Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 30 October 2012

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Please use this page only for discussion of the RFC itself. Thanks.

Archives

Archive 1

Phase two live

I have gone ahead and implemented phase two as there did not appear to be any serious objections. I have also taken the liberty of archiving this page in order to provide a clean start for any questions or comments now that the second phase is underway. The first thing I would like to discuss is recruitment of the team that will be needed to evaluate the responses received. How many do we need, do they need to be admins, can they help even if they answered the questions themselves, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to use triumvirate group of admins; it's likely to be a difficult task. We should solicit help at AN now (in advance). Best if closers don't participate in poll. Nobody Ent 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If we get the number of replies I am anticipating three users are probably not going to be enough to get the job done in a reasonable span of time. I was thinking more like 10-12 users. with a larger group users could concentrate on specific elements. For example one subgroup could work on compiling the raw numbers from the ratings section while another reads all the responses to the scenarios and documents commonalities. I think we should keep the requirements for this group loose. This is a very broad issue that effects everyone, as such just about everyone has had occaision to express an opinion at some point. What I am envisioning is not "closers" in the normal sense but a group that will analyze the results and present back to the community a proposal based upon their input. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Given what a zoo this page is becoming it may be wise to have a dedicated subpage for recruiting and coordinating this group. That will also give them a place to work together once the group is coherent. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Both idea sounds reasonable. At this point, I'm reminded of the what a wise man taught me long ago: Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Any progress is an improvement on the current state of affairs. Nobody Ent 23:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Help requests

• Can you explain how this can both live and protected? :S. Where are we meant to comment, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You're supposed to do it in your own userspace. You will need to create your own user subpage for your questionnaire, please use this format: User:Your username/CERFC. Legoktm (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Typos and stuff

There's a sentence in Scenario 3 that needs a capital to commence. It starts with "one such incident". Could a broomer craft a capital, please? --Pete (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed thanks for pointing it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the point?

These are pretty leading questions. What do you hope to get out of this? I've having a hard time imagining a solid methodology based on this kind of survey. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I admit it is not a scientific survey, nor is it intended to be. It is more of an attempt to gauge attitudes throughout the community about civility enforcement and to hopefully find some common thread or threads that will help us to formulate a concrete proposal that has an actual chance of being approved by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In any event, Beeblebrox posted the questions in advance, solicited comments, and adjusted as suggested. The results will suffer the deficiencies of all voluntary response surveys but that's an inherent limitation of the Misplaced Pages consensus process. No other approaches over the years have led to meaningful consensus on the the issues raised; this may help and certainly can't hurt. Nobody Ent 21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that you can't discriminate "non-compliance" due to political opposition from "non-compliance" due to the standard effects of a voluntary survey of a voluntary community the "meaning" is you eisegetically projecting the results into the responses of the people you have selected to respond by asking begging questions. Napoleon III was both more transparent and more democratic than this. There is no possibility of cohering community consensus in this dreck. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would have probably been good to moot the questions first, but there you go, what questions would you ask? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a positive project of puritanism, so I don't spend extended periods of time fantasising about gagging other editors and forming questions around that. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As the principal architect of this phase I can only say that your ability to read my supposed intentions is so deeply flawed as to be farcical. Anyone who knows me even a little bit would find it hilarious to see it implied that my motivations were based on a desire for puritanical censorship. Have a look at this if you don't believe me. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, follow your own link. This text is abhorrent regardless of your personal opinions—the intentionality of this text is puritan, your intentions mean nothing when the document at the heart of this process says what it does as it does. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What? I don't know who has that that project either, but I don't know why you would "gag" someone else from asking questions? (FYI, it is not my questionnaire). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a stream of questions that establish a normative set of conduct, and then provide options within such a normative set of conduct. This isn't a request for comment, this is a choice between losing a hand and losing an eye. Putting forward such a "questionnaire" is clearly push polling the normative basis. This is effectively a set up vote, with both choices representing a decision in favour of an underlying result. It is an insult to the community, a farcical pastiche of consensus forming, and establishes a social norm in favour of puritan discipline. Admitting that "rejection of process" as a write in candidate exists isn't an attempt to gauge and form a consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is sought here is feedback to be used to craft a proposal that will then be presented to the community to either accept or reject. What that proposal will be is entirely dependent on what the responses say. If that proposal is badly out of step with what the community feels about civility they will reject it. results may be so contradictory that it will not even be possible to form such a proposal. Every time I open one of this big RFCs there is somebody who seems to believe I have some sort of mind control ability that will make things go my way. Not only do I not possess such powers but what you think I would do with them if I did is completely wrong. This thing belongs to the community, they will give whatever replies they wish and we will do what we can with what results are generated. It might turn out to have been a huge waste of time but it is not some fiendish plot as you make it out to be. Your objections are so absurd that you will have to excuse me if I fail to reply to them any further than I already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You are a cad if you believe anyone would countenance this hatchet job as an attempt to form community consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree in all essentials with Fifelfoo's analysis of the questionnaire (though I wouldn't call Beeblebrox a cad, and I don't suspect him of a fiendish plot, either). Question-begging seems to be a term people have trouble with, so I'll give a concrete example: please look at the question titled 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?

The first paragraph, which sets the scene for the actual question, is heavily weighted towards requiring an answer something like "Ignore the drama! Ignore the outcry from those cursed enablers of incivility!" (I'm exaggerating a little in order to make the point clear.) The text is weighted by its use of the highly negatively loaded terms "outcry" (the term is used four times in a few lines) and "drama", and thereby answers or "begs" itself. I'm not saying people who disagree with referring to criticism of a civility block as "outcry" and "drama" are likely to be hypnotised by the wording into responding "No, civility blocks are fine and much needed". I think it's much more likely that they'll give up on answering such a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question and on the whole idea of the questionnaire. Which will skew the questionnaire results, over and above the usual voluntary response survey problems. Only people who like the way the question is put will want to answer it.

B has replied to criticisms by saying people have misunderstood his intentions, but this isn't about his intentions, which I'm sure were of the purest. It's about how the text actually works; what Fifelfoo calls the intentionality of the text. I mean no disrespect to Beeblebrox' competence either; these things are just very tricky.

@NobodyEnt: You pointed out that "Beeblebrox posted the questions in advance, solicited comments, and adjusted as suggested". I haven't seen that discussion, I'd like to have a look at it. Link, please? Bishonen | talk 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Right here in River City!: or see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement/Archive_1 Nobody Ent 15:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. In that case I'm sorry I called it a "discussion". :-( B did solicit comments, yeah… was it advertised anywhere? I see that one change made after the (non-)discussion, was that the original version of the question I mentioned, "Outcry", was skewed by the addition of that biased "outcry" and "drama" wording. It was far more acceptable as it was, so I don't understand the reasoning in changing it. But I don't want to keep nagging Beeblebrox about details after the fact here. To summarise: I understand that Beeblebrox put a good deal of work into the questions and got very little help. I've seen from comments above that he realises neither the questionnaire nor the RFC will necessarily lead to anything much. I agree. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Was listed at centralized discussion on Oct 4]. But, as I'm sure you know, folks around here are generally more interested in things like banning indef'd blocked editors than trying to achieve consensus on how we should treat each other. Nobody Ent 19:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bonapartism

You can frankly go stick this example of moralistic disciplinarily, a city on the hill run by Calvin with torture stakes on display, where the Australian suggested you put the dog up you. I have never been more insulted by a sequence of question begging attempts to inflict puritanism and cause agreement with such a disciplinary system, in my life. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. Huh? Perhaps you've used too many analogies or the dinner and wine, I've had was too much, but what do you mean by "question begging," what questions would not be begging in your view? And why would you be insulted? (PS. I think we maybe able to add questions, if you would like.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't follow parts of what you are saying but is clear you are very angry and reacting emotionally to these questions. I'm sorry you are so offended, I think you have grossly misunderstood the intent of this process. Common situations, some based very closely on actual events, are presented and users are asked to say what they think is an appropriate response. You are perfectly free to say "no response is needed" to every single situation if that is what you feel. Indeed I would not be at all surprised if we got quite few replies that did just that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offense or several?" Should we cut off your nose or your ears. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So you could reply "they should not be considered offenses at all and nothing should be done about them" if you like. Or you could keep making specious hyperbolic metaphors here, whichever. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're deploying 30 days of wikipedia's social time to forcing people to swallow six screenfuls of questions such as this. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that this is a Request for Comment, rather than a blatant attempt to indoctrinate. You answer that the opposition isn't included—that you expect whole sale rejections of this process—indicates that you're attempting to seize the centre in a political discourse when actually this RFC embodies an extremist fraction of the community. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

nobody is being forced to do anything here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is simply a 30 day RfC which you're attempting to advertise in central consensus forming arenas whose questions are so despicably phrased that they demand a specific answer from the community; following which, persons will "extrapolate" a consensus from multiple questionnaires that are acting as a vote. And this is being done with the intention of forming a consensus around disciplinary procedure. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Since people are often used to questionnaires expecting yes/no answers, perhaps the instructions could make this clearer. Or the individual questions could indicate this possibility. For instance, to "Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offense or several?" could be added: "You do not need to reply 'yes' or 'no'; for instance, you can reply 'They should not be considered offenses at all and nothing should be done about them.' --Boson (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the examples in the questionnaire should include at least one where a familiar offensive metaphor is deliberately couched in a way that does not use taboo words but requires the reader to decode the statement to arrive at an expression that a reasonable person (especially an administrator) might regard as uncivil, e.g "You can shove that suggestion up your arse" is expressed as "You can put that proposal in the bodily orifice specially provided for such suggestions".--Boson (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Context

I don't share Fifelfoo's affinity for flowery language, but I really don't see how these questions will lead to any useful conclusions. This is what I got out of the previous RfC:

• Incivility is hard to define. I think a distinction has to be made there, it doesn't seem to be that we have not yet defined it, as this survey seems to imply, it's that it is inherently undefinable in any concrete terms, judging from the previous RfC comments.
• There was very little support for a specific bright line replacement guideline that was proposed
• More people were leaning toward the position that "civility" should probably be enforced, in some fashion, but there was a significant group that advanced good arguments against enforcement other than ignoring or collapsing it.
• There's no special dispensation for productive or long term editors
• Disagreement, even passionate disagreement, is not incivility
• There's significant concern with "civility" being used as a tool to shut down people with an opposite POV, by civil POV pushers. Common scenario: Editor sees article he thinks is biased. Editor tries to reduce perceived bias. Editor encounters organized opposition. POV pushing opposition realizes that the new guy is hot headed, and bait him civilly until he explodes. Problem solved for the POV pushers.

From that I can only conclude that it's one of those "I know it when I see it" types of thing. So it goes back to context. Which is the very thing this survey lacks, with its hypothetical snippets. Gigs (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. I appreciate the large amount of work that must have gone into the questionnaire, but I find it hard to see it working out. Rd232 11:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the point of this either. We already know that editors will take offence at some comments but that there's a spectrum of sensitivity rather than a uniform standard. The real knotty issue seems to be enforcement; that some admins are very willing to unblock editors who are sanctioned for this and that this is usually a winning move because of the peculiar definition of wheel-warring. It's this procedural issue that needs resolution. If you'd like a solution, then I suggest a points system like those used for traffic offences. It might be good to get some peer pressure into the system too, as found in the house system. Admins could then have the fun of saying stuff like "10 points from Gryffindor!"... Warden (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda: Not a survey

This survey is so loaded that it reminds me of a focus group. In World War II, Allied propaganda invented focus groups, which were designed to find the right buttons to push to get the desired assent. (Converse, History of Survey Research in the United States)

I suggest reading Groves's Survey Methodology before developing a survey. It discusses the unethical uses of surveys. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

When do we ban the uncivil puritans?

Many times so far in this extended discussion many of those wanting emitters of naughty words lashed, drawn, hanged and quartered have been politely asked very civil questions, such as "How do you define civility?" In general, such polite requests have been completely ignored. In my humble opinion, such behaviour is incredibly uncivil, and disruptive. It's certainly non-productive. What's the punishment for such incivility?

This post is NOT a joke. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT

In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, maybe one answer is to allow anyone to fix incivility with an appropriate template. {{Civilityfix}} gives a sense of how this could work (needs work to make it easy to click and see the original text). With all the talk about "what is suitable punishment for incivility" - well one answer is "anyone can rewrite your words to make them civil, whilst trying to express your point"... Rd232 11:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How can we possibly agree on a fix when we cannot agree on what's broken? HiLo48 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Because we're talking about two very different things:

1. trying to set general standards on what is acceptable
2. in a specific situation, where someone has felt that a specific thing said was uncivil enough to fix (rather than ignore), then as long as this was done in good faith, it should be taken as a reasonable action (even if the fixing unintentionally introduces errors in meaning which themselves need correcting). Rd232 22:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

General reply from the principal architect of this phase

It's not as if, after putting forward two RFC on pending changes, that I was unaware that unforeseen objections would pop up after this was posted. That would be why I linked the draft questions from this page last week. I'm not going to reply to each and every comment here but I will try to clarify a few important points:

• It is not intended that when this phase is closed some new policy will be implemented based on it. What is intended is that the results will be reviewed by an as-yet-to-be-selected body who will seek to find commonalities in the replies. That group will use those results to attempt to formulate some sort of concrete proposal. That proposal will then be presented to the community. The community can then accept it or reject it.

• This is also not intended to be some comprehensive solution to the problem of uneven enforcement of the civility policy. I'm not so stupid as to think that would be so easy, even with a prolonged and elaborate process like this. When this phase is concluded I anticipate a prolonged break in the action while the results are evaluated. That would be a perfect time for any other ideas anyone may have for seeking consensus on civility related issues to implement them. I did this because nobody had bothered to develop any other processes and this is what I came up with. If you have a better idea, develop it so it can be used. You've got a month to get it ready, should be more than enough time.

• I understand that some users find the questions to be somewhat leading. I don't happen to agree since if you read the introductory sections it is very clear that users should give any reply they wish to any of the open questions. But even if they are leading, so what? If the proposal based on the results we get is no good, the community will reject it. Misplaced Pages will not be destroyed by this process, I promise. If you feel like a question is leading you to give a specific answer, say so, and give the answer you really feel. That is what is needed if this is to have any chance of doing any good.

• A few commenters here seem to want to have more open discussion of civility. We already had that phase. It helped inform the formulation of the questions somewhat but other than that I don't see any usable result. That is why there was not a formal closing statement. if you wish to discuss civility in a general manner please do so at WT:CIVIL.

• I will have to ask you all to excuse my somewhat gruff tone here but the tirade I was subjected to yesterday took pretty much all the restraint I had on hand to reply to civilly. Ironic, I know. If I had written down what I wanted to say in reply to it I would probably be blocked right now.

• TLDR version: I know it's not perfect. I wasn't trying to make it perfect. It's a start, not a finish and there will be a lot more work to be done if the community is actually serious about wanting to do something about these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for putting in the effort. Addressing a problem that has been in the "too hard" basket for too long is worth a wikimedal of some kind. --Pete (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as these things go, it's a fine survey. I'll try to finish answering it when I have a bit more time. The difficult part is that pretty much every answer is context dependent. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we (is it possible to) make the questionnaire better?

I'm kinda on wikibreak-ish-ness, but still considering how we can improve (really improve) this whole area.

Is it possible to get some non-factional help with wording and arranging the questionnaire? Looking at the ideas of getting some input from (sensible!) psychologist types, people who have worded surveys and questionnaires at a professional level, to overcome any unintended nuances of language, ambiguities, psycho-nudges, etc. etc. I think, if this thing were done really professionally, it might be possible to do something genuinely long-lasting and constructive with it. I don't think, at the minute, that it could do as much as is possible. I also think we're in real danger of getting a very skewed result because of the size and distribution of the sample of responders. Pesky (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I can add to the points above that since phase 1 was a community-based process which involved a community-wide discussion, I cannot see why phase 2, i.e. the construction of the questionnaire itself, is not a community-based effort. Why don't we open a discussion as to what types of questions should be included in the questionnaire and let the community decide which ones to include in the final form of the questionnaire. This way there will be no criticism of the questionnaire itself. Δρ.Κ.  18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative sentencing?

In the Real World, there are alternative sentences to fines, imprisonment, exile, etc. alternative sentencing is one system we maybe could look at. Just as a kinda idea, instead of blocking for incivility which isn't gross, how about imposing "Community service" of having to do 100 constructive article edits (typo-fixing, filling-in bare urls, copy-editing, ref-hunting, etc.) before being "allowed" to edit in other areas? That way, although I can well appreciate that it might still annoy the punished, we'd be steering people in the direction of improving the encyclopedia rather than shutting them up altogether. A beneficial side-effect would be that it would give those who do virtually no content-constructive work some education in what it's like dealing with the sludge at the bottom of the pond. Can we consider "alternative sentencing" of some kind, bearing in mind that civility blocks do little, if anything at all, to improve anyone's outlook, temper, or even actions? Pesky (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's survey is this, what's the point, other basic info missing from questionnaire

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire needs to start out by saying who's running the survey, why it's being run, and what'll be done with the results. Neither the WP:CENT notice nor the questionnaire itself make that clear. Remember, since it's being advertised, people who know nothing about the RfC are going to come here - and they're going to want to know why they're coming here. --Philosopher  15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whose survey is this? Well, me and one or two other users wrote it, but it isn't anyone's property, it is the second phase of the RFC that started at the beginning of October. I believe your other questions are all answered on the main RFC page, where the expected timeline of the process is outlined. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Right, and someone (probably you?) who knows how that went should put the answers at the top of the questionnaire. Context is important and not everyone's going to look at the main RfC page. Instead, they're going to say "the survey doesn't say what's going on" and leave. --Philosopher  18:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages? Should the talk page location matter (such as whether the discussion is on a user talk page, an article talk page, or Misplaced Pages project-space talk page)?

• Reply:

Profanity

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

• Reply:

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:

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 Misplaced Pages community, or some combination of these?

• Reply:

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:

Context

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

• Reply:

Severity

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

• Reply:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Personal Attacks

Requests for adminship

Misplaced Pages: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:

Attacking an idea

The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages?

"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:

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:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

• Whoever proposed this should have their head examined

rating

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

rating:

• This proposal is retarded.

rating:

• The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.

rating:

• This proposal is crap.

rating:

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

rating

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating:

• A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.

rating:

• The OP is a clueless idiot.

rating

• Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.

rating:

• Just shut up already.

rating:

• File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

rating:

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

rating:

admin actions

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

rating:

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

rating

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

rating:

• 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

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

rating:

possible trolling

• Your comments look more like trolling to me.

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

• Go troll somewhere else.

rating:

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

rating:

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:

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

rating

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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:

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

Scenario 3

A user is apparently an expert in the field of eighteenth-century horse drawn carriages. Practically every word Misplaced Pages 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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Scenario 6

The Misplaced Pages 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

Comments

Please use this section for any additional comments, observations, recommendations, etc. to the page and save it. You should then have your own "copy" of the questionnaire to fill out. Please feel free to take your time answering the questions. When you are done, save your changes and add your subpage to Category:Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions so that your results can be evaluated. If you need help performing any of these steps post a notice on the talk page or use

I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

on your own talk page and another user will assist you."

All too hard. Obviously designed (possibly not consciously) to discourage responses

I'm going to post the second paragraph of the Questionnaire page here...

"Do not edit this page to reply. You will need to create your own user subpage for your questionnaire, click this link to begin creating the page: Special:mypage/CERFC. Create this subpage and then add the following code, as it appears on this page: ==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 Misplaced Pages? Should the talk page location matter (such as whether the discussion is on a user talk page, an article talk page, or Misplaced Pages project-space talk page)?

• Reply:

Profanity

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

• Reply:

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:

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 Misplaced Pages community, or some combination of these?

• Reply:

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:

Context

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

• Reply:

Severity

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

• Reply:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Personal Attacks

Requests for adminship

Misplaced Pages: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:

Attacking an idea

The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages?

"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:

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:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

• Whoever proposed this should have their head examined

rating

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

rating:

• This proposal is retarded.

rating:

• The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.

rating:

• This proposal is crap.

rating:

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

rating

• What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been

rating:

• A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.

rating:

• The OP is a clueless idiot.

rating

• Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.

rating:

• Just shut up already.

rating:

• File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

rating:

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

rating:

admin actions

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

rating:

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

rating

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

rating:

• 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

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

rating:

possible trolling

• Your comments look more like trolling to me.

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

• Go troll somewhere else.

rating:

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

rating:

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:

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

rating

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

rating:

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

rating:

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

rating:

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:

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

Scenario 3

A user is apparently an expert in the field of eighteenth-century horse drawn carriages. Practically every word Misplaced Pages 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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Scenario 6

The Misplaced Pages 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

Comments

Please use this section for any additional comments, observations, recommendations, etc. to the page and save it. You should then have your own "copy" of the questionnaire to fill out. Please feel free to take your time answering the questions. When you are done, save your changes and add your subpage to Category:Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions so that your results can be evaluated. If you need help performing any of these steps post a notice on the talk page or use

I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

on your own talk page and another user will assist you."

Now, seriously, I haven't read so much bullshit on Misplaced Pages for months. What proportion of editors do you think will be bothered going through all that crap? If you can't answer that question (or find it annoying), my point is made. You simply will not get a representative sample of responses from this process. HiLo48 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedians looking for help