Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Tom (LT) (talk) at 23:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• LT910001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Carrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —self-added

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]
• Neotarf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]
• Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [4]
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [5]
• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [6]
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [7]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• AN/I: [8]

Statement by LT910001

Thank you to the ArbCom for their thoughtful responses when determining whether or not to accept this submission, and to the many commentators who also participated. A number of thought-provoking submissions have been made which has changed my perspective on this issue. I am not sure on the protocol for this, but as the original submitter I'd like to respond to some things that have been said before this case is closed.

When I submitted this application, I submitted it under the banner of 'civility'. However with reflection, I submitted this because I was offended by what was said, and disturbed that there was no action taken at AN/I (which is why I brought it here). As stated by many submissions, civility is hard to define and harder to enforce. Offensive speech is at the more objectionable end of the incivil spectrum -- incivility is always going to be part of discussions, but I do not think offensive speech has to be and in retrospect should have framed the case this way. In my mind, offensive speech is somewhat easier to define, and with the intention of furthering debate about this issue, I have created the essay WP:OFFENSIVE.

I think ArbCom members below make a convincing point that a "well-structured" RfC/U would have been a more appropriate venue for resolution, although I wonder whether "well-structured" implies an RfC/U that devolves into a pile-on, which I do not think is fair or warranted. It is unfortunate that so few options exist: ban, warn, RfC/U, which is one reason the debate may have become so polarised. I would like it clear as the original submitter of this case, I accept and have no objections to this case not being taken any further. I also do not want this matter to be taken to ArbCom simply because a member of ArbCom has come into direct contact with the user at hand.

One final point I would like to make is that there are a lot of arguments about users who do not perceive there to be incivility. In my mind, if something is said that doesn't offend me, this doesn't matter. What matters is the person who is offended, who decides to minimise or decrease their contributions, leave this environment, or to not participate at all because of this speech. I think users that claim to be offended, or act as if they are, are in the vast majority of instances doing so genuinely in a manner consistent with their environment and upbringing.

Statement by Ryulong

I'm not involved. Remove me from this request. I will have no part of this dramafest just because a handful of people have been angry at Eric Corbett for dropping the "C-word" in a discussion and the aftermath.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sue Rangell (Uninvolved Party)

This is not a proper venue, nor a topic needy of arbitration. This entire debacle is blowback from a very disruptive campaign of forum shopping and drama festing three days after that editor was topic banned for being disruptive. ARBCOM should decline this request. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

The noted incident falls far below the need for arbitration. It's possible that there are person or people who could rightly have earned a short block for some of what occurred, but if no one's willing or no consensus could be achieved, so be it. If this is an attempt to open the door to a full scale omnibus civility action, it's not a good starting point IMO. --Cube lurker (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further thought. Some have made it clear that they are looking for arbcom to make decisions on 'civility' as a whole. I'm not convinced that this is the correct venue. (I believe in community consensus for good and bad). However if arbcom were inclined to make policy declarations in this area, it would need to begin with a well thought out, widely encompassing, well framed starting point. Not based off a snapshot incident as diffed in the opening statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

While well meant, this request should be speedily refused. The matter is still open at AN/I, there is no reason to think that the community is unable to deal with it. I urge LT to withdraw, if they see this comment. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

Statement by MLauba

At some point, eventually, those agreeing that there are important civility issues that need addressing will have to choose their end goal: change, or retribution. The former will never be crafted at noticeboards or ArbCom. For the latter, this is the right place. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wnt

The editor in question did not appear to use the racist/sexist epithets to refer to other editors in that edit, and if he had it could be handled by administrators normally. The larger issue, of course, is that the community doesn't have a coherent vision about civility. The present WP:CIVILITY policy is what Hell in a Bucket would probably call a "manifesto", piled high with tips about avoiding incivility, do's and don'ts, all dribbling down to a paragraph that says that you basically won't get blocked for being uncivil but you might. Anything in it that has any real policy usefulness is a reference to other policies. The community has been discussing various proposals for dealing with this situation, and though it is unlikely this will lead to change, filing a test case here seems like forum shopping. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

As a repentant Wiki-curmudgeon (or trying to be, at any rate), I'd say it may be time to take this on as an omnibus civility case. I'd like to see Mr. Hell in a Bucket reprint his comment from Jimbo's talk page in its entirety in his statement here, and then defend each phrase of choice to the Committee. Let's see how defensible this position is, and what value those words had within that discussion.

You have a group of people telling you that the Wikipedia fosters a hostile editing environment, that comments like Mr. Bucket's are offensive, or that Corbett/Malleus' is offensive. This sort of off-putting speech and the protection thereof has been conveyed repeatedly in a variety of venues off-wiki and on over the last few years. Are these people (the offended) in the minority? Yes, they may well be. Is it not a duty of all fair governing bodies to protect the minority form the tyranny of the majority? Whether it is Arbcom or the WMF itself, some higher authority will have to step in to start removing detrimental people from the project that the community fails to. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: in response to the "ultimate result" query, would it be possible for you to consider raising the bar on the undoing of civility blocks? BHG's 72h block of Corbett lasted all of 4 hours, allegedly by an it wasn't that bad "consensus". Put some teeth in to this the way Arbcom blocks cannot be easily undone. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be getting held up on a false roadblock of "if we can't find a consensus definition of civility, we can't enforce it" which is bunk. There's no need for everyone to "agree" on what civility is or is not, just let the admins who make a judgement call in a civility situation have the authority to make a block stick. Don't let a gang of friends at AN/I be able to easily overturn it. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Konveyor Belt

Useless and inappropriate drama mongering. A case on civility is warranted, but not this one. A general case would have a far reaching decision but this case seems to be about the conduct of one user only. Don't expect a definitive decision on civility if this case is accepted. KonveyorBelt 02:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

The norms of a community change over time and with the addition of new members, and at Wikipedia we've decided that our policies and standards evolve with those changes. But we've also decided that there are some rules and values that are fundamental to the nature of this encyclopedia, and those should not change. When you become an editor, or worse, an administrator entrusted by the community, you cannot reject the fundamental values of this community or you have become an editor or administrator under false pretenses. When you make the voluntary decision to join this community, you must accept those fundamental rules and values that are already in place. Otherwise, the Five Pillars are meaningless. Can the community decide that it no longer values neutrality and reject enforcement of NPOV? Can the community decide that Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia and is now a website for Pokemon fan fiction?

It is time for the Committee to affirm that civility is one of our Five Pillars, that it is just as inviolate as the others, that the community should take it just as seriously as the others, and that it just as enforceable and should be just as vigorously enforced as the others. Or it should declare that the community has decided that it now only has Four Pillars, and that the community should act accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neotarf

The use of blatantly racist or sexist insults has a chilling effect on participation by those groups, and as a result on the quality of the encyclopedia. This creates an editing environment that is intimidating, hostile, and abusive, not just to anyone who is not white, male, and heterosexual, but to everyone.

diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The diffs: I made a request on the user's talk page to remove the offensive slurs. The offensive language was not removed so I started a discussion at ANI. Finally one user recommended to remove it out of common decency. I removed it here. But common decency isn't that common, so it was restored again, and a bizarre "welcome to Wikipedia" template slapped on my talk page, even though the user said he knew there was a "strong opinion on templating the regulars" but it "doesn't bother me too much". He also accuses me of mental disorders [16][17] and made it clear that some of his insults were directed at me personally. There was also a gratuitous mention of genitals and violence against women. All of this happened simply because I raised concerns. After 3 days (so far) my concerns have still not been addressed. If this is not resolved, I suspect it will become more and more difficult for anyone to raise concerns, or for that matter, continue to edit, without feeling intimidated. The Wikipedia needs to establishing an effective process for dealing with these types of concerns, provide safe-space training to their admins and other users, and couth classes for youngsters or other sensitive users who have problems adjusting to a diverse editing environment. Note about availability: I will probably be unavailable for an extended length of time, however the diffs should speak for themselves. Response to HINB: the user was notified of the discussion from the ANI page itself by a ping at the time I opened the request. [18]

Judging by the number of people who are calling this a "swearing" issue, I don't think many people have actually read HIAB's original statement (diff)(I have added the highlighting):

I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this. Hell in a Bucket 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not about "civility" or even about "censorship"; it is about bigotry and the use of racial and ethnic slurs, although there is some overlap of issues. —Neotarf (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. What TParis said. —Neotarf (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:123chess456, I would like the arbs to endorse this, and TParis and BHG to decide how to structure it. If there is an eventual result, it can be reported back to Arbcom at a later date. —Neotarf (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis, I don't see why you wouldn't be qualified. To close it, no, as you have commented on the ANI, however briefly. But to craft the proposal takes someone who is up to speed on both the policies (en.wp and wmf) and the current problems and practices on the drama boards (your most careful work with the HRC closure comes to mind), and who most importantly *believes* it can be done. Last year the arbs were willing to address the issue with the Manning naming dispute, but this time around it seems they lack the vision to see a way forward. The alternative is for the WMF to impose their own solution, and we have already seen their finesse in that area with Virtual Editor and Mediaviewer. —Neotarf (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Monty845

The community has tried repeatedly to come up with a solution for the civility problem, and repeatedly failed to find consensus. At least in my view, the proposals have always gotten bogged down in a debate between those who care a great deal about seeing improved civility enforcement, and those worried that the specific proposals will either be used as a bludgeon by other editors in editing disputes, generating more conflict than the existing incivility does, result in rampant baiting, or will disproportionately effect our most prolific editors, as plans that impose mandatory sanctions might. While I of course hope that there is some new idea that will come along and satisfy everyone, or at least a large enough portion of editors to establish consensus, this has been a major ongoing issue for several years, and such a solution has not manifested itself.

In the mean time, the issue of civility enforcement has spawned myriad disputes, and led to many valuable editors from all sides retiring or otherwise leaving over it. While I generally applaud the reluctance of the committee to legislate change, this has been going on so long, and spawned so many discussions, RFCs, studies, polls, surveys, and other attempts to move forward, that I think it is safe to say the community has had every chance to fix it, failed, and it is time for the committee to take a crack at it. Whether its crafting a solution of its own, or figuring out some other way for the community to move forward, it seems like the best shot for finally getting some resolution to the civility question.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on who, if anyone, should have their individual conduct reviewed. No matter the outcome for the individuals, as long as the civility dispute remains unresolved, there will always be new editors causing discord in the grey area between civility and NPA. As such, I strongly urge the committee to take on at least the larger question of how civility policy should be enforced. Monty₈₄₅ 03:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My hope original hope would be a result like WP:BLPBAN where the committee went beyond what the community could find consensus for, and basically laid down the law. If the committee is unwilling to go that far, perhaps the committee could organize a carefully structured RFC designed to move the community forward towards something that can achieve consensus (and if necessary, something closer to a vote, than a classic super-majority consensus we typically use). Monty₈₄₅ 02:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownhairedGirl

I endorse most of Tarc's statement[19], except his request that Arbcom take this case. wmf:Terms of Use requires that editors support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Comments by Hell in a Bucket[20] breach those terms; many others could be listed.

So many admins oppose enforcement that incivility sanctions are routinely overturned at ANI. Concerns about difficulties of defining incivility mask the opposition of many admins to sanctions for even blatant offences such as deliberate use of obscenities without contextual relevance[21], and calling an editor brainless.[22] Admin rejection of civility standards is exemplified by John who wrote "Anyone who feels this site is too rude or too male-dominated has the freedom to leave, or the freedom to fork" and rejected repeated requests to clarify or withdraw that remark[23].

The consequence was summarised by Jimbo[24]: our toleration for behavior that would not be accepted in any paid work space that leads to massive costs in terms of the quality of the project and the harmony of the work environment. Similar sentiments were repeatedly expressed by Sue Gardner as ExecutiveDirector of WMF, and by many outside commentators.

In the last few days it has become clear to me that community processes have repeatedly resolved not to sanction incivility. OTOH the Foundation which owns this website (tho not its contents) makes civility a ToU.

The relevant part of WP:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities is #1: to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. If Arbcom wants to take a case on its current remit, it should respect the consensus that civility is one of the five pillars only as aspiration, not as enforceable policy. (Opponents of civility enforcement will provide evidence of that consensus amongst those whose who have not left or been deterred from joining.)

If Arbcom wishes to act outside its current remit, it should seek Foundation approval to change the scope and responsibilities policy, to allow the Foundations' Terms of Use and/or policies to override community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare frames the discussion as dispute resolution[25]. Arbitrators who hold that view should decline the case, because it will be futile unless explicitly based on ToU enforcement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: see my ToU quote above. Sitush says ToU is a WMF thing, not an en-WP thing, but I believe ToU is non-negotiable basis for en-WP. Only WMF can clarify that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: bans on intentional incivility are successfully enforced in many contexts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JMP EAX

our toleration for behavior that would not be accepted in any paid work space^{[citation needed]}, really. I'm not involved in this particular incident, but as a disclosure of potential bias I admit to occasionally being less than courteous in Wikipedia and in real life. I think that Jimbo has a too idealized view of what happens in most other paid work spaces. I suggest to everyone wanting to know more about this to read The No Asshole Rule (the book not the wiki article about it, which is a rather poor summary thereof); the book discusses a few salient points, albeit supported mostly with non-systematic/anecdotal evidence. Among them are example of workplaces that Jimbo should know they exist, for they are rather common and well-known in the finance world. I guess we can give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt that he didn't work long enough in his initial profession to run into those... The aforementioned book also discusses the contamination effect that asshole-like behavior can have. And yeah, one can be an asshole while not violating any formal speech codes involving four-letter words and such. Finally, the book does propose—and not in a tongue-in-cheek fashion—that there perhaps should be a "one asshole rule" rather than no asshole rule; I won't spoil the all the details, but the idea is that some experiments have shown that having a tolerated negative example/specimen actually improves the behavior of everyone else. I'm not really going to suggest who the chosen asshole should be on Wikipedia... And one more point I think is relevant here: the book also tries to draw a distinction between "temporary asshole" behavior and "certified asshole"—the latter defined as a persistent pattern of such behavior. JMP EAX (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Certainly an ever-present topic but unresolvably broad by any type of arbitration. Behavior is governed by policy, community standards and pillars. In the end though, specific behavior is a type of content dispute that will continue as long as Wikipedia continues. Unless this is a request for a specific sanction for a specific comment, there is really nothing for Arbcom to resolve. "Resolved: Be nice" would be the result of a broad civility case but interpretation of such broad values will still be decided on ANI, RfC and talk pages. There will still be disputes and nothing is presented here for abitration. "Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors;..." passed 10-0 as a behavioral standard in virtually every case, yet here we are. I think we've seen civility used as a stick by both those enforcing a overly-strict civility standard as well as those that use incivility to dominate discussions. Everyone has seen the valiant but unwelcome refactor machine that irritates the other editors as well as the shock-jock editor that drops bombs to drive away discussion participants. Both are abuses but there is no broad interpretation that can change it. Taking a case like this, with no real possibility of a binding resolution will only stir the drama pot. Arbcom, as it exists, can make determinations of whether a certain, particular behavior has crossed the line and sanction editors or topic/interaction restrictions. Paradoxically, Arbcom cannot draw the line and no will ever agree exactly where the line is regardless of a broad finding. It's the difference between judging and legislating. To paraphrase from Macbeth if this case is taken, it will have its hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury yet signifying nothing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

Holy fuck!! I'm pretty amazed by this. I'm still searching in vain where I accused User:Neotarf of being mentally ill. Did I mock them a bit for their cowardly and passive aggressive ANI notice, yes. I still view that with the highest level of contempt. They just left a link in wiki coding that said "sigh" on Jimbo's page, i mean what the fuck seriously? First the editor said it was demeaning a group of people, this has morphed into waging war against profanity. I've raised a few questions, who is being attacked? I'm not attacking anyone, do I use adult language yes. Was there a reason behind it beyond just upsetting people..Yes. This debate started before my involvement it spanned multiple pages including multiple ANI and AN threads and finally popped up on Jimbos page. It was WP:FORUMSHOPPING at it's finest. I regret nothing, I attempted to make a valid point without making a large disruption, as I said on my page if they want to manipulate it to suit their needs that is up to them. There is obviously no consensus on this and this is just another level of whining but to make me the face of this case with this comment is laughable and a waste or reasonable peoples time. I could refute about every point Neotarf has stated other then I wrote the statement, I mocked their passive aggressive behaviors and I declined ot remove them. Did I advocate violence against women? No I even acknowledge it was hyperbole and was only to show how fucking retarded the comment was that was made above it, apparently gratuitous mention of genitals completely ignores the actual definition of gratuitous "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted." I am referencing that [[26]] here because of the selective things presented in my comment they have chosen to ignore. It's actually rather telling what is ignored at the beginning and is only now mentioned in an effort to make something stick. I reverted my comment back into the record because the actions taken were inappropriate. That skirted the edge of an edit war and likely was one although it didn't breach 3rr, and in that cause I will take responsibility for not knowing the correct action to do in that instance. I know that some culpability would lay on me for that action and I'm sure the others as well and I do think there is some connection there within those 3 editors but I don't know how much or what exactly it is. I'm not suggesting sockpuppetry but I think it's possible it was coordinated but I could be easily wrong too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neotarf You must have ignored the bright yellow box where it states "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use .... Minor detail I suppose it only takes up a quarter of the page in a bright yellowish box with big letters of the opening screen at ani. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightbreather if by target the people wanting civility you mean I use adult language yes I do. That statement does not attack any group and I challenge you to show me one instance where it singles out anybody other then tell people on BOTH sides that they were wasting their time at AN, ANI and Jimbo's poage it was a dramafest and that everybodies best interest was using that energy to combat vandals. Letr's paraphrase, This page will not solve the problem. who cares who calls who names. male superiority idiots will be idiots, feminists will be feminists. Where do I single out people who want civility, where do I single out a group of people as the root of the problem. The root of the problem is everyone involved. Your incessent forumshopping has morphed from the use of the word cunt to a problem with an editor that you said followed you to the gender gap and all of a sudden now it's a problem with civility. I'd like to see a consistent message at least. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting [[27]] that the cause has changed yet again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting point User:Neotarf [[28]] one of the editors complaining about civility telling another editor to GFY or "Go fuck yourself" Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another gem from User:Neotarf a subheading [[29]] in an attempt to forum shop it's apparently ok for Neotarf to make subheadings with the words Cunt, Queer and Nigger and this is somehow acceptable as compared to my who cares who calls who a ..... I myself don't have a problem because I ahave the ability to understand the difference, I'm worried though that Neotarf may not be able to, especially considering the apparent inconsistency they are showing in their behavior and comments on wiki. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

This is in reply to @Salvio giuliano: Your first observation that the statement is uncivil is obviously a finding that it is against policy. Since there is dispute about that than Arbcom is here to settle the dispute (perhaps by motion). Your personal experience while enlightening of your personal experience, actually ignores the fact that we are communicating in a multi-cultural environment, and one of the purposes of the civility policy is to guide communication in that setting. (I would note that none of this is about the occasional "fuck" that you seemingly want to protect, a closer analogy would be "fucker"). Your second paragraph is a non sequitur. There is no reason to believe that action against more overt incivility would not lead to tempering and dealing with less overt incivility; indeed, the opposite is the more likely outcome because as long as the overt incivility is practiced without censure than the covert incivility will flourish to an even greater degree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that we have a considerable difference over the office you describe. All our communications are deliberately in writing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't take for granted there is a platonic idea. I take for granted there is a policy that disapproves of incivilty. Your assumption appears to be that the policy has no meaning. But as I agree with you that the comment was incivil, that proves that we can agree, and that the policy does have meaning. As for whether every instance needs to be discussed for days, that ignores the fact that discussion for days of some instances regularly occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then adopt your finding and statement, if you think that is enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC) As for the rest, you're here to apply policy to the instance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cas Liber:, reading WP:Battle, there are multiple references in it to WP:Civility. As a primary basis for Battle is Civ, if you argue that Civ has no meaning, there is practically little way to identify Battle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the first three arbitrators: Although I am not one of the ones calling for a full blown case, it seems that your prior "principle" did not address warnings and advice, which is odd considering that's obviously the lowest level of response (and would therefore be the one likely most used (first) by everyone, except for the habitual cases). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously over but just so silence is not construed as consent, this is in reply to User:Worm That Turned. Your claim that civility is abstract is rather pointless, when all the Pillars are abstract concepts; it is still a pillar and your commenting efforts to find it without content are, given your position, rather delinquent of respect. As to your dismissal of "words", your dismissal makes little sense in this forum. There is only one "act", here, it is "submit", and what is it submit of: words, words, words; and the explaining, in words, of the submission in words. So, sure you may dismiss those who make complaint of words, but it is your blanket dismissal that is disrespectful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

I wasn't going to bother to comment, but having read Monty845's statement I wanted to endorse it. The last shot for finally resolving the larger issue within the community (rather than WMF doing it) is ArbCom. Is this the case to do it? My initial thought was no. I would agree with Salvio's comments on the specifics here. But, in a sense, that makes this a good opportunity for ArbCom to review the larger subject broadly, and not get bogged down in the specifics of one user. There were much more significant and contentious examples that could have been brought here over the last few days. If they were the subject of the case, it would be harder to avoid the specifics, which come with accompanying baggage, rancour and partisanship, and deal with the larger point. So, it would be a service to the community (albeit possibly outside ArbCom's rules?) if ArbCom took the case but in so doing acknowledged it wasn't about Hell in a Bucket's post. If you decide to decline this - I could fully understand why you wouldn't want to go near it with the proverbial 10 foot bargepole - I really do think it effectively hands it off to WMF, with all the unforeseen consequences that might have. Hence my reference to doing the community a service should you agre to take it. DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Mol Man

As an outsider who only wanted to comment on the AN/I section because of his amazement that the discussion existed (and where it was going), I was going to stay off this request; however, I notice above I am being cited above by User:Neotarf as suggesting to remove the comment out of common decency. I'd just like to clarify that my suggestion was to and only to User:Hell in a Bucket, and that my parenthetical "fruitlessly I bet" was from my observation that he wanted the comment to stay on Jimbo's talk.

More on topic: the whole dispute that comes from AN/I seems like a long lived feud amongst multiple editors, and, at least as far as I think, doesn't necessarily belong in the hands of ArbCom. moluɐɯ 14:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cas Liber

What would depress me mightily is that if there were to be any resultant increase in civility enforcement (whether by arbcom or by the WMF), it would result in a crackdown on cuss-words and obvious put-downs, and I fear we'd see a relaxing of rules or missing of fillibustering, obtuseness, subtle ongoing battleground-digs that last years or decades, which in my opinion are far more destructive. A few expletives are easily ignored, the others can and do paralyse debates on much needed reforms. So I'd decline this case. Any discussion on civility should be neutral and as far as possible not predicated on old disputes and vendettas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I concur with the statement by User:BrownHairedGirl. We, the community, have a real disconnect between, on the one hand, both policy as stated and the WMF Terms of Use, and policy as implemented. Policy as stated and the overriding Terms of Use dictate civility. However, policy as implemented is that the policy is an empty statement, because multiple English Wikipedia administrators have concluded that civility should not be enforced, and some have even concluded that personal attacks should not be sanctioned, and one administrator (as BHG has noted) has posted a defiant statement advising anyone who dislikes the current environment at English Wikipedia to fork. I urge ArbCom to accept this case, not so much against one user, but as an omnibus case. While the civility policy is not effectively enforced, it has not been and cannot be set aside, because it is the restatement of the overriding Terms of Use, and the Terms of Use are inherited into the policies. The particular violation was only one of multiple recent violations of civility. I ask the ArbCom to open this case to permit other recent civility violations to be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that my concern is not about "ordinary profanity". As Salvio says, that is used more in some cultures than in others. It is, first, about deliberate insults, such as the allegation of brainlessness. Also, some words are humorous or mildly offensive in some variants of English, but are deeply offensive in other variants of English. A bilateral obligation to assume good faith by persons who have been on the receiving end of offensive language permits the poster to game the system. I am asking ArbCom to restate that insults are not permitted, and to state that posters are required to use judgment in using slang insults, because they may be deeply offensive in some cultures. (Indeed, I think that a few posters use those words because they know that some readers find them deeply offensive. ArbCom should not make a list of bad words, but ArbCom should reinforce that the calculated use of insults is uncivil and sanctionable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LtPowers

I wish simply to call attention to this comment from arbitrator Salvio: "I occasionally swear on the workplace and nobody has ever complained; one of our secretaries, a woman, swears like the proverbial fishwife, much to everyone's indifference." I don't consider myself well-versed in gender issues, but even I can detect the author's privilege and a very blatant fallacy here, in just this one short sentence.

The "nobody has ever complained" excuse is particularly egregious; any experienced adult should know that lack of verbal complaint does not constitute acceptance! "Speak now or forever hold your peace" only applies when specifically invoked; it's not a general rule of everyday behavior. One of the many reasons for our gender gap is that women are, on average, less likely to speak up in the face of incivility and more likely to simply avoid the unpleasant individual or situation in the future. (And it's not just women; many confrontation-averse people are men.) This is self-perpetuating, of course, because repeat offenders are likely to take silence as permission to continue, which simply exacerbates the situation for the conflict-averse. But even if we ignore the gender aspect, don't we want everyone to participate in our project? Not just the people who can keep up with the roughest folks in the room?

The fallacy in Salvio's comment, of course, is the implication that since one woman has no problem "swear[ing] like the proverbial fishwife", then clearly, sensitivity to coarse language cannot possibly be a gender issue. I hope I don't have to point out how absurd this conclusion is.

Quite frankly, this single sentence forces me to question Salvio's fitness for ArbCom. It's just stunning to me that someone elected (presumably) on the basis of a temperament suited to dispute resolution could be that blatantly tone-deaf.

Statement by Lightbreather

The dispute that arose from the comment in question by Hell in a Bucket is a symptom of a larger problem in the Wikipedia editing environment: Incivility. Soothing this single eruption will do nothing toward healing the community. I have only skimmed the other statements, but one suggestion stood out as having great possibility: that the committee receive approval to rule and act on the larger question of how to improve the existing Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use and the Wikipedia Civility policies. Of greater urgency, how to enforce those terms and standards.

If the case is opened, other policies and guidelines will come up. The committee and others should review the "What Wikipedia is not" policy (Community) subsections:

• Wikipedia is not censored policy is about article content, not about community conduct;
• Wikipedia is not an anarchy (not a forum for unregulated free speech), and;
• Wikipedia is not a battleground.

I would also say that the No personal attacks and Harassment policies should be studied, and especially these:

• Removal of text (personal attacks) from WP:NPA;
• the lead paragraph of WP:HARASS;
• Editing others' comments from the Talk page guidelines, and;
• the "Help:Edit summary" subsections How to summarize and Use of edit summaries in disputes.

Those last two should be made policy. Which brings up a final point. I've seen the words "actionable," "preventative," and "punitive" used in discussions related to this one. Repeated incivility should be actionable, and punitive action should be allowed. This is how employers handle incivility in the workplace, and there is no reason not to have a similar policy here. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: WIAPA says that a personal attack targets a contributor or group of contributors. It also ends by saying that the examples given are not exhaustive, and that "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Your comment was undoubtedly a personal attack against editors pushing for workplace civility. However, I don't think action should be taken against you in particular because it will not solve the larger problem.

@Hell in a Bucket: I mean language can offend, and when it does an adult apologizes. I used such language this week, and the one time someone expressed offense (though I meant none), I apologized and struck what I said.[30]

I hate to use up my word count, but if no-one else will do it...

"I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this." Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

...there is a copy of what you said. Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitrators if you do open this case, I would like to know if a user who feels they are being attacked or harassed is "forum shopping" if they ask for a conduct evaluation by an admin at ANI. The former policy seems to be about content disputes, not conduct. Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support TParis' proposal. Lightbreather (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sjakkalle

There are two aspects of the civility dispute. The first aspect is where to draw the line between what is gruff but acceptable, and what are unacceptable personal attacks and incivility. This is an inherently subjective issue and difficult to really arbitrate on. Some things ought to be beyond the pale but drawing a bright line is next to impossible.

However the aspect that I think ArbCom should look at is the conduct of those enforcing the civility policy, and the conduct of those who think the civility enforcers are too block-happy and who proceed to quickly undo any blocks made. This is a major source of the conflict that is causing so much grief on AN and ANI. There have been multiple cases where a block for incivility is quickly undone by another administrator, this is followed by angry questioning of the suitability of the admins on both sides.

The last arbitration case, entitled "civility enforcement" also resulted in a number of admonishments that are unenforcable at "requests for enforcement", some which should be revisited.

Statement by Jehochman

The fact that the community doesn't agree on what constitutes incivility is a great reason for ArbCom not to take the case. ArbCom can't forge a consensus where none exists.

On the other hand, if editors are going nuts and causing endless trouble because of perceived incivility (or perceived censorship of valid commentary that is allegedly incivil), ArbCom can take that knot and untie it.

I'll keep repeating myself until people learn it: there are very different administrative methods for dealing with mere incivility, than for dealing with personal attacks and harassment. It takes some clue to distinguish between the two classes of incivility, the lesser and the greater. The key thing is to determine if the attack is "personal" or the activity is designed to annoy the target (harassment). If somebody curses, that's not so bad. If they know that I don't like being cursed at, and they come to my talk page to defile it with profanity, that's another matter. Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Adding myself as a party in case ArbCom accepts this case. I have no opinion as to whether they should. Carrite (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I was an active participant in the previous Civility case. My advice is to decline this one. Maybe there is a need for ArbCom to draw a line about civility when the community cannot, but I do not think that the facts in this case are sufficiently clear-cut to make this case the case in which to do it. The very fact that the community lacks consensus means that there need to be clear-cut events in a case, in order for the case to allow ArbCom to establish a precedent that the community will be able to work with, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I agree with the submitter and with Neotarf, BrownhairedGirl and Robert McClenon above, among others. As anyone who has been around for a while knows, the community has failed to provide a setting in which the civility policy and the Foundation's related terms of use can have actual effect. This is detrimental to the project because it allows a vocal minority of aggressively-minded persons to bully, alienate and deter many other users. Cas Liber is right that there are other, civil forms of disruption, but that is not a reason not to combat this relatively easily identifiable form of disruption. I disagree with the proposition that this is a policy issue which the community should resolve on its own. The civility policy exists and presumably enjoys consensus. The mechanics of its enforcement, particularly against socially well-connected veteran users, are what is contentious. Moreover, civility is also required by the terms of use, which do not require, and supersede, community consensus. The Committee should accept the case and craft a system similar to discretionary sanctions to enable fast and decisive administrative action against uncivil behavior.  Sandstein  15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

I agree with Sandstein: the Committee should accept the case and craft a system similar to discretionary sanctions to enable administrative action against uncivil behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

The committee held a case over 2 years ago in which they recommended that the community develop some consensus for what is/is not enforceable with respect to Civility. The community held a consensus building discussion nearly 2 years ago that resulted in no consensus. We're now 2 years down the road and not a lot has changed. Well connected and habitually abusive users still are well connected and habitually abusive (including white knight admins who enable them to continue without penalty), the community (project,volunteers,and foundation) bemoans the loss of volunteers in editing including the loss of great luminaries in the community while doing nothing about the causes for the departures, and ArbCom continues to recline in their ivory tower only accepting the cases that interest them and not dispensing with the medicine that the project and community need. The committee should take the case if for no other reason to issue ArbEnforcement discretionary sanctions as the cowboy actions, capricious reversals, and multi gigabyte discussions that never end up with anything but "The issue is troublesome, but we don't have the consensus to do anything about it" do nothing but erode what little strength remains in the 5th pillar. It's a case of doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result... Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt of 10:58, 7 August 2014: If an editor writes certain words that are decidedly not tolerated in polite society it doesn't matter at whom they are directed. The words were either deliberately chosen to disrupt the conversation by their use and therefore disruptive editing or done to make a point or the words were chosen because the editor doesn't know better and should be educated in how to express their sentiments in more Bradspeak Normal Form (BNF) so that the debate can stay in the more preferable regions of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I can only surmise by your statements that you are either presenting a pristine ignorance defense (in which WP:CIR applies) or you are deliberately being ignorant of the charged language and therefore subject to WP:POINT. I assert again that certain words, unless used in a very careful situations, goes to the lowest levels of disagreement. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

As long as we cannot agree on what is or is not incivil - and that failure to agree is amply demonstrated - there is nothing that ArbCom can do here. I'd be surprised if ArbCom members themselves can agree but even if they could, it is not their role to stipulate "consensus" from somewhere upon high. The problem is a vague, unworkable pillar, not ArbCom, admins of any hue or indeed individual users generally. Between them, Worm and Salvio have got it about right and it always strikes me when these things blow up that if everyone just ignored the incident at the outset then any alleged damage would be minimised: it is the fallout that causes the problems and the fallout is often based not on whatever the specific incident may be but on ingrained personality and cultural clashes etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Have you read the Terms of Use? "We encourage you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community, to act in good faith, and to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project" (emphasis added) is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. I'm not even sure that it would be within ArbCom's remit anyway: ToU is a WMF thing, not an en-WP thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: yes, I saw your quote but "encourage you to be civil and polite" really isn't enforceable. It isn't even enforceable by the WMF because it is so vague. We're back where we started: the civility policy is a practically useless thing even though ideologically it might seem sound. In reality, its wording and that of the ToU make it more similar to a guideline than a policy. I'm not objecting to it in its current form, btw: trying to enforce a utopian concept that no-one agrees on and that has regional disparities etc would be madness. I'm still astonished to read people who seem to think that all workplaces are even bothered about what language their employees use etc. Most that I have frequented don't give a ... well you can guess the last word  ;) - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: you say that such things are enforced in many contexts. That may be true, if there is consensus, but it doesn't change a thing regarding my argument. You have to define "incivility" and no-one has been able to get consensus for that. Nor will they likely ever do. The "workplace" test, for example, quite obviously fails. I'm going to say no more because this is pointless, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: Ok, there was no point me saying more with BHG because the two of us were not going to agree. Regarding your "false roadblock" point, I sort of understand what you mean but it seems to presuppose that admins are exempt from WP:CONSENSUS. That is, if one admin takes a certain action then even a large group of other admins cannot overturn it. Something wrong there, surely, as it really is putting a lot of power in the hands of an admin whose definition of incivility might not be the same as most others. So, we're back yet again at the "how to define incivility" problem. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by TParis

Proposal Several editors without any connection to civility disputes develop a structured RFC to properly discuss this.--v/r - TP 21:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Neotarf: I'm definitely not the right guy to do this - I've made my opinions too widely known.--v/r - TP 03:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 123chess456

@TParis: I do think we should start an RFC on the matter of civility. Who would be in for an RFC on the issue? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Neotarf: I think that since the case is heavily leaning towards a decline, we should make the RFC in a sandbox and actually propose it once the case is officially declined. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gerda

I think that civility and enforcement don't go well together. Is enforced civility civility? - Certain words which I would not use (highlighted above, why?) are not uncivil as long as they are not directed at a person or a group. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: certain words that are decidedly not tolerated in polite society, you say, - when I read the word "cunt" here for the first time I had to look it up because I had never heard it before. In which of your categories does that last sentence fall? Words have different meanings in different societies. I observe a lot of incivility in sweet words, but what will be civil enough not point it out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

example: last straw --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: I am no native speaker of English, the word didn't appear in my school education, nor in conversations with friends in the US, I heard it here for the first time. Your response is too complicated for my limited command of English. KISS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

Civility cases are Arbcom's Kobayashi Maru (No-win situation) ....

The alternative is the insufficiently used WP:RFC/U. There's the wiki belief RFCUs "don't work," but that's mostly because folks don't put the effort into forming them well, and there's the misconception if there's no blocking / restrictions / groveling there's been no effect. To the contrary if enough people support a position, it likely will have an effect, because most contributors are social creatures. NE Ent 02:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lesser Cartographies

I think we have a less of a civility problem than a WP:INVOLVED-ish problem. Here's a narrowly-tailored solution: if an editor is blocked for incivility, an unblock can only be made by an admin who has had no interaction with the editor outside of routine administrative notifications. In less formal language, unblocking is still a remedy for bad blocks, but it can't be your buddies who unblock you. Long-time contributors will have a much smaller pool of admins who can perform an unblock, which is fine, as they ought to know better. Once unblocks start becoming less common, I think we'll find out that the community does have a pretty good idea of what constitutes incivility. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by John Cline

The civility fiasco is a "troll-like" machination. It prevails by the skill of cunning and hideous craft; wrought directly upon truth and sound reason. And, like everything "troll-like", it demands sustenance for its gluttonous appetite; fed each time someone repeats a tenet of its malformed creed. Tenets like: it's a no-win situation; civility can not be defined; the problem is not editor conduct, it is endemic to an unworkable pillar; or my personal favorite, this entire dramafest derives from a handful of people who feign a desire for a civil editing environment merely because they are angry at Eric Corbett. These would be otherwise laughable tenets, except that reasonable people acquiesce the miscreant's passion and give haven to malcontent ways. I become more incensed with these reasonable folk, who gaze at the matter refusing to admit what they see. Everyone should re-read BrownHairedGirl's comment to Sitush before parroting how impossible it is to uphold our institutional promise to maintain a civil editing environment. Before I joined Wikipedia, I spent much time playing online poker at several different sites. I assure you that their ability to identify and quell belligerency while requiring civility and basic human decency at a poker table during play, attributes outright incompetence to each who insist it can not be achieved on this site; ever. Peace.—John Cline (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I've moved a reply to Rich Farmbrough from LT910001 to LT's section as editors are permitted to edit in their own section only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/8/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• First things first: Hell in a Bucket's edit in question does not violate WP:NPA and can *not* be reasonably construed as "demeaning fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression", in my opinion. The way I see it, the various four-letter words employed were being used for rhetoric purposes, for effect. Was it unhelpful and uncivil? Definitely. Should it have been avoided? Probably. Then again, the edit has been blown *way* out of proportion. And it's not the first time this has happened, these last few days.

  The enforcement of the civility policy has historically been the source of a lot of strife, not because people are arguing against civility tout court (or at least very few, if any, do), but because this is an international, multicultural project and, so, different editors have diverse sensibilities and heterogeneous concepts of civility (for instance, having to choose, I'd prefer to be called a bastard rather than dishonest). Speaking for myself, I am Italian and in Italy, there is a higher tolerance for profanities. I occasionally swear on the workplace and nobody has ever complained; one of our secretaries, a woman, swears like the proverbial fishwife, much to everyone's indifference. And I have always thought that the occasional "fuck" can be very useful for emphatic purposes (provided it's not used too often). Language is alive, after all; and, in my opinion, to attempt to completely sanitise it would be a grave disservice to it. In short, because of our multicultural nature, I believe that, for the peaceful and productive cohabitation of everyone, both a certain amount of tolerance and a certain amount of self-restraint are necessary.

  The other problem I see is that most people generally just concentrate on the use of four-letter words, and not on other, more insidious forms of incivility. During the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, for instance, there were some extremely uncivil statements made without the use of a single bad word, which does not mean that they were any less hurtful – and, ironically, some of these were made by those arguing in favour of a more civil environment. For example, condescension, passive aggressiveness and the intentional distortion of another editor's words are uncivil and do not foster a productive work environment. Yet they are rampant...

  Anyway, I am rambling. I see some commentators are asking us to establish the standards by which to judge incivility and the possible sanctions to impose on those violating them, but this can only be done by the community. Granted ArbCom is there to adjudicate serious conduct disputes, but we only do it applying the standards set by the community; actually setting them is too akin to creating policy for my comfort. So, I guess it all boils down to a decline from me. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your first observation that the statement is uncivil is obviously a finding that it is against policy. And? Not all violations of policy need be dissected for days in many different venues and not all violations of policy need lead to sanctions. Sometimes, a simple word to the wise (or even a bollocking) is enough..

    Your personal experience while enlightening of your personal experience, actually ignores the fact that we are communicating in a multi-cultural environment, and one of the purposes of the civility policy is to guide communication in that setting. Actually, I'd say *this* is a non sequitur. You seem to take for granted that there is a platonic idea of civility which is recognised as such by everyone, but it is not so and that's the problem; a person's concept of civility is a function of his milieu, upbringing and experiences. The civility policy offers no guidance as to what "simple" incivility is (as opposed to personal attacks or harassment), but rather relies on the way editors interpret the term which, as I said, is variable exactly because this is a multi-cultural environment. Your idea of civility is probably different from mine and currently there is nothing in policy that says that your personal definition of civility needs to prevail over someone else's. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • But as I agree with you, that the comment was incivil that proves that we can agree, and that the policy does have meaning. Nopes, it only means that, indeed, we can agree and that policy *can* have meaning, not that it necessarily does in all cases (or even in most cases). That said, even in this case, I believe we only agree in part: while we both think that edit was uncivil, I'd say it seems there is no consensus as to how to deal with it. In my opinion, a "dude, next time please be a little more considerate" is enough; others, however, seem to think that the edit in question was so outrageous as to warrant redaction and possibly even a block... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fallacy in Salvio's comment, of course, is the implication that since one woman has no problem "swear[ing] like the proverbial fishwife", then clearly, sensitivity to coarse language cannot possibly be a gender issue Of course, that's not what I said, but yes, I don't think that sensitivity to coarse language is necessarily a gender issue: in my opinion, it's more of a cultural issue. The mention of my workplace was a response to the proposal that we should adopt the same tone we adopt in the workplace. Well, in Italy, even in the workplace, in general, profanities are not frowned upon, because here most people swear anyway regardless of gender (if one really wants to be offensive, one has to resort to bestemmie).

        I am asking ArbCom to restate that insults are not permitted and I agree entirely. Generally, personal attacks are actionable (I've been known to block even for a first offence), but of course the gravity of the insult has to be taken into consideration to determine the sanction to impose (a mild personal attack may warrant a simple warning, for instance). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some opening comments: Perhaps the people suggesting an omnibus civility case can suggest what they see as the ultimate result of such a case as they'd hope for? Arbitration in practice and setup is far more effective at addressing instances rather than trends. From the previous Civility case, the Committee wrote: All users are reminded to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus. Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole. and strongly suggested a community reevaluation of how sanctions were placed in instances such as these. Seeing as application of wide-ranging standards requires admins to be on the same page in evenly enforcing those standards, I don't see how such an omnibus case would be effective at present unless we essentially decide on rules and then act rigorously in holding any admin who makes or removes a block accountable by desysop for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Thanks to all those who added comments on my above questions. However I think I agree with my colleagues on here. I've been a party to cases where we burned ourselves and let down the community by focusing on a nebulous case. This wouldn't go anywhere fast, wouldn't help address the core issues, and it's debatable whether it would be in our remit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm somewhat torn here. On one hand, this incident is clearly a situation that's spiraled out of control to the point community processes can't handle it. That is, indeed, one of our mandates of things to take care of, and so I'm minded to accept on that basis. On the other hand, I don't think the community is clear on when (or if) civility is actually enforceable rather than something we'd like people to do, and we can't make policy, only enforce it. I'd appreciate some statements focusing on what those who would like us to take this case think that can help the situation. Also, any case would not focus on one single comment by a single editor, but would examine the behavior of everyone involved. Being uncivil doesn't require the use of foul language, nor is all use of vulgar language by definition uncivil. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd still be minded to accept, if for nothing else than to examine the behavior of those involved in the recent blowup and put down at least some general principles, but that's probably moot at this point. I hope the community will take this as a wake-up call to clearly define civility expectations and their enforcement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it seems this may no longer be academic, accept. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GorillaWarfare: My acceptance would be to consider the behavior of all involved here. We can't solve the broader civility question by fiat, but I think there are at least some here whose behavior has added considerable fuel to the fire and are well over any reasonable line to be drawn. I also don't think at this point that community processes are going to be able to contain that or a repeat of that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two questions for us to consider when deciding whether to accept this case: One is whether this specific incident is just one example of a long-term pattern of misbehavior by specific editors. While a case could be made that the initial incident that this is an offshoot of involved such a pattern, I don't believe anyone is suggesting that Hell's comment was indicative of chronic incivility on his part. The other factor is whether arbcom can or should address the general problem of civility and civility enforcement. That sounds like a policy decision. We cannot, should not, and will not do that. I know this is a big, seemingly intractable problem, but at some point the community is going to have to solve it itself. I tried once myself, and failed. (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement) There are still over a hundred replies to the survey I created, if someone wants to make another go at it they could start by picking up the pieces of that RFC and finally moving it to the next phase as intended. For the record, I vote to decline this case. 17:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Beeblebrox (talk)

• Arbitration will not help here. Decline. AGK [•] 20:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, I agree with Casliber that if there was to be an wholesale civility case, this would not be a good basis for it. Secondly, I'm not sure what arbcom can do in a ruling in such a wholesale case. Thirdly, I see no good remedies for this case given the current juncture of community policy and arbcom remit. This is no doubt messy, but I fear it would just lead to us trying to answer existential questions (as salvio alluded to above). Decline NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: My concern with such a system is we're still answering htese abstracts. To craft a system we would need to set standards, which I'm not terribly comfortable with doing over the community. Otherwise we're essentially just setting up a system to process civility blocks, which I'm worried would be create more space for drama, rather than an effective forum for resolving these issues. NativeForeigner NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to simple comment. There may be specific behavior here worth looking at (mostly in the last two days) but I don't think it should be framed so broadly. (Civility) NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Civility is an abstract concept and therefore makes a terrible pillar to stand upon. At its core, the pillar is saying that you need to treat others with respect to work here - if people stop treating others with respect, then they just can't collaborate. To some, "civility" is about the language that is used in discussion. To others, it's about respecting their work that's been put in. The term means 100 different things to 100 different people - and that's why it's impossible to pin down.

  Added to this is the way that breaches of Civility are handled on Wikipedia. Few people show respect to the person who has supposedly breached Civility - they insist on comments being taken down, template the user with generic messages and complain about them loudly on high-visibility pages. That's not going to improve a culture - which is what we're looking at.

  The committee should not be accepting a case based on a single comment. That comment can be dealt with by the community - even if "dealt with" means "nothing is done". The question is, should the committee be dealing with the more general abstract concept of Civility on the encyclopedia. It tried to a couple of years ago as part of a case that was within its remit. Soon after there was a complex RfC, which flopped.

  Now, where do we go from here. The incident in question doesn't rise to the level of arbitration. On the larger issue, the committee can't set up a framework to "enforce" civility if the concept can't even be defined and I don't see how a few slapped wrists will help. So, I'm going to decline this request, and hope the community takes my advice on board - The problem is lack of respect. To improve the situation, we need to build mutual respect for each other. From mutual respect, we can build a civil environment and only from there can we build an encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 10:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Contributors in a collaborative enterprise should avoid deliberately saying or writing things that tick their colleagues off for no good reason. If people don't understand that, 13 years into the project, then I am not sure what the matter with them is. I understand "NOTCENSORED" and that we don't have to abide by a "seven bad words" list a la a kindergarten class or an FCC-regulated radio station, but at the same time, if I know that I can say something in a way that won't cause hurt feelings and demoralization and distraction as opposed another way of saying the same thing but that will cause hurt feelings and demoralization and distraction, I would think long and hard before doing the latter. For example, on this page, one doesn't need to be an addict of what someone named "Bradspeak" to know why it's often better to write "so-and-so seems to choose his words very poorly sometimes" as opposed to than "so-and-so is being an assclown again." (I have no particular so-and-so in mind; everyone can make his or her own choice a la "I've Got A Little List.") As for the arbitration request, this particular situation has eased, so let's decline at this time, but that's not to say we won't have to return to this subject someday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some additional discussion on my talkpage that may be relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to accept. This is probably a symbolic gesture at this point, but discussion of this case on my talkpage in the past 36 hours has convinced me that there is at least one editor whose behavior in this matter should be reviewed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with WTT that civility is an extremely difficult concept to rule upon, just because everyone defines it differently. The difference between what two people find offensive can be massive, and it is not the Arbitration Committee's role to decide exactly what is and is not civil. I also don't believe that arbitration would be valuable in a more limited sense to deal with the behavior in question. Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad, Timotheus Canens, and Seraphimblade: What makes you feel that a full arbitration case is necessary here, as opposed to other forms of dispute resolution? Would you envision the case to broadly cover the civility topic, or focus specifically on the behavior of the editors named? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be glad to entertain alternatives to an arbitration case. A particularly acceptable one would be certain parties' agreeing to stop using unnecessarily inflammatory language, and keeping that promise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm minded to accept a narrowly framed case, principally per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not seeing an actionable issue here, and even if there were - given the broad spectrum of sharply differing opinions about what constititues incivility that exist within the community - it's difficult to see how a case would do any good at all. Decline,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline - I agree with NE Ent that RfC/U (request for comments on a user) has not been used sufficiently here. This situation, involving a very specific set of triggering incidents, is actually amenable to several RfC/U's (more than one individual appears to be at fault here). If constructed well, such requests for comments would allow the community to give their views in a more structured fashion than has occurred to date. If the same individuals repeated the behaviour against the wishes of the wider community, as expressed in an RfC/U, then it would be time to return to arbitration for more binding remedies. But the RfC/U's are a vital first step in this process. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]