User:PartTimeGnome/CERFC

This completed questionnaire is PartTimeGnome's contribution to the 2012 RFC on Civility enforcement (phase 2).

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 prefix their remarks with "listen up arsehole 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 light-hearted manner in which they were 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:

A distinction exists between intended incivility and perceived incivility. In the example given, there is no intended incivility. In a casual pub atmosphere, or even a more formal setting where body language and intonation gives clues to the speaker's intent, the example is unlikely to be perceived as incivility either. On Wikipedia, however, the perception of incivility is more likely to depend on context. Editors should be careful in what they say on-wiki (or by email or other online means) to ensure they don't create the perception of incivility, even where no incivility is intended.

Talk page location is one example of context affecting whether a comment is perceived as incivility. For example, suppose two friends are having a discussion on their user talk pages, and one addresses the other as an "arsehole". As friends they understand each other well, so both understand that no incivility is intended, hence do not perceive any incivility. Were they having this discussion in a more public location, say the administrators' noticeboard, other editors would read the comment who may not realise it was intended in jest, and hence would perceive it as incivility.

For the purposes of determining whether a remark is in violation of our civility policies, we should only consider the perception of incivility, as it is this that drives away editors. However, intent should be considered when considering enforcement actions. If an editor makes an uncivil remark without any intent, they should simply be informed of their mistake so they can avoid it in the future. If they are aware that their remark is likely to be perceived as uncivil, more drastic enforcement action should be considered. If in doubt, assume good faith.

Of course, what is perceived as incivility will vary from editor to editor. Hence, whether the Wikipedia community considers a remark to be incivility should be based on a community consensus of how the community perceives that remark. In many cases, this may require discussion. The community should be careful to discuss the perception of incivility separately from the intent.

The community may agree that certain remarks always create the perception of incivility, and do not require discussion. Such community standards should be recorded in policies or guidelines. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Profanity

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

Reply:

No. I can think of many situations where profanity would be used without any intent of incivility, and where a reasonable person should not perceive incivility either. Attempting to avoid profanity in situations where it is reasonable can lead to awkward wording and euphemisms that make the discussion harder to understand. (The question is a good example of this, in fact. Rather than give a list of euphemisms, a sample list of profane words would have been more useful.)

Some examples:

Discussion of profanity itself – e.g. on Talk:Profanity, or when discussing our civility policies.
Discussion of things with profane titles – especially various bands (e.g. Fucked Up) and songs (e.g. Fuck tha Police).
Discussion of articles that contain profanity.
Discussion of another editor's use of profanity – e.g. at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
Emphasis – e.g. "Your edits were fucking fantastic! Thank you!" could hardly be considered uncivil, despite the gratuitous swearing.
Crude synonyms for a subject – e.g. mentioning "fucking" in Talk:Sexual intercourse could be a crude way of referring to the topic. Though gratuitous, this is not incivility. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

All caps/wiki markup

There is an established convention when using technology to communicate through a typed format that WRITING IN ALL CAPS is considered "yelling" and is generally unacceptable. Individuals also sometimes use italics, bold text, green or other coloured text, even enlarged text or other formatting code to attempt to indicate intonation, or to otherwise emphasise 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:

Generally, editors should be free to format their comments as they see fit, provided this does not cause disruption to the discussion as a whole. Disruptive uses of formatting would not be incivility however, and should be covered by a different policy or guideline (e.g. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#shouting).

Though incivility could potentially arise or be intensified by inappropriate use of emphasis, the mechanism used to achieve such emphasis does not matter. That emphasis can create the perception of incivility in some uses is not a reason to disallow it, since most emphasis is helpful rather than harmful.

I personally believe that blinking text and animated GIFs with rapid flashing are never acceptable, simply because they are irritating. Though annoying, they are not incivility, however.

I think it would be overkill to sanction users for poor formatting choices (except for obvious cases of disruption). In most cases, it should be sufficient to leave a note to a user explaining that their formatting causes irritation, possibly suggesting better ways to present their views. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement and sanctions

Responsibility for enforcement

Who is responsible for maintaining a civil environment for collegiate discussion? Should it be it the responsibility of administrators, the Arbitration Committee, the broader Wikipedia community, or some combination of these?

Reply:

A combination of all of the above. Everyone should try to behave in a civil manner at all times on Wikipedia.

As well as each editor policing themselves, the broader Wikipedia community can help enforce civility.

When someone is uncivil, it is often unintentional, so a polite warning from any editor is all that is necessary to correct their behaviour. Where someone is intentionally uncivil, discussion of their behaviour in the broader community can be helpful, so the editor understands that their behaviour is unacceptable, and that uncivil behaviour won't help them achieve their ends. Such discussion could also lead to community bans and sanctions (e.g. interaction bans) for severe cases.

The role of the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) in civility enforcement is to investigate cases that the community cannot adequately resolve on its own, and to impose bans and sanctions as appropriate. Note that Arbcom only interprets and enforces community policies; they cannot act where no policies have been violated.

The role of administrators is to block users banned by the community, and enforce other sanctions with blocks if necessary. Should the community agree (in the form of policy) that certain types of incivility merit automatic blocks if continued after warnings, it would be the role of administrators to perform such blocks. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate sanctions

What sanctions, if any, do you think are appropriate for incivility? Should blocking be considered an appropriate response to incivility? Should topic banning or interaction banning be considered an appropriate response?

Reply:

Most types of sanction are appropriate. However, short-term "cool-down" blocks should be avoided. Such blocks typically have the opposite effect, and can cause further incivility when the block expires. Civility blocks should always be long-term or indefinite, so that the blocked editor has a better chance to calm down and reflect on their actions. Even if they do not, Wikipedia would benefit more from the long-term absence of the uncivil editor.

Topic bans and interaction bans are particularly useful sanctions. These types of ban keep an editor away from topics or other users to which they react in an uncivil manner, while still allowing that editor to make positive contributions to the rest of Wikipedia. Violations of topic and interaction bans can be handled by escalating blocks, regardless of whether or not incivility is involved in the violation of the ban.

The Arbitration Committee can impose discretionary sanctions on areas of Wikipedia that have particular problems with incivility.

Where an editor continues to be uncivil despite multiple attempts by the community to resolve the situation by other means, a long-term or indefinite block might be appropriate, or even a full site ban. In such cases, the objective is to remove the problem editor from Wikipedia to prevent further incivility. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Context

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

Reply:

Yes. Context affects whether a comment could be perceived as incivility, and hence whether or not it is a problem (see my earlier comments on Collegiality).

Also, there have been many cases where one editor has baited another into saying something uncivil, often without being uncivil themselves. A baiter's intent is typically to "win" a dispute by getting other parties to the dispute blocked or topic-banned. Where the victim reacts with incivility towards the baiter, there is little harm: this is the reaction the baiter wanted; they are not driven away by it. In such cases, the victim should be given no more than a polite warning to not take the bait. The baiter should be subject to a boomerang block. (Note: I do not believe we currently have a policy on baiting.)

Where the victim responds uncivilly in a manner that is visible to a greater number of editors (e.g. on a Wikipedia noticeboard rather than the baiter's talk page), there is harm to the encyclopaedia, however. Uncivil comments create a toxic atmosphere that drives away good-faith editors. Enforcement of the civility policy should concentrate on preventing harm, not punishing wrongdoing, so a victim of baiting could still be subject to sanctions for taking the bait. In the majority of cases, I would expect that the most harm to Wikipedia would be prevented by sanctions against the baiter rather than the victim, however. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Severity

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

Reply:

Immediate sanctions for a single incident (i.e. without any prior incivility or warning) should be very rare. For such immediate action, it should be clear that the incivility is intentional and that the user's main reason for being here is to be uncivil to others (hence not here to build an encyclopaedia). Blocking of such incivility-only accounts should be similar to that of vandalism-only accounts.

As I said, this should be rare. In most cases it is not possible to tell from a single incident that a user's only intent is incivility; a pattern of edits would typically be needed to make this determination. Exceptions could be where a user explicitly states their intentions, or where there is no other possible intention behind the user's actions. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Instances of incivility

Should multiple instances of incivility in the same discussion be considered one offence 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 of incivility in a single edit should be considered as a single offence. For incivility across multiple edits, the time that passes between the edits and whether the user was cautioned about their incivility between the edits should be considered. Incidents of incivility over a long period should be counted separately, since the user has had a chance to re-think since their last uncivil remark. If only a short period of time elapses between uncivil comments, the uncivil edits should be treated as if they were one edit, since the user is unlikely to have rethought their actions between edits.

Warnings about incivility invite a user to reconsider what they are saying. If incivility continues after a warning, it should be counted as a second offence, even if little time has occurred since the incivility before the warning.

In stressful situations, a person who is normally civil might say something uncivil. Such things can happen to most people. Though an uncivil response is always unacceptable, a one-off incident is generally excusable. Context matters a lot here – this should only apply when the incivility is caused by some stressful situation. Of course, the source of stress might be unrelated to Wikipedia, in which case we should assume good faith and take the user at their word if they claim to be affected by off-wiki stress.

One incident of incivility per year I would probably excuse. One per week I would not. I am reluctant to be more exact; not only is this the kind of thing where it is hard to choose a reasonable place to draw the line, but there is the risk that some might see a set level of acceptable civility incidents as an entitlement rather than a limit. (For example, some users interpret the three-revert rule as entitling them to three reverts without discussion. Outside of Wikipedia, poor car drivers interpret speed limits as an entitlement to drive at the set speed, regardless of road conditions.) I think "use common sense" would be a better approach. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Weighing incivility and contributions

Should the quality and/or number of contributions an individual makes outside of discussions have any bearing on whether that individual should be sanctioned due to incivility? Should the incidents of incivility be taken on their own as a separate concern?

Reply:

Allowing good contributions to offset bad contributions gives the appearance of a double standard. This can be very damaging to Wikipedia's contributor levels and wider reputation. New users cannot use a history of good contributions as a defence, which puts them at an unfair disadvantage if this defence is allowed to users who have such a history. In the case of administrators, who are tasked with enforcing the rules, it seems particularly hypocritical when they are not held to the same standards themselves.

It is an unfortunate fact that long-term Wikipedians can presently get away with far worse behaviour than newer editors. Such attitudes create an unofficial hierarchy that gives long-term editors greater power to break the rules while newer contributors are blocked for lesser offences. We should reverse this trend.

Should we continue to tolerate incivility from "otherwise good" editors, we will not make much progress in correcting the civility problems on Wikipedia. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Outcry

In the past, when an individual has been blocked from editing due to "violating the civility policy" (incivility), there has, at times, been an outcry from others concerning the block, and sometimes the block has been overturned subsequent to that outcry.

In an effort to reduce incidences of such an outcry ("drama"), should incivility be deprecated as an appropriate reason for blocking an individual? Should admins instead be required to have a more specific reason (such as personal attacks, harassment of another user, etc.), when blocking a user for incivility?

Reply:

When taking administrative actions, administrators should follow consensus, which can be expressed in community discussions and Wikipedia policies. An outcry after a block could be because the block was against consensus and/or policy, in which case the action should be reversed. However, there is no guarantee that those who are the most vocal are representative of consensus. Administrators should try their best to determine consensus. If the outcry appears to be against consensus, the outcry may be ignored, though it is useful for the admin who closes a discussion to give an explanation.

Administrators should give the most specific reason that applies when blocking a user. The reason should link to a policy that permits the block (e.g. one of those mentioned in the question), to a discussion that shows consensus for the block, or to details of a sanction the user has violated. I do not think the civility policy should allow a block for incivility without specifically defined types of behaviour that are blockable. The community may agree to define further types of incivility that are blockable under policy, of course. A user may be blocked for non-specific incivility if it violates an existing sanction that applies to that user or discretionary sanctions on the page where the incivility occurred. Other than that, discussion should be required before a block. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

AN/I prerequisite

Should a demonstrable consensus formed through discussion at WP:AN/I (or other appropriate forum) be required as a prerequisite to blocking an individual due to incivility? If so, should there be a minimum time frame for such discussions to remain open before the individual may be blocked?

Reply:

As I explained in my previous answer, where the incivility is of a type for which policy allows a block without discussion or where the user has violated an existing sanction, then no such prerequisite exists. For other cases, discussion should be required before a block. The appropriate forum for such a discussion would typically be the administrators' noticeboard rather than WP:AN/I. The discussion should be open for at least 24 hours before implementing any sanction. (24 hours is the norm described in the banning policy. I see no reason to vary this for incivility.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC prerequisite

A request for comment (RFC) gives the community the opportunity to discuss a behavioural concern (such as incivility) directly with the individual, with the intended goal of finding a voluntary solution.

Should an RFC be required as a prerequisite of blocking a user for incivility? Should it be suggested and/or encouraged?

Reply:

A voluntary solution would be preferable to imposed sanctions, so editors should be encouraged to find voluntary solutions where possible. Though the structure of RFCs and their high community participation can help find a solution, there are other ways to agree a voluntary solution, such as discussion on user talk pages. Hence, an RFC should be suggested as a venue for finding voluntary solutions.

There should not be a requirement to start an RFC before seeking blocks or sanctions, since there are sometimes cases where it is clear that an RFC will not resolve the situation. However, where an RFC is in progress, editors should wait for this process to complete before starting a block discussion, except in extraordinary circumstances.

When discussion of a block takes place at the administrators' noticeboard, the community can decide that an RFC should take place first for that particular case. Once the block discussion has been closed with this consensus, an RFC can then be started. Should no solution be found in the RFC or it becomes evident that the solution is not working, a new block discussion can be started. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Requests for adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (RFA) is a place where editors request the additional tools and responsibilities of adminship. In the discussion concerning a specific request, each commenting editor should convey whether (and why) they would 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 to 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:

The second sentence of our policy on personal attacks reads "Comment on content, not on the contributor". However, candidates for adminship are both contributors to Wikipedia and the "content" discussed at RFA, so it is harder to apply this rule there. One obvious way to apply this rule is to read "contributor" as referring to those participating in the discussion other than the candidate. The only editors to be discussed at RFA should be those who are up for adminship.

Nonetheless, editors should not have free reign to say what they like about the candidates. Uncivil treatment towards prospective administrators discourages many editors from pursuing adminship. There should be limits on the types of comment that are acceptable.

Comments at RFA should focus on the candidate's suitability for adminship. Comments can, for example, discuss the candidate's contributions, interactions with other editors, commitment to Wikipedia, judgement, technical knowledge, and skills relevant to adminship. Discussion of the candidate that is clearly irrelevant to their suitability as an admin (e.g. sexuality or ethnicity) should be treated as incivility.

For some areas of discussion, it is debatable whether they are relevant to adminship. To avoid unduly restricting the discussion in a way that might affect the outcome, assume that a comment is relevant to adminship if there is doubt. Other editors can give their opinion on the relevancy of comments to assist readers of the discussion to form their own opinions. Information about a candidate's personal life is rarely relevant, though it would be relevant to mention anything that could cause a conflict of interest or otherwise interfere with the candidate's ability to competently perform administrative actions.

As well as relevancy, respect is another good civility test. It is possible to criticise a person while still being respectful of them. Comments that lack such respect (e.g. name-calling) could be incivility.

As for the treatment of unacceptable comments, irrelevant discussion should be collapsed. Particularly severe personal attacks should be removed altogether. Disrespectful discussion should be preserved if it nonetheless makes a relevant point. Warnings and/or sanctions against users making uncivil comments should be considered regardless of the fate of the comments themselves.

Inappropriate comments should not be moved to the talk page. RFA talk pages are for meta-discussion about the RFA, such as discussing whether a given comment should be removed, or drawing attention to strange "voting" patterns. Discussion of the candidate should not normally take place on talk pages, so an unacceptable personal remark would be even more unacceptable on a talk page. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Attacking an idea

The Wikipedia community has a long tradition of not tolerating personal attacks. However, it may be difficult to differentiate whether an individual is commenting on a user's ideas or is commenting on the user themselves. The same is true concerning whether an individual may understand a particular idea.

How should this be determined? Should any of the following be considered a personal attack? Should any of these comments be considered the kind of incivility that we should not tolerate on Wikipedia?

"That idea is stupid"
"That is idiotic"
"That is yet another one of <username of proposer>'s stupid ideas and should be ignored"
"You don't understand/misunderstand"
"You aren't listening"
"You don't care about the idea"

Reply:

Comments about ideas can be perceived as also reflecting upon the person who had the idea, and possibly other supporters of the idea. This is often unintentional and hard to avoid. To avoid discouraging or restricting genuine discussion of proposals, such unintentional reflections upon the proposer should not always be considered as breaches of civility. The test should be whether a person commenting on an idea could reasonably have made their remarks in a better way that avoids or reduces the perception of incivility. A major aspect of this is whether the remarks are made in a manner that are respectful of the proposer. (Note that prefixing "With all due respect" to remarks does not make them respectful. Respect must also be present in the content that follows.) Hence, I would rate the first three examples as follows:

1. Unacceptable. When applied to a person "stupid" means that the person is lacking in intelligence, which I regard as a personal attack. When applied to an idea, "stupid" means the idea looks as if it was thought of by a stupid person. Though this is not such an obvious personal attack, it is still an attack upon the proposer. The comment can be expressed better as "That is a bad idea", since "bad" applies directly to the idea without commenting on its proposer.

2. Unacceptable. This is similar to the previous comment. An idiotic idea is one contemplated by an idiot. This attacks both the proposer and any supporters of the idea. "That is incorrect" would be better.

3. Very unacceptable. Not only does this have the same problem as the first example, but it is more of a direct attack upon the proposer. The statement says that the user has had other stupid ideas, which puts greater emphasis on the user's supposed stupidity. The past ideas of the proposer have nothing to do with discussion of their current idea. The idea should be discussed on its own merits, regardless of its proposer. To improve this remark would involve removing a large part of it: "That is an idea that should be ignored".

Saying that an editor does not understand something is rarely necessary. It would be better to simply explain what the editor does not understand. Sometimes it is necessary to tell an editor that they lack understanding, however. For example, where several attempts at explanation to a user have failed, another editor might want to advise the user to edit in an area they understand better. Such a comment at least implies that its target lacks understanding. Such comments about a user's understanding should be on the user's talk page, since the discussion is about the user, not content. Hence, I would rate the next three examples as follows:

4. Acceptable, but should be rare and confined to user talk pages, as I previously explained.

5. Unacceptable, but is fairly mild as incivility goes. Whereas a person can misunderstand or misread something in good faith, whether or not a person is listening is a deliberate decision. Hence, an accusation that someone is not listening is an accusation of bad faith. This comment could be improved by substituting comment #4 in its place.

6. Depends. If this is used to mean that I oppose an idea, then this is absolutely acceptable if I really do oppose the idea. If used to suggest that a user has an ulterior motive for supporting or opposing an idea, this would probably be incivility, especially if no evidence is given to support the claim. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate examples

In this section example comments will be presented. You are asked to evaluate each comment on the following scale:

1 = Always acceptable
2 = Usually acceptable
3 = Equally likely to be acceptable or unacceptable, entirely dependent on the context of the specific situation
4 = Usually not acceptable
5 = Never acceptable

Note: In my ratings below, I only deal with how likely a comment is to be acceptable. I try to avoid allowing the severity of incivility to influence my ratings. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposals or content discussions

I assume you realise how foolish this idea sounds to the rest of us.

Rating: 4, due to an assumption on someone else's views. Might be acceptable if the assumption is necessary to understand what follows, or if I had already said something to imply I did realise this. (This would have been a 5 if the example said "how foolish this idea is".) Could be better as "This idea sounds foolish to the rest of us". – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 5. Clear incivility – the comment heavily emphasises the foolishness of the user. It would be slightly milder as "This is foolishness", but still unacceptable since it implies the user is a fool. Another adjective, as in "This is unwise" might be better. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 4. Such a blanket statement about a user's competence should only be used if attempting to remedy a serious competence problem (e.g. offering assistance/education, discussing a block, or suggesting they leave voluntarily). Directing this comment at a user without proposing a way to resolve the situation would be gratuitous and uncivil.

Such a statement should only be used if the commenter believes the user to be incompetent at any editing. In most cases, a user is only incompetent in some areas of editing, even if this covers all their editing to date. Hence, this statement should normally be qualified to make this clear, e.g. "You have not shown much competence in your recent edits".

As a comment about a user rather than content, this should be said in user talk space or other Wikipedia forums that are intended for discussion of user conduct. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 3. This would be acceptable in discussions about usernames (e.g. at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names). This is completely unacceptable if used as an ad hominem attack in the course of some other discussion. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 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. The statement is not uncivil, though it is wrong. Merely having a point of view of any sort is not a conflict of interest, though wishing to use Wikipedia to push that point of view is. This is unacceptable outside of user talk and user conduct discussions, though. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 2. Not ideally phrased, but I don't think this crosses the line into incivility. This is unacceptable outside of user talk and other pages for discussion of user conduct, though. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 3. Though generally unacceptable, this is acceptable on user talk and discussions of user conduct. Comments that Wikipedia would be better off without someone should only be used if a block is seriously being considered. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 5. As I explained earlier, proposals and ideas should not be described as stupid because this also reflects on the proposer. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoever proposed this should have their head examined.

Rating: 5. This expression is a colloquial way of saying that someone has mental issues, which is almost always a personal attack. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 5. As I explained earlier, proposals and ideas should not be described as idiotic because this also reflects on the proposer and supporters. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is retarded.

Rating: 5. Not only does the word "retarded" reflect upon the proposer as well as the proposal, but it is also very offensive due to the association with mental retardation. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The person who initiated this discussion is a moron.

Rating: 5. Direct personal attack and name-calling. Obviously unacceptable. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is crap.

Rating: 2. Though profane, "crap" is used as a more emphatic alternative to "bad" or "poor" here. It does not reflect poorly on the proposer, so is not usually uncivil. Does depend slightly on context, though. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is a waste of everyone's time.

Rating: 1. A valid opinion. I would be reluctant to call this uncivil for fear of restraining genuine discussion of the proposal. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What a fucking waste this whole discussion has been.

Rating: 1. This is a meta-comment on the discussion rather than on the topic of the discussion, so is technically off-topic. This has no effect on the civility of the remark, though. The use of profanity is clearly emphatic and not directed towards anyone. Though gratuitous, it is not uncivil. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A shitty proposal from a shitty editor.

Rating: 5. Describing an editor as "shitty" is a clear personal attack. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The OP is a clueless idiot.

Rating: 5. This is another obvious attack against an editor. Such comments are never justified. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Please just stop talking, nobody is listening anyway.

Rating: 4. Either telling someone to shut up or that no one is listening would be uncivil in isolation, let alone when used together. However, I think such a remark would be justified on a user's own talk page. Users should be permitted to tell other users not to post on their talk page (within reasonable limits). – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just shut up already.

Rating: 4. Slightly more uncivil than the previous comment, but I still think this could be justified on a user talk page, though this is a borderline case. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

File your sockpuppet investigation or STFU.

Rating: 4. This reads as a crude response to an accusation of sock puppetry by another user. I regard accusations of sock puppetry outside of the forums intended for its investigation as uncivil. Telling another editor to shut up is uncivil. It would be better to tell the editor to stop making accusations of sock puppetry rather than telling them to shut up altogether. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Shut your fucking mouth before you say something else stupid.

Rating: 5. Unacceptable for the instruction to shut up, and the clear implication that the target of the comment is stupid. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin actions

The blocking admin has a long history of questionable judgements.

Rating: 4. An admin's previous actions have no bearing on discussion of a recent block; the block should be discussed in isolation. The comment would be acceptable in a discussion of the administrator's conduct (e.g. at the administrators' noticeboard), however. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 5. The "if" implies the commenter has not investigated whether "this" really is representative of the admin's abilities. Hence, the statement is merely incivility impugning the administrator's abilities. If the commenter had looked into the situation and found this sentiment to be true, they should replace the word "if" with "as". Such a comment should still be confined to discussions of the administrator's conduct, and should not be in discussions of any particular block. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 5. This is a clear personal attack and name-calling ("Nazi" is particularly nasty). Also, discussion of an admin's general conduct should not be present in discussion of a particular block. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure their admin cronies will just censor me like they do anyone who points out the hypocrisy of all WP admins, but this was a terrible block.

Rating: 2. I would assume good faith on this one to avoid restraining legitimate discussion of the block. Though the sweeping generalisation against all admins seems uncivil, the commenter could genuinely believe that hypocrisy is unavoidable when performing administrative duties. Depends slightly on context. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Rating: 5. The implication that the blocking admin doesn't have a brain is clear personal abuse. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible trolling

General response to this section: Calling someone a troll should be absolutely unacceptable, as it is vague name-calling. In many cases, calling someone a troll is an unjustified assumption of bad faith. The term "disruptive editor" is more appropriate where genuine disruption is occurring.

The term "troll" sometimes describes someone who asks questions to get an emotional reaction rather than to seek a genuine answer. Since it is often hard to determine intent, Wikipedians should assume good faith and respond to the questions in a neutral manner (avoiding any emotional reaction a troll might be seeking), or simply ignore the question if they are unable to assume good faith (i.e. deny recognition). – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comments look more like trolling to me.