not happen. But if someone makes a habit of it, yes, block them or ban them from where it happens. This is especially true of users who, after a long record of DR, express an intention to keep on doing things their own way – that's what preventative blocking is about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: Absolutely yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Severity

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

• Reply: It should (1) be habitual, not a one-off, and (2) be something where one might realistically expect some good-faith new editors to be discouraged from editing because they find the environment unwelcoming. (It does not matter if the user being incivil believes that the new editors are wrong to take offense.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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 test should be: (1) if someone is just having a bad day, maybe give them some advice, but don't sanction them, but (2) if someone makes a habit of it, sanctions are appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: Short answer: No!!! Long answer: I am very strongly opposed to establishing two classes of editors, those who get a get-out-of-jail-free card based on some number of FAs, and those who don't. I keep hearing arguments that Wikipedia will suffer if a few long-established content contributors leave. I don't believe it for a minute. There will always be new editors coming on board, and we do best to provide them with a welcoming environment. Even if that means welcoming many new editors who aren't brilliant. Even if it means letting go a few brilliant editors who are time sinks for the rest of the community. That said, contributions are part of the context that actually should influence how sanctions are constructed. Thus, a newish account that is incivility-only might be site-banned, whereas an excellent content contributor who is incivil only in one area of the project might instead be topic-banned, and that's OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: Tough question, and one that depends more on individual admins using clue, than on anything we can legislate. We should continue ArbCom's approach of not tolerating wheel warring. Generally, admins should not block unless the incivility rises to the level of creating an atmosphere where other good-faith editors feel unwelcome, so that would generally mean personal attacks rather than just ugly words, but there's no hard-and-fast boundary line. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: No. It's a good idea to seek some discussion before blocking in such cases, but I wouldn't make it a requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: No, only suggested. Personally, I think RfC/U almost never works. Discussion first is usually a good idea, which is why blocking should not be used for someone who merely had a bad day. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: Someone who wants to be able to block other users should be able to cope with several days of RfA. It should be understood that the discussion, by its essential nature, needs to be personal. I suppose the "line" is where a comment stops being useful to evaluate a candidate's qualifications. Comments crossing that line should be addressed elsewhere than the RfA itself (probably ANI), and are best ignored at the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: The first two examples are bad practice and should be discouraged, but do not strike me as sanctionable. The third example clearly violates NPA. The last three examples depend very much on context, and usually would not be incivil. Often they are actually constructive things to say in a discussion. It's pretty common for editors to suggest ideas that consensus sees as really bad ideas, and it isn't necessarily incivil to say so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: No need to address what the person does or does not realize. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4: No need to address any past "foolishness", only the present issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 3: Depends on context, but can often just be stating the obvious truth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 3: Better for the username noticeboard than for content discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 2: Usually something that can be reasonably discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 2: May depend on context, but often a valid discussion comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4: The second part of the sentence makes it counterproductive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 3: Rarely best practice to say it in those words, but sometimes true. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whoever proposed this should have their head examined

rating 4: Almost a 5, more about insulting the proposer than about commenting on the merits of the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4–5: Ditto the one above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal is retarded.

rating: 5: Not constructive, just juvenile. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.

rating: 5: Purely an personal insult. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal is crap.

rating: 4–5: Unprofessional. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating 2: Not best practice, but often a true statement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating: 3: Perfectly acceptable except for the word "fucking". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.

rating: 5: Clear personal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• The OP is a clueless idiot.

rating 5: Clear personal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.

rating: 3: Depends on context, but can be appropriate in cases of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just shut up already.

rating: 3: There are better ways of saying the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

rating: 3: If it were just "SU", it would be perfectly OK with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 5: Never OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

admin actions

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

rating: 2: Generally OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating 3: I sure wouldn't want someone blocked merely for saying that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4: A dumb comment, but one that should usually be shrugged off. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• 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: A common trolling comment, one that should not be fed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 3: There ought to be a rational answer to that question. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

possible trolling

• Your comments look more like trolling to me.

rating: 3: Context is everything here. Often true. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4: Bad strategy, better not to say it out loud. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4: Unprofessional. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Go troll somewhere else.

rating: 3: Context is everything here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4: Not helpful unless it's at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Depends on context, perfectly OK if it's true, but sometimes better to hat instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating 3: Depends on context, usually better to handle other ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 3: Depends on context, user doing it needs to be able to justify why they did it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 5: Gratuitous insult. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

rating: 4: Occasionally appropriate, but usually not the best way to deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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: I don't see a need for sanctions here. What I'd hope to see is a third editor (or more) come in with fresh eyes and try to get the discussion back onto sourcing and content. If one or both of those users refuse to get back to content, then they might eventually need to be blocked or topic banned. I don't see this as being a civility issue so much as a tendentious editing one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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'd like to see the blocking admin ask (maybe at AN) for another, uninvolved admin to look at the talk page, and if necessary revert it and full-protect it. This doesn't require a community discussion about the civility of those editors, unless the friends decide to escalate it elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: The blocking admin exerted bad judgment in making the block at that time (even though they were right on the merits: note the parallel to the user being blocked). But the incivil user should not get a pass for being right about content. They should be topic banned from writing anything related to those carriages, and further topic banned from any other area where they take up the same kind of conduct. No matter how good their content contributions, no matter how right they are about content, they are not irreplaceable, and they make themselves a net negative for the project as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: If user A wants to withdraw from the discussion, they should be allowed to do so. The edit summary sounds like a bad day, not an ongoing habit. Unless A and B escalate their dispute beyond what the scenario says, just let it pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 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: The only thing here that seems to me to be within "jurisdiction" is the Wikipedia-hosted e-mail. If it's a one-time e-mail, and not happening habitually, I'd let it pass. Just don't e-mail them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Insert incivil comment here. There's no crisis, come on. I'm opposed to naming any subset of the community to be able to issue fiats. The broad community should continue to work on the civility policy. That's what we're doing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

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

1. Don't create "vested contributors".
2. Context is very important, and we shouldn't sanction people for having a one-time bad day.
3. It's very important to provide new users with a professional editing environment, and established users who can't abide that are dispensable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)