User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame

What is this?

The CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is not meant to insult or offend anyone. It is data about how we are applying policy like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Are we doing so consistently? Does our approach make sense? Are our standards for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the appropriate level? Should they be more stringent or more lenient? Are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ever used inappropriately as weapons against opponents in disputes? These are just examples I have come across in my travels, and not meant to be exhaustive or an appropriately random sample. I intend to continue to collect other data.

If you have good examples, please feel free to suggest them. I will probably retitle this article; the first title was meant as a joke, but it might offend some people or give them the wrong impression, I fear. More detailed categories of events will be created at some point.

I do not pretend to know if Wikipedia is enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL appropriately at the moment or not. I do not pretend to know if the most commonly held assumptions about CIVIL are reasonable or not. However, these are interesting questions to consider as Wikipedia evolves as an enterprise.

If we are ever to move beyond our current "intuition-based management" of Wikipedia, based on gut feelings and on who can be the biggest bully or who can scream the loudest, to "evidence-based management" we need data, and we need to analyze it. We need to understand what our current stance on a given issue is, and what it was, and how it is changing and why. We need to frame our policies and enforcement in terms of our actual goals, and then try to determine the best means to reach these goals, and then implement these means if possible. And that is what the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is. It is a tiny step on the road towards "evidence-based management".

At this writing, I am a participant in 7 of the 26 listed events. As more data is collected, I expect that the fraction of listed events that I am a participant in will decrease. --Filll (talk | wpc) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these really violations of CIVIL and AGF?

1. [1]: Stating that someone POV pushing is violating CIVIL, from someone who specializes in racist edits.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Malleus Fatuarum an attack on an admin for daring to state that someone had voted in the wrong place at an RfA, and when chastised for it, said he "didn't give a monkeys what X thought".
3. [2] Telling someone to put up or shut up is grounds for a 72 hour block.[3]
4. [4] Saying someone does not know what they are talking about is a lack of AGF and is a blockable offense. [5]
5. [6] Saying someone had problems with reading comprehension was a blockable offense under WP:CIVIL as a personal attack, and resulted in a block: [7]
6. [8] stating someone's arguments are boneheaded, even when followed by an apology for any offense, was judged a blockable offense [9] When an admin does something similar, all suggestion that this is over the line is rejected of course: [10]
7. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished_User alleged that the phrase "homeopathy promoter" was WP:CIVIL and a sanctionable offense. Several editors and admins agreed with this position.
8. Stating that there is bad grammar and spelling present, without saying who it is due to [11] is claimed to be a personal attack: [12] F1
9. Stating: "Learn a bit instead of listening to some babbling preacher who just wants to pick your pocket and make you stupid" is claimed to be a violation of WP:CIVIL [13] F2
10. Calling someone who is a repeated champion of paranormal causes and is a member of the paranormal project on WP a paranormal proponent: [14] is claimed to be an insult: [15] F3
11. Interestingly, there are calls out to desysop a large group of admins for their participation in April Fool's Day. I answered this here. I do not think it is particularly reasonable.
12. [16] Calling someone a "racist" who is promoting the Klu Klux Klan and cross burning and involved in whitewashing the KKK article and protecting pro-KKK editors is judged "unCIVIL", resulting in a block.
13. [17] is an example of an unhappy user who uses CIVIL as a weapon, but engages in unCIVIL behavior himself:[18][19] And the main issue? That WP was not allowed to use as a reference a negative review of a book, since a negative review reflected bad on the author, and therefore was a BLP problem. And this unhappy user was prepared to bring this issue to 2 different noticeboards and 2 different talk pages, demanding that other editors produce evidence for him, then dismissing whatever evidence was presented and challenging them to produce more. Within a day, 10 other editors had politely told him he was mistaken, and all that happened was he increased his disruption and agitation. F4
14. [20] Someone who has crossed swords with an admin over promoting "pro-pedophilia activism" on WP charges the admin with supposedly inappropriate unCIVIL behavior of stating "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour".
15. Pointing out that some have been blocked for similar behavior: [21] is viewed as a sanctionable offense: [22]
16. [23] An editor was blocked for telling someone to "get lost" on his own talk page.
17. [24] It is claimed that a description of why it is inadvisable to remove sources for reasons of aesthetics in controversial articles, ending with the admonishment to "Just learn a bit" is "is incivil, condescending, and bullying." F5
18. [25] Editor blocked for false accusations of vandalism and saying someone was trolling.
19. [26] Stating "one puppy's opinion" is claimed to be a personal attack.
20. Claim that edit summaries with "don't be too silly" and "stop POV pushing" are uncivil [27]
21. Claim that writing in caps, with a bold font, and use of the word "irrelevant" is uncivil [28] F6
22. Claim that calling someone "silly" in an edit summary is uncivil [29]
23. Removing a category from AIDS Denialism with the edit summary that it is not as repulsive as Astrology is deemed uncivil [30]
24. Stating someone's repeated argument is nonsense is discouraged as uncivil [31] F7
25. Jimbo claims that "self promoting" is a personal attack and is sanctionable [32]
26. The titling of a thread "Are you serious" is supposedly a violation of WP:AGF. The use of the phrase "Oh brother" is also questioned.[33]
27. It is claimed that stating "if you don't like it, you can leave Wikipedia" is an extreme civility problem.[34][35].--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
28. It is claimed that a polite comment [36] is just really a rude hostile comment cloaked in polite language as a tactic and part of gamesmanship: [37]. When someone suggests that this is a personal attack to claim a polite statement is really secretly hostile, it is claimed that this allegation of a personal attack is itself a personal attack: [38].
29. Calling someone who has an account at Wikipedia Review and who comments there a Wikipedia Review editor is deemed a personal attack: [39].
30. Asking if someone is being intentionally slippery [40] is said to be rude and name-calling: [41].--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The opposite problem; is this really not a violation of CIVIL?

1. Suggesting or implying that someone is a "f_ckwit" in the course of an extremely disruptive conversation with an admin present who seems to encourage the conversation rather than discourage it: [42]. An editor learns of this and reports it about 40 hours later at AN/I: [43] after first learning of it. Amazingly, a contentious discussion ensues about whether it is permissable to use this term or not, and there is edit warring to keep the offensive term in the original thread and use the offensive term in at least one other place. It takes over 30 hours before finally the person is cautioned by an uninvolved admin: [44].
2. Calling a group of editors "oafs" and "louts" and part of the "boo-boo brigade" is deemed not uncivil, and in fact those raising the question are chastised for doing so: [45][46].
3. Calling other editors "riff-raff" and "embarassing fanatics" is defended as perfectly civil by a group, and those questioning this are attacked as a "cabal" [47] by a group that regularly coordinates its activities on an off-wiki site, including this case.